# Discussion about UC birth



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Perhaps those people who are new to the idea of unattended birth have questions, concerns, responses..perhaps those who are NOT new have some!

I'd like to start a discussion - a sane, rational, dialogue - about birth choices.

I've heard some UC birthers all lumped together as radical extremists that would rather die or have their baby die than go to the hospital. I think this is interesting, because I would venture to say that more UC birthers transport to err on the side of caution than maybe they would had they had an attendant present. Not that transporting is negative - that's not my intention to say, I just wanted to clear up some generalizations and stereotypes about those who choose to birth unattended.

As a midwife, many births I see are "unassisted". My definition of unassisted birth is one that happens under the woman's own power and her direction only. What I see UC birth being is "unattended". So, pardon if I get these crossed sometimes.

Years ago, when I was on the original cbirth email list, I came across a small handful of people (out of thousands) that would rather take fate into their own hands than to go to a hospital. That is their perogative. I do not feel this is selfish, irresponsible or stupid. A parent has the choice to do what they feel is best for their baby. Some parents do not vaccinate and people would call that selfish or irresponsible. Same thing with birthing at home with a midwife. See where I'm going with this?

We all have different belief systems. Just as there are a hundred different philosophies with midwives (and their own biases to go with those), there are different values with birth and parenting.

I feel like there is this idea that somehow saying "trust your body, trust your baby" means don't ever succomb to the medical model. That is certainly not the case with UC families I know. Overall, women know that there is a risk they are taking when they birth - whether it's in the home, hospital or attended. I don't feel like it's something that is done often with lack of foresight or thought. Every family I have ever known or worked with has been clear that when they need help, they will seek help. There is no medal for being the most "pure" birther as far as they are concerned. They love their babies, even the ones that believe that their babies are safer with unattended birth than with a highly interventive birth.

I support UC families. I offer on-call support for them - I always have and I always will. Why? Because they deserve to have options. Because I stand by a woman's right to choose. Because sometimes, mother does know best. I must be clear, though, that when I say "I always have" means that since I've started my own practice. As a student midwife, I was not very supportive of UC. In fact, I thought it was downright threatening and weird. I couldn't imagine. The more births I attended, the more complications I saw and heard because of our "routines" the more I understood. The first UC birth story that I found was so intimate that it bordered on erotic, I understood more.

Let's get it all out in the open. Let's discuss it. Ask questions. I ask that people are conscious of the UA when we go from here and refrain from name calling, generalizations or attacking.

(And this is NOT in the UC forum because frankly, those people have enough BS to deal with based on their choice and they deserve a haven of support)


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Great dialog topic. I think unassisted birth is a fabulous option for many women. It does make me sad though when they just choose it out of desperation because there are no midwives available for whatever reason (cost, regulations, geography, legalities, etc)

So far not a UCer, but only because I found a midwife who was!









-Angela


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I have had eight HBs (1 MW assisted, 4 non-professional attended, 3 UCs~1 for a m/c at 18 wks). My philosophy is that my body was made for giving birth, and I don't need a DR to "assist" me to do it. I would go to a hospital IF I had a reason to think it was necessary, if I felt like something was wrong. I DON'T have a MW in attendance becauce I find the expense undo-able, AND I find a MW unnecessary. In addition, I feel that I can not concentrate on my body while knowing I have on lookers.

By this time, I have BTDT so many times that I could give birth in my sleep.







And I do know my body and I know what is normal. So I will know if something is not right. I have also educated myself in a majority of the less common circumstances as well as just about all of the common variations of birth. I have no doubt that I could deal with just about anything that arises.

I guess that is about all. I am interested in what others have to say.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

I'm waiting for the questions.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

I think UC is a valid choice for women who want one. I personally need the support of a MW during labor, but I understand some people do better by themselves and like to be alone or with their partner. My DH is not great at the whole birth thing, which I'm sure influences my decision making.


----------



## stayathomecristi (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Great dialog topic. I think unassisted birth is a fabulous option for many women. It does make me sad though when they just choose it out of desperation because there are no midwives available for whatever reason (cost, regulations, geography, legalities, etc)

So far not a UCer, but only because I found a midwife who was!









-Angela

Still not sure which way my birth is going to go, but I CAN say that initially I felt forced into a UC because my options here were so limited and I was a bit resentful about it. (FINE! I'll just do it myself---grrr.) Once I became educated about the whole thing, I realized that not only was this the "only" option, it was the best option for me. I recognized that I could trust my body and know that I can do this.

That being said, some things have come together for me and I *may* have a midwife now (if dh lets her in the door--but that's another story for another day







). Having a midwife present is my preference (based on my previous history), but I know that I can do it myself if necessary AND I have chosen someone who is very hands-off so I know that I can still have my birth "unassisted" as Pam mentioned.

I think that each mama should decide for herself what is best for her and her baby. It's awesome that so many trust birth and strive to have the intimacy of a UC. My experience with UCers is also that they will not UC "at any cost". The majority recognize that things can happen and they are prepared to transfer or do whatever is necessary at the time should something unusual arise. Most are very educated about birth (and what constitutes an emergency) and see UC as a way to keep control over their births in their own hands--fully accepting whatever consequences (good or bad) that may have. There is something very empowering about that!

Pam--thanks for bringing this topic up. I hope that someone will take you up on your offer to ask questions and really get a dialogue going about this.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

UC is definitely something I am thinking about. I think that I am totally capable of handling that situation on my own. Henri's birth was for lack of a better word, easy. The only "snags" we encountered were a stubborn lip of cervix and my blood pressure plummeted to something like 60/30 ( and that was my own fault for not taking enough fluids in the days before the birth and during the labor ) While it was wonderful having my midwife there to help, and she gave me an incredible sense of empowerment and really had faith in me, I just know I could have done it on my own. I don't remember this completely, but DH says that when Henri was born I immediately reached down and picked him up and tried to put him to my breast. This surprised everyone







The cord wasn't quite long enough and my MW wanted to rub him a little bit to make sure he was OK, but he said it was like a reflex. I just reached down and delivered my baby. Help is great if you want it or need it, but womens bodies are made to have babies without intervention from anyone.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I really like the distinction between "unassisted" and "unattended".

ETA: This is actually the appropriate forum for this discussion/debate (um, as soon as people with concerns and questions show up)


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

I'm waiting for the questions.
Me too.....









Something you said papamidwife was interesting.....that one of the UC stories you had read bordered on erotic.....this was very true for me. My births have all been this way and I believe they could not have been as beautifull, private, sensual, intimate, & erotic had I had an attendant present. There was no attendant present during the conception......there can be no attendant at birth.


----------



## MamaTaraX (Oct 5, 2004)

Dang, I'm having an Electonic AlmostFree week at my house and have used up my time for this mornign so I'll have to subscribe and come back to this! (though I'm with the other two who want to know where the questions are







)

Namaste, Tara


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

I have a question! What happens if something goes wrong? How much can we do instinctually? How much reading do you have to do?

Is it scary? It sounds really nice to me and I would be interested in it if I had more children.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest*
they could not have been as beautifull, private, sensual, intimate, & erotic had I had an attendant present.

True for me also. That's not alone a reason (for me anyway) to choose UC, but it was one of the profound differences for me between my births at which there were midwives and others were present and my birth at which only my husband was present. The assumption sometimes is that this happens when the mother is ashamed or uncomfortable with her sexuality. To the contrary, I consider myself a very sexual person. The problem is rather that I am very easily distracted and extremely sensitive to the presence of others. I can be typing along here on the computer deep in a thought, in that creative bubble, and a friend could walk in the room and it vanishes completely and my attention is on them, and I can't draw it back away and get back to where I was. I can't find it at all until they go away again. I have a _lot_ of trouble staying in altered states of consciousness, even under the influence of drugs. (My neocortex apparently has great power over my primal brain.) I can do it with someone else present, though, if that someone else is in it with me.

That for me is a primary reason I have chosen UC. I recognize that optimal birth (that is, birth as efficiently, easily, and safely as the body is capable of) is dependant on the mother being in an altered state of consciousness in which the hormones that regulate the process can be produced and released in perfect choreography with the body and baby's actions, and that for me that altered state of consciousness is hugely disturbed when I feel observed or distracted or emotionally stressed. Given that I was in an optimal physical and mental situation for giving birth (in other words, unlikely to experience natural complications), I felt that the risks of disturbing the hormonal process were far greater to me and the baby than the risks of not having someone immediately available to help in the event of an emergency.

Some people believe that the risks for them of not having a medical attendant nearby _always_ outweigh the risks of disturbing the hormonal process. Those people are of course best suited to having a medical attendant present. What galls me is when they assert that this is true for _everyone_. Those who are most adamantly opposed to UC often complain that UCers believe that their way is the only right way. Not only is it not true, but it's ironic, given that they themselves believe that their way is the only right way.

Anyway, so I had my UCs, and the hormonal process was not disturbed, and I gave birth physiologically optimally as far as my body's ability to do so. For the hormonal process to not be disturbed meant that my second stage was quick and normal, my third stage was problem-free, my baby's emergence was gentle and peaceful, bonding was intact, and I had no postpartum depression affecting my ability to care for my baby and the relationships with my children and husband. Allowing the safe emergence of the baby to be possible was paramount, but these other things were important too. As was the fact that the birth was satisfying to me spiritually and as a sexual being.

Quote:

[...] respecting the woman as an important and valuable human being and making certain that the woman's experience while giving birth is fulfilling and empowering is not just a nice extra, it is absolutely essential as it makes the woman strong and therefore makes society strong. Marsden Wagner, MD


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

For the record, I'm a supporter of UA birth, have had an unintentional UA birth, and I'd consider my last 2 births unassisted, although there were mw's present (very hands off & under my direction, as pamamidwife said). That being said, I have one looming concern, so perhaps this is sort of a question for those of you dying to answer some! Here's the deal. Despite how prepared you are (book knowledge, experience attending births yourself, prior birth experiences, etc.) for an emergency situation (and I'm thinking primarily of baby being born with immediate medical needs of some sort) _how can you be sure_ that under the circumstances of it being YOUR birth and YOUR baby that you (and/or your partner, if present) will be of the mind to hold it together enough to deal with whatever it is that needs to be dealt with? Granted, for my UA birth I didn't count on it happening that way, but my baby was born knocked out (or something - I really can't say). I didn't expect that and while I (thankfully) felt calm and sure that everything was going to be okay, dh didn't handle things so gracefully. And he's a person with emergency medical training (paramedic). I know and he knows that on the job, he'd have known just what to do and would have been calm about it. But when it was HIS child, he quite simply panicked. She was fine and in retrospect we probably didn't need to do anything to encourage her to "wake up". But in the moment, this is what it was like. So I've often thought about that in terms of UA birth. Just how exactly do you know that you can hold it together in the unlikely event of a true emergency? And please don't pick apart my example - I know I wasn't prepared in the same way that a planned UA person/couple would be. But my question is still the same. How do you know?


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

How do you know how you are going to react?

For me, I base it on what I have experienced in my life already. How I handle situations. How I handle pressure. How I labor.

When I am in labor, I am usually talking and in control until right at transition.

I have had two daughters nearly drowned and had to deal with CPR until paramedics arrived (10 years apart). I have had to deal with many childhood injuries and illnesses, in other emergency situations. These tell me how I will react in a crisis.

Specifically regarding HB, I have dealth with the cord around the babies neck in all seven of my living children, some were wrapped twice around and one had it three times wrapped around.

One baby did not breathe for *8 minutes* (we have it on video) and we had to perform CPR for her until she took a breath.

I have had a dry birth, where the baby was born with litterally NO fluid (it must have leaked out prior to labor).

I have had two posterior baby labors, one fully posterior baby birth.

I have delivered on baby at 36 wks, and one at 42 wks (all the others were in between).

I have had REALLY fast labors (1 hour 15 minutes is my best time).

I have delieverd babies from 7lbs2oz to 9lbs8oz.

I have had a second-third degree tear that healed naturally on it's own.

I have had one baby that the belly button never stopped dripping blood (had to be carterized).

I have had one baby with an embilical hernia due to embilical cord that did not heal properly, that healed up naturally after we took action.

I have had one PROM (my 36 wk baby).

I have had a partial retained placenta (we allowed nature to take its course, and it finally delivered by it self).

I can't really think of anything else at this time, but I am sure there is more if I really look.

I read a lot, I studied a lot over the years, but mostly, I just let nature takes it course and trusted my body. When I had my first baby, I did not know ANYTHING about birth. I was totally clueless, but other than some retained irritation at my "non-MW attendants" for the way I allowed them to run my birth, but my baby and I were both fine. After that birth, I decided that I really needed to know what was going on in my own body, so I began to study. (Up to then I was a newly married, full-time student, full-time supervisor that just happened to get pregnant, I did not have time to worry about my body changes or what to expect.) I study a little more with each consecutive birth. As it is now, I have as much knowledge as most any OB on natural births and their variations.

Plus, like I aways say, if something does not feel right, I can always call 911. And the hospital is only minutes away.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Here is a question: Is UC a good choice for a mother who does not educate herself regarding pregnancy/birth? If a mom does not wish to read or learn from others, would it be better for her birth to be attended?


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

From my experience, yes. That is exactly how I was with my first, and although it was not perfect, it litterally changed my entire life and out look on birth.


----------



## pageta (Nov 17, 2003)

I think we all have varying degrees of experience with birth...and I'm talking about mothers as well as providers. No two births are alike, and even if a midwife has attended 2000 births, she still hasn't "seen it all" IMO.

I think the fear of providers regarding people who choose to UC and all the things that can go wrong is very similar to the fear of parents when their teenager gets behind the wheel of a car. The teenager does not have the experience of the parents who have been driving for many years, but that does not mean that the teenager, once s/he understands the basics, cannot take a car out alone.

Along the same lines, I grew up in Florida so even though I may have seventeen years of driving experience under my belt, I consider myself a teenager when it comes to experience with driving on ice. I've had a friend take me out to an empty icy parking lot and practice losing control of my vehicle and getting control back, which was very helpful. I understand the physics of losing control of a car on ice. But I still avoid driving on ice as much as possible and approach it with fear and trepidation when I do have to drive on it.

As far as UCing is concerned, for myself, I can see how attendants could be helpful and I can also see how they could hinder the situation. I've chosen my attendants carefully, but I still would confess that I am just as fearful of an attended birth as I am of a UA birth. So I approach both with the best of intentions and look for the positive. UCers have the concern of "what if something goes wrong - how soon would I be able to get help?" and those with attended births have the concern of "what if something goes wrong and those around me just make it worse by intervening and thus causing more problems when the situation would have resolved itself?" To me, those fears are equal. Even though I have educated myself as much as possible and I have spent lots of time choosing my attendants and discussing my concerns with them, I don't see myself being any more relaxed alone than I do having attendants or vice versa.

So I think of UC as an equal option next to attended birth in those terms.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
What happens if something goes wrong? How much can we do instinctually?

Well, first, all complications are not going to be something that all people need to worry about. For instance, risk of prolapsed cord was irrelevant in my situation because the baby's head was engaged and the hearttones sounded great (I listened with a fetoscope) and movement was normal. So clearly no cord compression was already going on, and with the head engaged it wasn't going to happen. If my waters had released with a big splash and kept flowing and the baby was still high up, I would consider that a concerning situation and probably would have sought out some more intensive monitoring until the baby was engaged. In that situation, to me the risks of natural complication would outweigh the risks of disturbing the process.

Second, what do we consider a complication? For instance, I don't consider a cervical lip a complication that needs to be put right by someone sticking her hand up the mother's vagina. Or a slow-coming placenta. There are a whole slew of circumstances that might be considered a complication in a medical setting, that UCers regard as simply normal variation.

And others that might be caused by a medical setting. Sometimes the body is able to take care of what might become dangerous if the birth process were disturbed. An example is when my third labor was oddly long and slow and mellow. I was not alarmed -- my intuition was clear on this, very strong, that everything was fine. But I thought it strange that my second attended birth should be relatively quick (13 hours) and my first UC would be so much slower. Aren't undisturbed births supposed to be quicker? Afterwards, in describing the cord to a midwife friend, she said it sounded like it had a velamentous insertion, a touchy situation, potentially dangerous. "Good thing there was no one fooling around with your labor," she said, "trying to speed it up." Some might scoff, but I believe my body knew that my baby needed a slow and gentle labor and an extremely fast second stage, and it was capable of providing that, both naturally and because it wasn't interfered with.

And others that might be dealt with instinctively. A mother who thinks she needs to be in a particular birthing position and is waiting for the midwife to tell her what to do, is in a very different situation instinctively speaking than a mother who is moving only as her body compels her to. With my first attended birth, I was expected to stay in one position to give birth (reclining so the midwife could do perineal massage, urgh) and to focus all my strength and energy in bearing down. With my second, I still thought there was a proper birthing position, although at least I'd been enlightened that vertical is better than horizontal. Finally with my third I threw birthing convention out the window and change position multiple times within a contraction in the ten minutes or so leading up to the baby's emergence. I'd previously been fairly still during contractions, changing position once in a while. My body was impelling me to move, and I believe that was for a reason, and that reason was that the movement was helping to get my baby into an ideal position for a fast emergence. Now, say my baby had had quarterback shoulders. What would these different approaches have meant to my ability to birth him, and my need for assistance?

Another example from my personal experience: after my attended births, I was divorced from the rest of the process to a certain extent partly because I was tired, and if I didn't have to do any more, why bother?, and partly because the conversation, instruction, observation, etc., took me out of that altered state of consciousness where intuition and instinct reside. The midwife pushed down on my uterus. "This," she said, "is to make sure it isn't boggy." (To her credit, she didn't maul me.) She showed me how to check it myself. She worried about the placenta taking so long. I was glad to let her worry, after all that's what I hired her for, right? So that I wouldn't have to worry myself. In contrast, with my UC births, I never checked out and so never felt the need to have someone take care of it for me. I was inside of it fully as long as my body needed me to be. I knew when the placenta detached -- I didn't feel it, but my consciousness shifted (the hormones were doing different things now.) I knew, without thinking, to get into a squat and put slight traction on the cord to create sensation and stimulate me to bear down. I didn't think to myself, _oh great, now I have to push out the placenta, hm, and what would be the best way to do that._ I never thought once about it, I just did it. Every move was spontaneous, instinctive.

Perhaps most interesting was what I did after the placenta was out -- I sat back and stroked my belly. Sometime after I read that there is a controversy within midwifery over how best to manage third stage, and that some midwives feel that uterine massage is unnecessary as a preventative measure, and that light stroking of the mother's stomach is enough stimulation to encourage the uterus to contract. The difference was that it was more sure to have an effect, because my body was calling for it to be done right then -- it was an instinctive response to an instinctive need, rather than a perfunctory action based on a guess of what my body might need. I hope that distinction is clear. The other difference was that there wasn't something to create the feeling of being observed and distraction, which sometimes, either alone or in conjunction with any one of a number of weakening variables, create issues with bleeding. I hadn't bled before, even under unideal circumstances, but I didn't want to take the chance of creating a situation that wouldn't have been there naturally.

A complication that most people are most fearful of, they also tend to feel "just happens" -- the baby doesn't breathe. But is that true? Does it "just happen", for no reason at all? Does it have nothing to do with the mother's hormonal process? Is it really logical that it would be the natural result of a normal labor? Seemingly freak events do occur. We can plan to allow the body to function as normally as possible, and still something unexpected may occur. That's why infant CPR, normal breathing patterns for a newborn and length of time to switch-over to lung use, the meaning of color, and of course self-knowledge of whether I'd care to have to deal with this myself are all important things (for me) to know. And then, that risk has to be assessed against the possibility or probability of a medical attendant's presence or actions causing the problem.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

How much reading do you have to do?
You don't have to do any reading to birth instinctively, of course. For myself, the reading I felt was valuable to me included (just off the top of my head):

Prenatal Yoga & Natural Birth, Jeannine Parvati Baker
The Complete Book of Pregnancy & Childbirth, Sheila Kitzinger
Spiritual Midwifery, Ina May Gaskin
Special Delivery, Rahima Baldwin
Heart & Hands, Elizabeth Davis
Birthing From Within, Pam England
The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth, Henci Goer
Birth as an American Rite of Passage, Robbie Davis-Floyd
Childbirth Without Violence, Frederick Leboyer
A Good Birth, A Safe Birth, Korte and Scaer
The Scientification of Love, Michel Odent
Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering, Sarah Buckley
Unassisted Childbirth, Laura Shanley
Conscious Conception, Jeannine Parvati Baker
Emergency Childbirth, Gregory White
Pleasurable Husband/Wife Childbirth, Marilyn Moran
The Childbirth Manual, Sandra Roberge
Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Year, Susun Weed

Various articles by many of the above authors, as well as by Marsden Wagner, Gloria Lemay, and Gail Hart, many issues of Midwifery Today, the Midwife Archives run by Ronnie Falcao, the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health, and the Birthlove.com website.

In addition I read much on online forums such as here and CBirth, and learned much from my fellow mothers.

Quote:

Is it scary?
It wasn't to me, at all, when I was actually inside of it. I am still amazed at the power of intuition, which for someone who is not intuitive at all when not pregnant, is like having a magic power. It's to me one of the most beautiful, profound things about giving birth alone, that alone I was able to access that. And my intuition told me, every step of the way, that everything was fine and as it should be.

With my last UC, I went through a period about three or four weeks before the birth where irrational fear took hold, and I felt like I had lost my ability to hear my intuition. Somehow, amazingly, that was remedied by a visit from a dear friend whose positive energy and love pulled me out of it, and I am grateful to this day. I didn't need her to direct my labor or catch my baby, but in a very real sense she was a midwife for me -- in other words, "with woman" -- helping me through an important transitional time. To me, that's what midwifery is, or should be, about. It's not about there being a relatively few experts out there that everyone else needs to be led by. It's about sisterhood, where we help hold each other up when we stumble or come across difficulty that is too much to face alone.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
It sounds really nice to me and I would be interested in it if I had more children.

I believe you're saying this to mean "at my next birth", but this can also be read as "if I had enough experience with labor to be confident"

Can the UC mamas address the question of a first birth? Some of the commentary is about how you know how you react and respond in labor--not exactly something a first time mama knows.


----------



## stellimamo (Jan 9, 2006)

Quote:

Can the UC mamas address the question of a first birth? Some of the commentary is about how you know how you react and respond in labor--not exactly something a first time mama knows.
I think so much of birth is instinctual. unfortunately most women in western countries have been taught to ignore their instinct and put all trust their care provider. If a woman wants to UC for her first birth listening to her instincts is imperative- but then again I think that's important in birth in general.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *love_homebirthing*
Just how exactly do you know that you can hold it together in the unlikely event of a true emergency?

Well, we do pretty good in emergencies in general. My husband and I both go on auto-pilot, just doing what needs to be done, and only break down afterwards. So I've always felt that would apply to birth as well.

In your husband's case, maybe that's *not* the natural default for him, but when's he working he get himself into that mode. So maybe knowing ahead of time that he needs to be ready for problems would help in that sense. Just some thoughts, I really don't know.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsElle07*
Is UC a good choice for a mother who does not educate herself regarding pregnancy/birth? If a mom does not wish to read or learn from others, would it be better for her birth to be attended?

I think it really depends on her health (mental and physical,) and what negative or false cultural beliefs have been conditioned into her. So many women have misconceptions about what birth should be like (I see it even here in the UC forum) and a good midwife can help minimize the harm those can do. A mother who has no preconceptions about birth, who is not afraid, and who is healthy, no, I don't think she needs to read anything or learn from others. But that doesn't really exist in our society.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sapphire_Chan*
Can the UC mamas address the question of a first birth? Some of the commentary is about how you know how you react and respond in labor--not exactly something a first time mama knows.

I see it as a incredible act of faith and an amazing trust in oneself to give birth UC to a first baby _in our culture._ Personally, I know that both my first and second births would have physiologically happened better without an attendant present, but I really wasn't ready to go there mentally or emotionally. In neither instance did the midwives add anything positive, or help me learn about myself and how I best give birth, or anything like that. Their value to me was in filling my perceived need for them. Well, and realized after the fact, in helping me to understand what I _don't_ need in birth, e.g. I don't need to be watched, probed, ordered, etc.

The danger of planning a first-time UC without previous experience in birth, it seems to me, is in not having a base understanding of what's normal, if you tend to be someone who is in her head. If you're not, I guess it's irrelevant, because you just listen to your intuition. (Most of us, though, I think aren't quite there.) I would have given birth physiologically more normally with a UC, but I also (with my first) would have been more likely to transfer. I wasn't expecting it to be as hard as it was, and I think I would have questioned whether it should be that way, or just given up without someone there to disappoint.


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Ok, I'll post a question.







I've read some off and on about UC, and I do read the UC forum (great group of women there!). One thing I've seen about transports is that it often seems to be first time moms who get scared or have trouble handling the labor on their own. I've read several of these types of stories and wondered if those first timers would have been better off with a midwife for their first birth, or at least a doula - someone to support them and say "yes, you're having a normal birth and it's almost over" type of thing? I know I've seen several first time moms have great UC births as well, but it just seems like the majority of UC transports are first time moms that aren't really having complications, but maybe are doubting themselves or something along those lines... like they may have just needed some outside support. I know most midwife transports are also for first time moms that are just having long, exhausting labors, so maybe it correlates with that. Has anyone else noticed the trend in UC hospital transports for first time moms? And would it maybe be beneficial for a first time mom to line up a midwife that she can call before deciding to transport to the hospital? (ie, do the UC, but if she feels she needs help, call the midwife rather than going to hospital)

Just some thoughts. I fully support women's decision to UC, whether they be first time moms or not.


----------



## channelofpeace (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
It wasn't to me, at all, when I was actually inside of it. I am still amazed at the power of intuition, which for someone who is not intuitive at all when not pregnant, is like having a magic power.

nak, sorry for typos.

This is interesting. I don't really consider myself a very intuitive person. How do you get in touch with this? During my last pregnancy, i really started to feel like he needed to come soon to escape our blood incompatibility. Paranoia or intuition?


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

I didn't need her to direct my labor or catch my baby, but in a very real sense she was a midwife for me -- in other words, "with woman" -- helping me through an important transitional time. To me, that's what midwifery is, or should be, about. It's not about there being a relatively few experts out there that everyone else needs to be led by. It's about sisterhood, where we help hold each other up when we stumble or come across difficulty that is too much to face alone.
This is true for me too.....and this is what I also feel midwifery should be about. Women within the community who are wise women....experienced mothers who have themselves birthed and who have knowledge. Women who we know as our neighbors and friends, who are part of our everyday life, and who continue to be part of our lives because they are friends & family. Women who help each other out not for money or career, but for the good of the sisterhood of women. This is only my vision of midwifery, and I realize not practicle within the birthing culture of today.

I have met a few women like this, but when I have interacted with midwives I have seen that they have "practices".....just as the physicians do...that they have "standards of care" and "protocols", just as hospitals must have. And that the interaction between mother and midwife is mostly full of assessments: readings, measurements, weights, questioning, and the prenatal appointment. An organized schedule of visits where a mother is critiqued and managed. This is very strange to me. This falls outside of what pregnancy and birth are for me. Should her body be performing withing a given midwife's view of normalcy, she is 'allowed' to birth with a midwife attendent. Should her body be outside of those constructed norms, she has failed. She is then relegated to the dreaded OB. Either way, it is not the mother's power & instincts that guide her.....it is the practitioners. To me this is a very dangerous way to birth.

And sadly, there is a large population of women who have not been born & raised withing a community where they have been part of birth.....where daughters attend their mothers and friends, and so they do not know that locked somewhere within themselves they know exactly how to birth without some kind of birth professional.

My dream would be that women could be empowered to believe that their bodies are fully made to birth instinctually...and that these wise women midwives be sought out should the mother experience something needing a second opinion.


----------



## jennica (Aug 10, 2005)

I have a question. How can you trust yourself to have the level of intuition that you need to have with a UC in order to keep your baby safe, when your only frame of refference for giving birth you had no intuition at all and felt totally disconected from your baby and your own body?


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

mama in the forest said:


> This is true for me too.....and this is what I also feel midwifery should be about. Women within the community who are wise women....experienced mothers who have themselves birthed and who have knowledge. Women who we know as our neighbors and friends, who are part of our everyday life, and who continue to be part of our lives because they are friends & family. Women who help each other out not for money or career, but for the good of the sisterhood of women. This is only my vision of midwifery, and I realize not practicle within the birthing culture of today.
> 
> I feel my mw is pretty close to this. She does not practice and she is my friend. If I birthed again and used her I would view her role differently.....
> 
> I understood my baby and my birth was my responsibility- not hers. I think that is a Huge distinction between many birthing mothers who use mws.


----------



## prettypixels (Apr 13, 2006)

When I was at my first midwifery visit, she asked me... if something goes wrong during the birth, do I want to transport to the hospital? I said heck yes, if we need to move to save my baby or myself, of course! She replied that some people DON'T want to transport under any circumstance. I thought that was interesting; both the tidbit of info, and that she is responsive to it.

One thing I definitely feel when I read UC stories is that many of the women in the community have had bad experiences with a midwife (or midwives) and have a deep mistrust of midwives. I think it's pretty clear that just like anything, there is a huge variety within the realm of midwives. So far, I love my midwife, and hopefully I'll feel the same way after my birth!









The other thing I notice is a lot of UCers saying that they know themselves when they birth. I don't! I've never done it!







And no way would I personally feel comfortable birthing alone for my first baby. I am not saying that it is not a valid choice for some moms... just not for me. I personally want to give myself the highest chance of staying *home* with my baby safely, and for me that means having a midwife who can take care of any of the many little things I might need help with.

Really I think the MOST important thing is that women are given the empowerment and tools to figure out what makes the most sense for them and what they are most comfortable with; not that they be corralled by ANYONE into any one box.


----------



## lactivist (Jun 14, 2005)

For me personally I wasn't ready to UC with my first. I think I would have had an easier time with a more hands-off midwife but I was overall very happy with my experience. With my second I had very hands-off midwives and afterward just wondered why I even had them there as they were a bit of a distraction at times. In my first pregnancy I thought about doing it alone but am glad I didn't. I didn't trust myself or the process (I saw too much working in the hospital) and I had a really hard labor (2 min apart ctx's for 26 hours) and probably would have thought something was wrong or that I should have been progressing faster. I had a lot of abuse in my childhood that I needed to deal with before I could really trust my own judgement. When I got pregnant with my third I knew there was no other option but for me to have a UC. It felt right all the way to my bones. I had learned to trust myself and my own intuition. My desire to UC didn't come out of a distrust for midwives or a bad experience. It grew within me like a seed that was planted in my first pregnancy. I think my incredible midwives made it more possible for me to want/have a UC. They helped me on my journey of trusting myself. I actually went and saw the midwife that attended my second birth during my third pregnancy to get paperwork filled out. I told her of my UC plans and she said "oh of course you can do it, you will be great!" What an amazing support. Midwives like her and pamamidwife sure make the world a better place. During my pregnancy I would explore each and every fear that came up and do lots of research and ultimately that helped me to feel that I could handle whatever came up and that I would make the right choice. Like a pp said I also know that I handle crisis very well as has been proven to me in the past through intense events. I think some women are very prepared to UC during their first birth and others are not. I like that we have many different choices for birth and don't think there is one perfect choice for everyone.








Wendi


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jennica*
How can you trust yourself to have the level of intuition that you need to have with a UC in order to keep your baby safe, when your only frame of refference for giving birth you had no intuition at all and felt totally disconected from your baby and your own body?

I didn't. I made the decision to UC based on other factors. I honestly wasn't aware of the extent of my intuitive capabilities until I was in labor.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prettypixels*
When I was at my first midwifery visit, she asked me... if something goes wrong during the birth, do I want to transport to the hospital? I said heck yes, if we need to move to save my baby or myself, of course! She replied that some people DON'T want to transport under any circumstance.

When I've come across this it's been religion-based. For instance, Christian Science. There's a fundamentalist movement too called Zion Birth, I believe they don't seek medical care either, they just pray and accept God's will.

Quote:

One thing I definitely feel when I read UC stories is that many of the women in the community have had bad experiences with a midwife (or midwives) and have a deep mistrust of midwives. I think it's pretty clear that just like anything, there is a huge variety within the realm of midwives.
Yes. But it's sometimes much easier said than done to find someone you can trust to attend you in birth.

For my part, I had a traumatic first birth with a midwife, and an empowering, healing second birth with a midwife. I am friends with midwives and support midwifery, and feel that it's ideal in many circumstances. I still had plenty of reason to choose UC for my next two births.

Quote:

The other thing I notice is a lot of UCers saying that they know themselves when they birth. I don't! I've never done it! And no way would I personally feel comfortable birthing alone for my first baby. I am not saying that it is not a valid choice for some moms... just not for me. I personally want to give myself the highest chance of staying *home* with my baby safely, and for me that means having a midwife who can take care of any of the many little things I might need help with.
You're right, for you to make that choice probably will give you the highest chance of staying home. It's great that you have that self-understanding.


----------



## doctorjen (May 29, 2003)

As a birth attendant who attends a fair amount of pretty interventionalist births, I have to admit I'm fascinated with the idea of UC. The reading and chatting with UCers I've done I hope has changed how I view birth and how I act as an attendant. It was only after I started to read about UC that I attended any births that I would call "unassisted." One thing fourlittlebirds mentions that has really changed is that I don't think of mamas as getting into any particular position for birth anymore, but instead try to stay out of the way and find that women naturally move frequently - sometimes assuming a couple of different positions during a contraction even, and babies come out however their mamas are positioned!

I do understand and support intellectually why women UC, and do not feel that women who do so are neglectful or ignorant. Birth always has the potential to unfold in ways we cannot anticipate - but feeling willing to accept that uncertainty is part of life.

I also was fortunate to have myself an accidental UC (planned to be a midwife attended hospital birth.) This happened mostly because I was uncomfortable with my birthing situation (6 different midwives, you get whoever is on call) and was nervous about going to the hospital because of it. I decided to basically labor as long as I could at home before going in, and in the end left it too late. I'll never forget how easy that birth was, though, as there was no one telling me what to do, when to breathe, when to push, when I could touch the baby. I was very much just inside my labor and pushed when the baby was obviously coming out. I felt great immediately, and absorbed in my new baby, and so happy - some of which lovely feelings were squashed by going to the hospital by ambulance and being treated like a crazed, crack addict.

My last birth was on the outside a good birth - short labor, short second stage, large healthy baby, but I was so disappointed after this birth and it wasn't until I did some reading about UC and how attendants can disturb birth that I was able to see what bothered me about it. The OB who attended me was obviously frightened the whole time. She wanted to break my water 5 minutes after I arrived to "help me speed things up" I was 8 cms on arrival! She commented to the nurse right before I started pushing that the baby was "really big." During crowning when I felt that my body was encouraging me to back off pushing and let everything stretch, she was clearly panicked and yelling at me to push, push, push now! Get the baby out! I mean I pushed for 13 freaking minutes for an almost 9 lb baby - get a grip. When I started to read about UCers who mentioned feeling so vulnerable to the emotions of people around them, the light bulb finally went on and I could see how her anxiety and fear made that birth feel so much harder and so much less enjoyable than my other births. I also lay in bed a lot more with that labor. It was like with so much emotion in the room, I couldn't listen to my own self and feel what I should do. Even my dh kept saying "this isn't how you labor - don't you want to move?" and I kept just saying "I don't know what I want." But looking back, I did know, I was just overwhelmed by the expectations around me. I do feel if I'd birthed Caroline UC, I'd have done it so differently, and felt so much better about it.

I am grateful to UCers for making me aware of issues like these - both as a birth attendant, and as a birthing woman myself. I especially hope that when my own daughters some day birth their babies, that I can help them have joyous, empowering, and freeing first births because of my experiences - whether that means in attendance, or just in being a support and confidant leading up to the birth.

I have to admit, though, that if I were to ever birth again, I don't think I'd UC as a first choice. I think I'd get a big fishy pool and send pamamidwife a plane ticket! For myself, I do appreciate the loving support of someone with experience, especially for after the birth - not so much as a safety net, but because I do truly enjoy that support and would want an experienced woman available if I wanted her. (Don't worry pam, dh had a vas, so unless something really drastic happens around her, I won't be begging you to come attend a birth!)


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

There has been several questions about knowing yourself, and about first time moms intuition and such. So I thought I would comment on my first birth. At this time, I am EXTREEMLY experienced in birth, but 17 years ago I was not.

I knew a family, when I was 12 that had had like 19 children. The only thing that I did learn from this family was that the mom did HBs and that when she had hospital births (like 4 times) she ended up injured (broken bone and infections) from the incompetent staff. So that was all I knew about births. I decided at 12 that I would never deliver a baby in a hospital.

I got pg on my honeymoon. I had never attended a birth before, and never really knew anyone that had had a baby. All the babies I had seen were older babies. I had never heard stories of births or even what to expect durring pgcy.

At the time, I just knew that babies came out, eventually. And that is was painful, but the pain would not last. That was all I needed.

When my water broke at 36 wks, I was surprised, I just didn't think babies came until the end of 9 month.







Now, I would have just allowed things to happen and would have had a great UC, but my parents took over. Only at one point did I decide that I no longer wanted to have a baby.







But what choice did I have? I remained calm and "with it" durring my entire labor period and never once even "thought" about a hospital. It was NOT due to me having non-MW assistance, it was because I just did not know that births were "supose" to be done in a hospital. I never even "thought" of drugs, because I did not know that you were "supose" to have them. I just knew that the baby would come out eventually.

Like I said, I did have interference (which I do still regret), but because I never had any preconcieved notions of what birth was, I was able to deal with my body's needs as I had them. I just "knew" what I was suppose to do.

Maybe it was not quite a UC, but it was a HB without a MW. It also taught me about what labor was and how to cope next time. Experience.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

I'm loving these stories!


----------



## RiceMomma (Jul 23, 2004)

I'm one of those UCer's that freak people out because I'm always talking about following intution and listening to my body. I studied a great deal before my UC, but the best thing I did to get me in touch with that intuition was to take the Hypnobabies course. A lot of quiet time, a lot of positive thinking about birth (we all know something could go wrong, this has been hammered in to us, we don't need to focus on this anymore. We need to start saying "what if it all goes right?") Anyway, I started out being really intellectual about the whole thing, but then finding myself really getting intouch with my intution. And only afterwards looking back do I realize how I knew everything that was going to happen at the birth before hand. It's almost freaky. Somethings were a little predictable, it wasn't my first birth, but still. I knew my baby was going to be big, I knew the birth was going to be fast, and I knew exactly where he was going to be born (and it wasn't where I wanted to birth him) I knew that he wasn't going to be breathing when he was born. He came out limp and blue. The cord was limp and white, no pulse. I instinctively knew that what we needed to do was pick him up and hold him and rub him and tell him how much we love him and we're so happy to have him here. So that's what we did and he squawked and yelled at us and decided to stay. I also knew that I was going to tear, and I did.

We were led to UC. We prayed about it, and felt so strongly that this is what we were supposed to do. Had this happened in the hospital, I'm sure they would have whisked him off to the NICU and done a bunch of crap to him and really injured him. Next time, who knows. Maybe we will need to be in the hospital. I don't know how I will be guided in the future, but I know that we can trust on things not so scientific to lead us in life.

I'm not saying everyone should just go have a UC. I'm not saying that at all. But I did have this awesome experience that taught me something amazing about myself and about the tremendous intuitive powers that women have. We may not all be in touch with that part of us, and maybe more in touch with it at different times, but I truly believe that there is an amazing power lying untapped under the surface. I become giddy wondering what the world would be like if we harnessed that power.


----------



## mamainmotion (Jul 17, 2005)

I have a question
I am pregnant with my second and I really am feeling I don't need the support of a mw. I did for my first, but now I just can't get over this feeling of just birthing with my family. I am way more informed and educated about birth.
So I meet a midwife tomorrow I met her partner a few weeks ago and I keep dragging out my first appointment because I 'm not sure what I am doing yet.
So I want to ask them if they will just be emergency backup. I don't even know if they do this or if it's safe to ask.
or do my dh and I just secretly plan this and don't mention it the midwifes.
I know some people feel UC is child endangerment and I guess that's what worries me.

Thanks


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I wanted to add a couple more things on intuition.

With the birth of my seventh child, I had a totally different kind of labor than I had ever had. When it began, instinctively I knew something was different. NOT "wrong", just different. When it did not go as fast as it "should" have and when the contractions did not "feel" intense enough, I knew things were just going to happen in a totally different way. At some point I felt "slightly" pushy. Nothing like I had had with all my other births, but I just "knew" that I was to push will all my might. Usually, I would never do this.

When I felt like I "should" push (not that I had the real urge), I began to push really hard. It took about 20 (maybe 30) minutes to push my son out, but for the first time in seven births, I "felt" him descending centimeter by centimeter. His head, his shoulders, his hips. In three distinct sections (I visulalized a segmented catapiller). I had to move during this pushing phase. I usually am stationary when I push, but I am usually only pushing for 5-10 minutes). When my son was born, he was 9lbs8oz AND completely posterior.

I know that intuition told me to push my son out, when I usually would have waited for the real urge to push. I don't know if I would have every had that urge. It was just such a unique birth, I could never have predicted it. But I listened to what my body told me to do, and everything worked out perfectly.

An other "intuition" was with my eighth baby. I "knew" I was pg before I missed my first AF. I tested a few days late but had a BFN. Waited another week and got a faint positive. Nothing unusual for me. Everything seemed ok, however at about 6 wks, even with everything perfectly fine, I just knew that I would never carry that baby to term. Some sort of intuition told me to look into m/c info and study all I could (I usually pick a new topic to research with each pgcy anyways). I ignored it and continued on with my normal pgcy. Everything was moving along just as always. At about 12 wks the feelings got stonger, but I never wanted to believe it could really happen to me. I had a m/c at 18 weeks. My body knew something was not right. My intuition was right. I never carried that baby to term.

By listening to my body, I have never been wrong. I have even known what the gender of each of my children were before they were born, based solely on my intuition. I think it is in every woman to follow her intuition. I just think that so much of our society has dulled our senses of intuition that many women have a hard time hearing it. It can lead us and guide us if we just listen. Whether it is to have a UC, HBwMW, or OB birth.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamainmotion*
I have a question
I am pregnant with my second and I really am feeling I don't need the support of a mw. I did for my first, but now I just can't get over this feeling of just birthing with my family. I am way more informed and educated about birth.
So I meet a midwife tomorrow I met her partner a few weeks ago and I keep dragging out my first appointment because I 'm not sure what I am doing yet.
So I want to ask them if they will just be emergency backup. I don't even know if they do this or if it's safe to ask.
or do my dh and I just secretly plan this and don't mention it the midwifes.
I know some people feel UC is child endangerment and I guess that's what worries me.

Thanks

This question is a very personal choice. I would have no problems secretly planning a UC with an OB (have done it on numerous occasions), but I would have a hard time doing the same with a HBMW.

Perhaps you should just ask her how "hands off" she is willing to be. Would she be able to just sit in a corner or in another room while you labored and birthed alone? Asking questions along theses lines will let you know how she would react to a UC question. If she is not willing to sit in a corner of a room and let you do it alone, then she is not likely to like the idea of a UC. I could be wrong, but that's how I would begin.

I put MWs in a different catagory than OBs. I NEVER tell an OB about my HB plans because they will drop me. A HBMW OTOH is already ok with HB and is prepaired to work with you in your home. They are not nearly as likely to drop you if you just mention UC.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:

Can the UC mamas address the question of a first birth? Some of the commentary is about how you know how you react and respond in labor--not exactly something a first time mama knows.
i will be a first-time mama and first-timer UCer too. most people try to steer me away because i have not had birth experience. i do not think that birth experience is necessary to UC. it can be helpful, but it isn't necessary.









UC is the process that makes sense to me. I think confidence is really what is necessary. Like kidzaplenty, i have a strong sense of how to handle myself, and how i handle myself, in various situations, a deep intuitive sense of my body, and a keen mind able to learn and flexible enough to adapt and react based on new information.

i think these are the necessary elements. truly, i am unafraid of birth. i know that it will be many things that i do not expect, but i am preparing myself and conditioning myself for an ecstatic, pain-free birth experience. i am not even pregnant yet! but, i've begun that process already.

so, i will be very prepared for my birth, prepared even to make the decision to enlist help should i need it (go to hospital for example), but even more prepared to have an ecstatic, beautiful, private/intimate UC!


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:

I've read several of these types of stories and wondered if those first timers would have been better off with a midwife for their first birth, or at least a doula - someone to support them and say "yes, you're having a normal birth and it's almost over" type of thing?
while i haven't noticed a 'trend' of first time mother's transfering, it does happen for this reason.

i think this largely happens because the support around the woman isn't prepared as the woman herself is. it's a normal part of transition to say 'i can't do this' or to feel fear.

but, in many cases, fathers are not as involved in this process as mothers are. many mothers spend most of hteir pregnancy 'convincing' their DH that UC is appropriate, and often he becomes very 'hands off' about the whole thing (this is just my observation). But, for those DHs who are invested in UC and really learn abotu and understand the birth process--including transition and it's various elements--they are more likely to be the support a woman needs at the birth, emotionally and spiritually, to have a successful UC.

So, instead of a doula or midwife who would 'unassist' and yet attend, the father could learn to attend (in fact, i believe it's his duty to do so--but it's hard for men in this cultural to connect to this as most see these things as 'women's stuff' and dont' necessarily want to get involved--which is why they prefer to enlist the medical model, which is the paternal stand-in). i think that this would be the best option for both parents!

Quote:

How can you trust yourself to have the level of intuition that you need to have with a UC in order to keep your baby safe, when your only frame of refference for giving birth you had no intuition at all and felt totally disconected from your baby and your own body?
like anything, intuition can be developed. if you do not think you have 'enough' intuition, or you are out of touch with that aspect of yourself, then you can learn how to do it.

personally, i would start with work such as animal communication. it requires a good deal of intuition and you can develop a deep connection with your intuition and communication abilities with that process.

another area to work on is yoga. i would recommend kundalini yoga with a focus on chakra work. many women are not 'grounded' in their bodies, which helps connect to intuition (as the etherial and physical are intimately connected), and doing yoga with chakra work specificly will help develop the grounding that developing intuition requires.

there are lots of ways to develop intuition--but it comes down to trusting yourself deeply. contemplative prayer is another excellent resource, but it's far more internal and animal communication, yoga, have these external processes that are easier to 'observe.' so, contemplative prayer is a good part of the equation, but probably one to access later as you've begun to observe and trust yourself.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RiceMomma*
I started out being really intellectual about the whole thing, but then finding myself really getting intouch with my intution. And only afterwards looking back do I realize how I knew everything that was going to happen at the birth before hand.

I also started out feeling the need to justify it intellectually. I read everything I could get my hands on. That was helpful to some degree, and I also felt an inner compulsion to do it, but in my fourth pregnancy I lost my taste for it, and all I really wanted to do was just _be_ in my pregnancy. I didn't read a thing, except for a little book called The Life Within: Celebration of a Pregnancy, by Jean Hegland. In addition to her personal feelings about being pregnant, there is a lot of birth trivia in it, nothing big and intellectual, but interesting, and often soul-lifting.

I also had some "knowings". One of my favorites was during my last UC having a vision of the baby turning a minute or so before she was born. It wasn't a seen thing, or like a thought. It wasn't an inkling either. It was experiential, and it was certain.

I also knew, without hearing the baby cry or feeling her move or really seeing much of her (it was dark) that she was perfect and fine. This may have been more of a body sense -- perhaps, because I was so focused just on what I was feeling in the moment, I was aware on some level of her body tone. I don't know, but that seems plausible.

I had a strong sense of where the birth would take place, too, with my first UC. This vision kept coming to me (totally uninvited) that I would be kneeling, with my torso draped over our recliner. I didn't pay much attention to it because it seemed odd, and I thought I might want to have a waterbirth, or give birth on the bed (which I waterproofed just for that reason.) I spent most of the labor walking around the house, then in the birthtub which I was quite sure during transition that I couldn't possibly get out of again without the help of a hydraulic lift. Then very suddenly I just leapt out, knelt in front of the recliner, and she was born two involuntary pushes later.

With my second UC, when I got that sense (and again, it seemed an odd place to give birth, something I had not considered before,) I said, "okay, I believe it this time," and I methodically went about preparing that space.

From experience with how this sort of thing works, I know that I wouldn't have felt these things if there had been anything drawing my focus outward. And it's not that these things themselves were so important, the really important thing is something that they are representative of -- the ability to be awake to one's intuition. So I knew where I was going to give birth, maybe that's mildly interesting to someone, but, they say, so what? Does it really matter that you gave birth there and not on the bed? In the grand scheme of things, probably not. What mattered was being in an intuitive space in itself, and being free to act on that. One isolated rejection of a small thing might not make a big difference, but many rejections of many small things can add up to a big difference. And, as well, it was a good thing to feel completely in harmony with the process as it wanted to be.


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

What a great thread! I am constantly put down (even on here) for doing UP with triplets and planning a homebirth (even though not UC). It's very frustrating and annoying, but I just keep my head high and know that I am letting my body do what it does best.


----------



## Coconut Chronicles (Aug 31, 2006)

:


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

fourlittlebirds, everything you wrote resonates with me (as usual







)

Quote:

just given up without someone there to disappoint.
Or to perform for...perform in the typical sense isn't how I mean it--but does anyone know what I'm talking about? I went into my last birth seriously planning to not call the mw...but my intuition said call. I guess I'm okay that I did call (baby was malpresentation, whole 'nother story), but, when one has planned to be uninhibited, and then there's someone in the house, it's just _different_. Even though I only saw mw like two times during my whole 13 hour labor, I remember thinking, oh, no, what if it's another "false alarm," and she had to drive all the way out here for nothing? I wish things would start back up...GRRRR. This really annoys me that I was so concerned with the mw when I could have been just tuned into myself and baby







: Maybe I was really just disappointed with myself that I'd called her out? I don't know.


----------



## lactivist (Jun 14, 2005)

I can totally relate to that feeling of performing. I was deep in transition with my second in the bathroom in our relatively small apartment. The midwives were standing in the door of my daughter's room laughing and chatting with her. It pulled my focus out of me and made me really stressed out. I thought they were attending me not my daughter. Of course I wanted them to be hands off but it was just this really weird moment. I was all alone in the bathroom laboring out my baby and everyone else was partying in my daughter's room. I was bitter and resentful. I never would have had any of those feelings if I hadn't had the expectation of midwifery care. When in labor with my third I purposely sent everyone off to bed so I could just focus inward. I was so much more in touch with what was going on, never got that out of control transition feeling and just rolled along with my labor as it progressed. No expectations, no disappointment.
Wendi


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

forlittlebirds wrote>"I also had some "knowings". One of my favorites was during my last UC having a vision of the baby turning a minute or so before she was born. It wasn't a seen thing, or like a thought. It wasn't an inkling either. It was experiential, and it was certain. "

I wanted to acknowlege this I too had a similar experience with my first homebirth attended but unassisted. The way I had described the experience was I saw- felt her-a vision.
To lead into this my BOW broke in the tub and I thought the baby would be born soon after laboring all night so I woke up DH and the midwife I was looking out at them and wanting some help figuring out what to do, where to be- the kids were in our bed so did not even want to be in that room so I landed in the living room near a big floor pillow we have and I sat on the edge of it-- I had had 2 previous hospital births- and after being frustrated as to what to do- I layed on my back- flat on my back with my knees in the air-- what was this? a birth memory, this is how I had already given birth to 2 children-and the position my mom was in when she gave birth to me-- it felt right and weird at the same time- after a bit I decided how silly and moved to a squat then into hands and knees- right about at that shift I remembered the other births- sort of a flashback with feeling, experiential textures- and I remembered my own birth(yes I know weird, and unexpected) in any case then moving on from that I saw-felt my daughter move spin inside of me and drop down I could see it without my eyes, and it was time to push deep and demanding and she crowned and it burned and I did not want to stop. i could have but didn't and pushed her out- DH and MW were in front of me and they did not make a move to help "catch the baby" I reached under myself and pulled her around up to the front as she came out - and moved from the semi-kneeling position to lay back on the pillow with her on me she pooped and she was breathing quickly. .

I had a UC after this birth and everthing was well with both of us but I did not have the same feeling of safety and abandon I had while haveing my attended but unassisted birth . DH is a good caring man and would do what ever I asked-- and in an emergency which I would have to identify or be unconsious for he would act approprately and get help or load me into the car and take me to help-- now maybe if I had never had previous hospial births that I had to -extensively recover from- maybe I would not have had the same concerns but I did and much of my mind before labor and in early labor was occupied with thinking about having to give up some control and accept that there were certain situaions where DH was going to be in a position of acting according to his best judgment which in medical views we widely differ- those situations did not arise. When our son did emerge I went with what was happening at the time walked around the house not finding a place to be- and ended up in a doorway pulled down with an overwhelming need to push I dropped into a squat and my deepest sense of not knowing how this baby was if he were dead or alive was though me- not the same see-feel experience it but it was deeply profound and painful and I was sure he was dead and it did not matter I resolved myself to that, I had to do the work at hand which was to not tear and to birth this baby alive or dead, I tell dh get things like the chux to put on the floor what he says the what? I say the blue thing- and he gets it and he is in awe because he can see me giving birth which I do slower this time and let him crown slowly and I stretch- all 12 lbs of him and no tear after having 2 epis and a tear with previous births- and he is fine totally fine but those dark moments are deeply in me. who knew , what I think about now is that even in Odent's birth center in the hospital-there was someone there to help those women gave birth in a comfortable well designed hospital setting seemingly unattended births but what they were mostly to use Pam's phrasing unassisted -attended births == but I even struggle with this wording because assistance comes in many forms like someone expereinced available to you to help as need be- or to listen to hear tones or to be reassuring maybe by just being a relaxed presence.
To be clear I think it is everywoman's right to choose where and how to give birth- UC to full on C each has it's own set of risk/benifit.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kathryn*
What a great thread! I am constantly put down (even on here) for doing UP with triplets and planning a homebirth (even though not UC). It's very frustrating and annoying, but I just keep my head high and know that I am letting my body do what it does best.









What is UP?


----------



## stellimamo (Jan 9, 2006)

unassisted pregnancy- no provider prenatal care.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stellimamo*
unassisted pregnancy- no provider prenatal care.

Thanks


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

if this appears 2 times sorry I erase one but on my computer it is not showing up- here goes--- now I see two this is what the edit...


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

So now I've got a question:

Is UC now considered possible WITH a midwife present? This is a new concept for me. I had always thought unassisted childbirth was a private affair between mother & family. What are the definitions?

So.....what were my births? There was no midwife present, just myself & my family. Was it UC or was it moved into another category?


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mwherbs*
I wanted to acknowlege this I too had a similar experience with my first homebirth attended but unassisted. The way I had described the experience was I saw- felt her-a vision. [...] I had a UC after this birth and everthing was well with both of us but I did not have the same feeling of safety and abandon I had while haveing my attended but unassisted birth. [...] my deepest sense of not knowing how this baby was if he were dead or alive was though me- not the same see-feel experience it but it was deeply profound and painful and I was sure he was dead [...] and he is fine totally fine but those dark moments are deeply in me.

You're an excellent example of how that balance between the need for privacy and the need for security (and what is necessary for those both to be obtained) is different for every woman. If I remember correctly, your decision to UC was made primarily on the basis of not having access to decent midwifery care, rather than a deep belief that giving birth without a medical attendant was best for you. There's no question that the mother's psychological and emotional state is one of the most important factors in a good outcome and her satisfaction with the birth.

It's also, clearly, one factor in how deeply she's able to access her intuition. For you, fear obscured that. For me, inhibition and distraction did. Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to assert that UC = access to intuition, only that for women who are made inhibited and distracted and insecure by the presence of a professional birth attendant, giving birth in privacy means those barriers are not in the way.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest*
Is UC now considered possible WITH a midwife present? This is a new concept for me. I had always thought unassisted childbirth was a private affair between mother & family. What are the definitions?

I've always been uncomfortable with the term "unassisted birth" because it can cover so many different kinds of situations. Laura Shanley originally used it to mean that the woman gives birth instinctively with no one directing her or monitoring her, and that there is no medical attendant present specifically for the purpose of being a medical attendant. Some people choose to take one or the other or those parts out of the definition, and still call it "unassisted". In other words, I've seen births called unassisted if there was a professional birth attendant there but she sat on her hands for the most part. I've also seen births called unassisted in which there was no professional birth attendant present but the father or other non-professionals acted in the role of midwife. For the purposes of this forum and the UC roll call, though, we go with Laura's definition just because that's what we're all there for. Nobody's there talking about their unassisted birth with a midwife, it's just tacitly understood that that's not really what the forum is for.

Just so there was no confusion, Pam pointed out that she did not intend for this thread to be only about births that are _just_ literally unassisted, but also unattended by medical/birth professionals.

Is that confusing enough?


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
Can the UC mamas address the question of a first birth? Some of the commentary is about how you know how you react and respond in labor--not exactly something a first time mama knows.

I had a UC for my first birth. Originally, I was going to birth at the general hospital in SF. Each prenatal (lol, two total) was a drag. I was nauseous each time and had to wait forever in the crowded waiting rooms. I had read one pg book (Girlfriend's Guide to Pregnancy) and was pretty certain that labor was going to hurt a lot and that there was the 50/50 chance I'd want meds, but it was just something I was going to have to deal with. I tuned out the horror stories and was secretely addicted to A Baby Story, even though it had me anxious and at the edge of my seat each show full of tension. I decided that watching that show was not doing my soul any good but I was craving to see births and couldnt afford the dvds and stuff of natural or uncensored births. So...the addiction continued and I had this negative image of birth forming in the back of my mind.

I searched online for a place to chat about pregnancy and found MDC







I puttered around here through the various forums and my entire focus shifted. I was changing my lifestyle little by little. By 6 months, I came across the fiorum title "unassisted childbirth" and I was very intrigued. In the back of my mind something clicked, like "ooh! I want to do that!" but then immediately the negative thoughts took over. "but how? Is that possible? Legal? what about the pain, or if you want drugs? who will help me? No no no, this is my first birth and I dont know what birth is like. lovely thought, but nope, not for me."

I read through the forum and was amazed at all these women who birth in their homes, with no one there but their families! I read through various "what if" questions that others asked, and finally posted my first question. Here--> (asking if there were other mamas who had a UC for their 1st) http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=289803 (wow, that was interesting going back in time and reading what I wrote and realizing how much my views have evolved from uncertainty to confidence!)

So I kept reading, through websites, books and birth stories (the birth stories made me determined to have a UC, the websites info and books and the UC mamas here at MDC helped dispell my fears.

FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN is a key facor for first time mamas wanting/planning a UC and it took a lot to reprogram my preconceptions of birth enough that I was confident, excited, and certain that I'd plan and have a UC.

Reading about each complication, what causes it, how to prevent it, how to treat it, when to get help were very helpful *for me* (for others it might just instill more fear/anxiety). When I realized that most complications are cause by poor nutrition, high toxicity in mother's environment, family history, and of course, by unnecessary interventions, I calmed down a bit about "complications". I learned that a complication to one person was nothing to fuss over to another.

Once I dispelled most fears, I blocked out any outside negativity and kept reading positive UC stories, and then for awhile, I just stopped researching so that I could relax and focus on myself and the baby. Fears would come up here and there between dp or I (or having a conversation with a skeptic would spark something in me) and I'd do a little more research.

As a first time mama, I had to block out any comments about "not knowing what I was getting into" etc etc..."when you're in labor you'll change your mind" blah blah.

As my whole lifestyle was changing (eliminating household toxics, food toxics, etc, not letting the system control me, taking responsibility for all of my choices, etc) it was easier for me to stay firm in my decision.

Once I birthed, it was a huge sigh of relief, thankfulness, and joy in knowing that all subsequent births can be planned this way, and instead I can say "I did it last time, and will do it this time."









Birth story---> http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=338648


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

I know that post was pretty long, but I just wanted to add:

During the actual labor, I handled it like I do when I have to "deal" with something similar (like intense menstrual cramps but a prolonged version, or running for soccer practice much further than I would have liked to). I get "mopey" and grumpy, but persist. Kina martyrish I guess. Just kept breathing deep breaths and moving my hips around a lot.

Looking back, it might have been nice to have had a doula there to say "yes its all normal" as a pp mentioned, and to give me emotional encouragment (dp is great, but sometimes you just want someone else to cheer you up) and to help clean up afterwards, but I'm not sure it would have been worth the possible inhinderance. I am definitely one who felt "watched" sometimes even with dp, even though I didnt acknowledge it at the time. I did notice though that when he left the room, I could concentrate easier and just relax, not worrying what I look/sound like. Sometimes I cant even pee until he leaves the bathroom (just sometimes...but I cant for the life of me poop in front of him







) so I dunno how adding another person would have changed the equation. Maybe labor would have stalled a bit more? Maybe it would have helped me to think out of the box, look to someone else for a moment and actually speed things along?







: Who knows?

For the next birth, I will probably have someone whom I am very comfortable "unloading problems on" nearby for when I need to vent during labor to release any emotional blocks. My mom or SIL might be that person, and they will know that I do NOT want ANY negativity at that time, and DO NOT ask if I want to go to the hospital. If I feel so inclined I will say so. That same person, or someone else will probably be helping with ds and clean up afterwards.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I remember your story Shell.







Thank you for summarizing the thoughts behind it so well.


----------



## scheelimama (Aug 2, 2003)

UC is something I'm very interested in, but I must admit that I very much liked having a midwife present and am not sure that I would be strong enough to do it on my own. I relied heavily on her presence at the end both times.


----------



## Briannasmom (Sep 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scheelimama*
UC is something I'm very interested in, but I must admit that I very much liked having a midwife present and am not sure that I would be strong enough to do it on my own. I relied heavily on her presence at the end both times.

Me too, on all counts. I LOVED my midwife - felt a deep spiritual connection with her.

I have a question: In the earlier posts on this thread, there was some talk of an UC being "erotic." Can you explain this? I read Spiritual Midwifery and know that some women feel orgasmic and such - is this what you mean?


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

fourlittlebirths wrote>"You're an excellent example of how that balance between the need for privacy and the need for security (and what is necessary for those both to be obtained) is different for every woman. If I remember correctly, your decision to UC was made primarily on the basis of not having access to decent midwifery care, rather than a deep belief that giving birth without a medical attendant was best for you. There's no question that the mother's psychological and emotional state is one of the most important factors in a good outcome and her satisfaction with the birth."

my choice was limited- basically no midwives in the area for more than 200 miles or more in any direction but I also had been thinking of going for perfection , the last birth was easy enough an I had did it on my own, I had a coulple picky little things about my midwife that on reflection were nothing like-- why didn't she know I wanted help figuring out what to do- you know read my mind... very funny when I think about it now.but they wre things on my mind then like well I can do without someone who doesn't know what I am thinking anyway...
we were living in a small one bedroom home(DH, pregnant me and 3 kids) and although a friend had offered to come stay I could not imagine living with another person in our house for possibly weeks on end.
But there was also no question in my mind that I would ever willingly step foot into another hospital as long as I was consious or alive, this was one of the conflicts I had to come to terms with that DH would transfer me that he would act to his conscience and I really couldn't control that, so I guess I could not count on his judgment which as I am thinking about it now added to my unease- so much responsibility to be intellectually there. I also would not have considered my past midwife nor midwives in general to be "medical care providers" at that time. although I do think that now it is a fitting term because midwives are asked to do so many medical things by clients and regulations, heck then we were illegal midwives and all of us were prepared to do it alone if we had to ...
My UC birth has been very hard for me to process and come to terms with and we are talking now 18 years have gone by, I think that this is partly due to lack of shared experience- so people who would never have had a uc cannot understand their opions are of course I should have been scared- but that is not it because that is not where I was starting from I felt fully capable and trusting or atleast that is what I though at the time


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Mwherbs, I'm truly sorry that this was your experience. And I can also say that it is incredibly atypical for a planned and desired unassisted birth, so I'm inclined to look for reasons why it might have been so. It sounds as if you were under some pressure to justify your lack of options to yourself, and under some stress (in labor no less) over your husband's actions should the need for help arise. This is not to minimize your experience of it as negative, at all, but it just really sounds to me like you were not in a secure situation. Which is really the point of my mention of the balance of the need of privacy and the need for security.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Briannasmom*
In the earlier posts on this thread, there was some talk of an UC being "erotic." Can you explain this? I read Spiritual Midwifery and know that some women feel orgasmic and such - is this what you mean?

Sure. There is also birth that is sexual, sensual, pleasurable, ecstatic (or, "ec stasis" as Sarah Buckley points out, "outside our usual state", an altered state of consciousness.) I think Pam was probably thinking of all these things.

For myself, I always think of Audre Lorde's essay "The Uses of the Erotic". She wrote of it: "I believe in the erotic and I believe in it as an enlightening force within our lives as women. I have become clearer about the distinctions between the erotic and other apparently similar forces. We tend to think of the erotic as an easy, tantalizing sexual arousal. I speak of the erotic as the deepest life force, a force which moves us toward living in a fundamental way. And when I say living I mean it as that force which moves us toward what will accomplish real positive change."

There is such a focus on arousal by another person and ultimately orgasm as the goal of sexuality in our culture, and I think this may be one reason women reject the idea of birth as sexual. Birth is regarded as too "pure" (and often too social) to entertain the idea of that. But if our sexuality is about more than orgasm... and knowing that birth is biologically a sexually hormonal process... then that opens up things quite a bit, doesn't it?

The question then becomes: assuming that an expression of birth as erotic or sexual is normal and desired, how realistic is to expect that in a social birth?


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scheelimama*
UC is something I'm very interested in, but I must admit that I very much liked having a midwife present and am not sure that I would be strong enough to do it on my own. I relied heavily on her presence at the end both times.

What is it about UC you're drawn to?


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
There is such a focus on arousal by another person and ultimately orgasm as the goal of sexuality in our culture, and I think this may be one reason women reject the idea of birth as sexual. Birth is regarded as too "pure" (and often too social) to entertain the idea of that. But if our sexuality is about more than orgasm... and knowing that birth is biologically a sexually hormonal process... then that opens up things quite a bit, doesn't it?

The question then becomes: assuming that an expression of birth as erotic or sexual is normal and desired, how realistic is to expect that in a social birth?

Yup, sooo unlikely to happen in an "unsexual" environment. There are so many things that have been drilled into my head that birth can't be sexual. It is a "painful rite of passage that all mothers must endure, and God help you if there isnt someone there to help you" as I've been told. So it would seem...birth...sexual?? But HOW??? You would really have to explain the hormonal process that goes on when a woman is aroused, and the hormonal process during labor and birth, and the similarities, etc. in order for someone to actually understand this concept in our society today. Until I read about it on Laura SHanley's site, I would have laughed about it.


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife*
Perhaps those people who are new to the idea of unattended birth have questions, concerns, responses..perhaps those who are NOT new have some!

I'd like to start a discussion - a sane, rational, dialogue - about birth choices.

I've heard some UC birthers all lumped together as radical extremists that would rather die or have their baby die than go to the hospital. I think this is interesting, because I would venture to say that more UC birthers transport to err on the side of caution than maybe they would had they had an attendant present. Not that transporting is negative - that's not my intention to say, I just wanted to clear up some generalizations and stereotypes about those who choose to birth unattended.

As a midwife, many births I see are "unassisted". My definition of unassisted birth is one that happens under the woman's own power and her direction only. What I see UC birth being is "unattended". So, pardon if I get these crossed sometimes.

Years ago, when I was on the original cbirth email list, I came across a small handful of people (out of thousands) that would rather take fate into their own hands than to go to a hospital. That is their perogative. I do not feel this is selfish, irresponsible or stupid. A parent has the choice to do what they feel is best for their baby. Some parents do not vaccinate and people would call that selfish or irresponsible. Same thing with birthing at home with a midwife. See where I'm going with this?

We all have different belief systems. Just as there are a hundred different philosophies with midwives (and their own biases to go with those), there are different values with birth and parenting.

I feel like there is this idea that somehow saying "trust your body, trust your baby" means don't ever succomb to the medical model. That is certainly not the case with UC families I know. Overall, women know that there is a risk they are taking when they birth - whether it's in the home, hospital or attended. I don't feel like it's something that is done often with lack of foresight or thought. Every family I have ever known or worked with has been clear that when they need help, they will seek help. There is no medal for being the most "pure" birther as far as they are concerned. They love their babies, even the ones that believe that their babies are safer with unattended birth than with a highly interventive birth.

I support UC families. I offer on-call support for them - I always have and I always will. Why? Because they deserve to have options. Because I stand by a woman's right to choose. Because sometimes, mother does know best. I must be clear, though, that when I say "I always have" means that since I've started my own practice. As a student midwife, I was not very supportive of UC. In fact, I thought it was downright threatening and weird. I couldn't imagine. The more births I attended, the more complications I saw and heard because of our "routines" the more I understood. The first UC birth story that I found was so intimate that it bordered on erotic, I understood more.

Let's get it all out in the open. Let's discuss it. Ask questions. I ask that people are conscious of the UA when we go from here and refrain from name calling, generalizations or attacking.

(And this is NOT in the UC forum because frankly, those people have enough BS to deal with based on their choice and they deserve a haven of support)

Pam,








for being this topic up. Well, for me I rather be in a free standing birth center or hospital still, but want it to be hands off.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Forgive me if I sound too forward or come across as rude...

I feel so sad when I hear women say, "I couldn't do it without medication" or "I have to have a midwife" or whatever.

Womens' bodies were deisgned to carry and deliver children. Unless there is something medically wrong, EVERY woman CAN get thru birth without doctors, midwives or medication.

I guarantee you that if you took the most medically-minded mama to be and you stuck her on a deserted island as she was preparing to go into labor, she would manage to survive the labor and delivery.

I have no problem with women choosing other birthing methods, but to say that they are physically unable to do otherwise is a shame. Do women really believe that it is a matter of pain-tolerance, psyching one's self up or some other criterion that predispose certain women to be able to "handle" birth and other women to be crushed under it? I can't understand this way of thinking as all women know that for the past however many thousands of years of recorded history, women have birthed with female relatives, non-medically trained midwives or alone. There were no hospitals, no doctors, no emergency c-sections to fall back on. If a person wants these things, they are entitled to their own choice, however to think they are mandatory is inaccurate.

Anyways, I'm rambling. I'm not meaning to be pushy or to put down anyone else's decision, but I think we as women need to realize that we CAN handle birth and our bodies ARE capable of delivery.

Best wishes and good luck deciding how to birth for yourselves!

Kristi


----------



## RiceMomma (Jul 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~*
I feel so sad when I hear women say, "I couldn't do it without medication" or "I have to have a midwife" or whatever.


I feel sad too, but I understand what they mean. While some might be saying, emotionally, they need a midwife, or they can't (don't want to) deal with the pain, there are many who, even though they are perfectly healthy and physically normal, they truly do believe that they must be delivered from birth, that they can't physically have a baby without a doc, midwife, medical care, whatever. They believe it on a subconcious level- we have been brainwashed from birth to believe this, as our own mothers birthed us in the hospital. We believe it on such a deep level.

Sure that woman most likely would survive birth on a desert island, but if she is like most, it would be a very terrifying expereince. I've had 2 UC's- one of them was unplanned- it was the most terrifying experience of my life, (funny to contrast it with my second UC which was one of the most beautiful experiences of my life) becuase, yes, I believed my baby wasn't safe being born outside of the hospital, and that my life was in danger. I learned a great deal from the experience, but at the time, I was terrified, and it was tramatic.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
The danger of planning a first-time UC without previous experience in birth, it seems to me, is in not having a base understanding of what's normal, if you tend to be someone who is in her head. If you're not, I guess it's irrelevant, because you just listen to your intuition. (Most of us, though, I think aren't quite there.) I would have given birth physiologically more normally with a UC, but I also (with my first) would have been more likely to transfer. I wasn't expecting it to be as hard as it was, and I think I would have questioned whether it should be that way, or just given up without someone there to disappoint.

I think this is my biggest issue. I have seen/heard so many women who had failed UC's that either thought something perfectly normal was abnormal or worse, viseversa. I know two people personally who panicked at delivery thinking that the wrinkled, vernix-coated baby scalp was a cord prolapse and called 911 with less than desirable results (though not dangerous, thank G-d). There are stories with less than optimal outcomes right here on MDC. I notice people are always very quick to say 'well, it could have happend in the hospital as well'. Sure, anything can happen. But probable? The blogged story of the footling breech UC that ended badly comes to mind immediately. And whenever I try to bring up issues like this, I'm told that I'm no different than doctors that say homebirth is dangerous!

Personally, esp. after having a homebirth that turned UC, I know that for me, I don't want to be in that headspace during the birth. I want to turn the 'thinking' part of my brain off and let my midwife deal with any issues that might arise.

One final thing. I think a lot of women who attempt UC and transfer, even if they really didn't need to, are often treated really badly by hospital staff AND are more likely to get a c/sec as they are viewed as 'irresposible people to stupid to get prenatal care but will sue you the minute something goes wrong, so let's just section them now'. I'm telling it like it is from the hospital side having worked L&D.


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Well I truly believe knowledge is power. The more you know about what can happen in a hospital, all interventions included, the easier it may be to prevent them, even upon an emergency transfer.

For me, I thought for awhile that I'd rather have a midwife to just "deal" with anything that came along, but the more I learned, the further I swayed away from that thinking. I realized that handing the responsibility over to someone else could increase the risks that something could go wrong. Especially if I were to turn the thinking part of my brain off!

A huge part of choosing UC was the responsibility that I was assuming for myself and my child. At first it was an ominous overwhelming cloud that I didn't think I could handle, but as I learned more about trusting my body and intuition, that cloud faded and it became empowerment. This is MY body and no one knows it better than I do, even if they have seen hundreds of bodies "like" it. I felt that for me, it would be much better to learn what normal birth is, what the variations from normal may be, what situations can happen in our society today regarding pregnancy/childbirth/newborns, how to prevent serious problems, and how to handle emergencies.

Ideally, I would have been learning all of this stuff at a very young age...but alas, our culture doesn't really induce that kind of learning.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2seven*
I think this is my biggest issue. I have seen/heard so many women who had failed UC's that either thought something perfectly normal was abnormal or worse, viseversa. I know two people personally who panicked at delivery thinking that the wrinkled, vernix-coated baby scalp was a cord prolapse and called 911 with less than desirable results (though not dangerous, thank G-d). There are stories with less than optimal outcomes right here on MDC. I notice people are always very quick to say 'well, it could have happend in the hospital as well'. Sure, anything can happen. But probable? The blogged story of the footling breech UC that ended badly comes to mind immediately. And whenever I try to bring up issues like this, I'm told that I'm no different than doctors that say homebirth is dangerous!

Personally, esp. after having a homebirth that turned UC, I know that for me, I don't want to be in that headspace during the birth. I want to turn the 'thinking' part of my brain off and let my midwife deal with any issues that might arise.

One final thing. I think a lot of women who attempt UC and transfer, even if they really didn't need to, are often treated really badly by hospital staff AND are more likely to get a c/sec as they are viewed as 'irresposible people to stupid to get prenatal care but will sue you the minute something goes wrong, so let's just section them now'. I'm telling it like it is from the hospital side having worked L&D.

While this does happen, a great deal of it can be prevented or eased by prior research, education, study and a support group of other women' who've gone through it. Fir me, the whole purpose of having ahomebirth is so that I can USE the thinking part of my brain and not just have to lay there while someone else takes control of my birth.

I am going to have a UC, but I will be sharing the moment with my husband and a friend who has birthed two healthy children herself, in natural hospital births. We will do as much reasearch as we can so that we can have as much knowledge about birth as is possible.

I'm sure that having my first child UC will be scary in some ways. However, I will feel more at ease in my own home, with my friend and my husband beside me, listening to the most reliable voice there is- my body's. I won't have to deal with an outsider telling me when to push, when to get in the tub, what position to be in, etc. My body will guide me as it is designed to be a birthing machine.

I don't want an ugly hospital experience to lead me to a UC, even if it would provide experience. I want ALL of my birth memories to be spiritual and comfortable and in a place I want to birth. Saying that a woman should not UC with her first is reenforcing the idea that women are not capable of getting through birth without firsthand knowledge of what the almighty doctors/midwives are doing so that we can mimic them. I find this an offensive notion.

LIke I said in my original post, women are free to choose the birthing experince they find the most satisfying and safe. However, just like I don't put women down for choosing meds, hospitals, etc. I shouldn't be made to feel irresponsible, ignorant or foolish for choosing a UC. In reality, many women who choose UCs do much more research and study on birth than other moms planning to "turn the thinking side of their brains off" and let somebody else control/manage the birth.

Choose whatever you feel is best for yourself, but respect the choices that other women make as well. We all want what's best for our families- we just have different views on what that is.

Kristi


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2seven*
I notice people are always very quick to say 'well, it could have happend in the hospital as well'. Sure, anything can happen. But probable?

Why would it be more probable outside of the hospital?

Quote:

The blogged story of the footling breech UC that ended badly comes to mind immediately.
Well, a story of footling breech _attended by a midwife_ that ended badly comes to mind too. I'm not about to offer that up as an example of why homebirth with a midwife is dangerous... [continued below]

Quote:

And whenever I try to bring up issues like this, I'm told that I'm no different than doctors that say homebirth is dangerous!
...but most doctors would. So maybe they think you're doing the same sort of thing -- offering it up as evidence that UC is dangerous. (Are you?)

Quote:

Personally, esp. after having a homebirth that turned UC, I know that for me, I don't want to be in that headspace during the birth. I want to turn the 'thinking' part of my brain off and let my midwife deal with any issues that might arise.
This was my reasoning for having a midwife attend my second birth. It turned out though that her being there prevented me from turning off that "thinking part of my brain" as you put it, and there were other issues with her being there as well, like the wrongness (to me) of sharing something so intimate with someone that I do not have an intimate and enduring relationship with. For the next birth I felt that I was better off with full access to my intuition and instinct and without the inhibition that would hinder hormonal release.

Quote:

One final thing. I think a lot of women who attempt UC and transfer, even if they really didn't need to, are often treated really badly by hospital staff AND are more likely to get a c/sec as they are viewed as 'irresposible people to stupid to get prenatal care but will sue you the minute something goes wrong, so let's just section them now'. I'm telling it like it is from the hospital side having worked L&D.
Yes, and it's part of why we're staying away from the hospital in the first place -- because we don't trust that we'll be treated medically appropriately and with respect and kindness. It stands to reason that we would be even less so if they were aware that we had been planning something they regard as crazy and dangerous.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

There are stories with less than optimal outcomes right here on MDC.
Yes. Just as there are stories of homebirth-with-midwife, birth center, and hospital birth with less than optimal outcomes right here on MDC.

Sometimes this happens even with the best of intentions, to the most educated and confident women, when pains have been taken to do everything "right" and conscientiously. More often, though, it seems to happen due to ignorance and naivity. These are problems not limited to mainstream hospital birthers. My heart sinks when I see someone planning a hospital birth with blind trust in her doctor or under circumstances in which there would likely be a better outcome with a different choice, and my heart sinks when I see someone planning a UC with blind trust in nature or under circumstances in which there would likely be a better outcome with a different choice. I wish all women could have true choice, and choose with a full understanding of the risks and benefits, and with support and a sense of empowerment. Women who don't are far more likely to see complications arise.


----------



## haleyelianasmom (Nov 5, 2005)

This is a great discussion.

I have one daughter who was born at the hospital with an epidural and that's not how I wanted her birth to go, but I didn't even know that birthing outside of a hospital was an option. Now I know better and definitely will not be having any of my future children at a hospital. I don't think I COULDN'T have done it without pain relief, but I imagine it is made quite difficult when you have to get in the car and be driven to a hospital and met up by a bunch of people you don't know, being preoccupied about other things (I remember telling one nurse that my wedding ring wouldn't fit me anymore, partly because I was worried that people would assume I was young and stupid and having an "oops baby" when Haley was totally planned and greatly anticipated, but now I realize, who even cares? Does it matter if you're married or gay or straight or young or old and the whether or not the pregnancy was planned or not? Does it really matter? but that's another story)

Anyways, I've been thinking about the birth of our next child ever since, wondering how I can do things differently, researching my different options. This talk on UC gives me a lot to think about. I think if I ever decided to try a UC, I'd have a midwife on call. I've been thinking of finding a midwife in the area who'd be willing to be very hands-off and stay back and away unless I say otherwise. There's a birth center a few minutes away and we've become involved there, going to all the mom groups, so part of me feels an allegiance to the birth center (plus, dh says he'd feel more comfortable at a birth center than at home). However, the idea of being able to stay home sounds so nice. When I'm in pain (not in labor), I go into a hot tub alone. I also get distracted and self-conscious with other people around. So I've been thinking about doing a homebirth with a midwife in the other room unless I ask for her... (I'm not pregnant yet and not trying yet)

So here's my questions. What do you do in the cases of shoulders getting stuck? or major bloodloss? Or a baby born not breathing?
How much can you trust nature for things to go well?
Are there any books about UC that are good for people who don't agree with it and aren't too open minded? (for friends or family of people choosing an UC)


----------



## prettypixels (Apr 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~*
Forgive me if I sound too forward or come across as rude...

I feel so sad when I hear women say, "I couldn't do it without medication" or "I have to have a midwife" or whatever.

Womens' bodies were deisgned to carry and deliver children. Unless there is something medically wrong, EVERY woman CAN get thru birth without doctors, midwives or medication.

Well, first of all, I'd guess that the majority of women planning homebirths attended by a midwife do trust their bodies to give birth, or they'd go straight to the hospital. I surely do trust my BODY to give birth. I am not so sure however, of trusting my own HEAD while I am giving birth. It's not easy to overcome a lifetime of being told it is going to be horrible, it is going to be painful, you're going to need drugs, you're stupid to deny yourself drugs, etc. Not to mention the worries that most birthing moms have about the things that can (and do, sometimes) go wrong. That is all head stuff.

I did not hire a midwife to "fix" my body or "deliver me" from labor. I hired her to support me emotionally through the labor, to help me in the event of something I couldn't handle on my own, and to be there for me in the event that something goes wrong and I need a hospital transfer. I can tell you unabashedly that in the event I do need to go to a hospital, I'd 100 times prefer being there WITH MY MIDWIFE as my advocate... so my husband can focus on me and our baby, and I can focus on doing what I need to do instead of fighting all those silly battles that come with being in a hospital.

Does that seem like not trusting my body? I guess it might to someone who believes with every fiber of their being that their birth will go 100% perfectly. My best friend had two preemies and I have had so many friends have soooooo many problems... I could debate with you at length about whether or not medicine helped or hindered some of those problems... but for me, I want my bases covered. I want someone who knows what they are doing there with me to help my BRAIN through this process. My brain is always the trouble, darnit.

I'm all for women being given every option in the world to choose the birth that is perfect for THEM. But I would not presume to determine what is perfect for someone else, and I wouldn't assume that someone else is uneducated about their body or untrusting of their body because their choice is different from yours.

Quote:

I guarantee you that if you took the most medically-minded mama to be and you stuck her on a deserted island as she was preparing to go into labor, she would manage to survive the labor and delivery.
Agreed, that the majority of women would survive... after all, humanity is HERE after all these millions of years epidural-less. But frankly I'd prefer to do more than survive... I'd prefer to feel safe, secure, and relaxed through my birth. And if a midwife that I trust will enable me to do that, or if being in the hospital would enable me to do that, or if being home alone would enable me to do that, those are all valid choices.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i think that, for me, i want to be totally and completely aware during my birth on the multiple levels of my being--the physical aspects obviously, but also that 'thinking part of the brain' and that 'feeling/being' part of it--as they are not separate parts to me, but integrated parts.

i also feel that having someone there would make me 'think more and be less.' by that i mean i would be watching that other person like a hawk going--is she thinking i should transfer? does she want me in this position because it's easier for her to see what is what? is she going to try and pull on the cord to get the placenta out? etc etc etc. So, i would not be focusing on my birth, but on what the midwife is or isn't doing.

whereas, on my own, all i have to focus on is myself and going into that deep, intuitive, spiritual, primordial space where i engage with my baby in the process of birth.

i know that there are risks--there are risks inherent. but, i can learn about those risks, learn to deal with them appropriately, and learn how to mitigate them as well. I don't need someone else to do that for me--but i can udnerstand why someone else would and i support that in their circumstances.

but this is what is right for me. this is what i'm working toward.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

So when I say 'less than optimal outcomes' that people rush to say 'they could have happend in the hospital' two examples come to mind. One is a footling breech, the other an urecognised cord prolapse. These are real-life examples, btw. So, in both cases the mother's were well prepared, knowledgable, etc. But in both cases the baby died. The immediate response is 'well, it could have happend in the hospital too' or 'it could have happend with a midwife at home'. Could have, yes. But my question is how much more risk is there in not having a trained attendant. Stay with me here. My point being that I do believe that some births ARE riskier and need someone with more training to recognise, intervene. I'd really like to see an analysis of what the increase in risk there is to having no attendant.


----------



## Defenestrator (Oct 10, 2002)

I have been thinking a lot about UC and how I might intersect with it as a midwife. So far, I am totally comfortable providing prenatal care to families planning a UC, either spot care or on a full schedule, and totally comfortable sitting and knitting in another room during a labor with a family that wants that privacy but also a safety net.

Except . . .

when I think of the birth as high risk, a la twins, non-frank breech, etc. I haven't quite swept out the cobwebs enough in my own psyche to determine why it is that I am willing to let go of control and trust the process with a low-risk birth (as determined by me and my own experience) and not with a higher-risk one. I think that back there is the idea that those births go better with an attendant, even though I am not sure that they really do.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2seven*
So when I say 'less than optimal outcomes' that people rush to say 'they could have happend in the hospital' two examples come to mind. One is a footling breech, the other an urecognised cord prolapse. These are real-life examples, btw. So, in both cases the mother's were well prepared, knowledgable, etc. But in both cases the baby died. The immediate response is 'well, it could have happend in the hospital too' or 'it could have happend with a midwife at home'. Could have, yes. But my question is how much more risk is there in not having a trained attendant. Stay with me here. My point being that I do believe that some births ARE riskier and need someone with more training to recognise, intervene. I'd really like to see an analysis of what the increase in risk there is to having no attendant.

I think you and I are on about the same page, here. One thing that comes to my mind is that all the studies we have that say "home birth is safe, maybe even safer than hospital birth" are based on having a qualified attendant there. And the ones where home birth doesn't come out looking quite so good, like the Washington state study, don't differentiate between planned, attended births, unattended births, and "oops" precipitous births where the baby was born at home on accident. So while there is ample evidence that home birth with a trained midwife is safe and again, maybe even safer than hospital birth for some, there is NO evidence to the same effect about UC. And yet its proponents act as though there is no difference between the two.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *haleyelianasmom*
What do you do in the cases of shoulders getting stuck? Or major bloodloss? Or a baby born not breathing?

To be honest, I don't have fear of these things happening to me in an undisturbed birth. That doesn't mean they won't happen to anyone planning a UC. It means that in each unique individual these things are more or less likely to happen naturally depending on factors specific to their situation, and one of those factors is whether the birth is spontaneous, instinctive, and uninhibited.

I tend to believe SD is a created complication. There is fascinating reading here about causes and techniques to manage SD: http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/...rDystocia.html

Extreme blood loss: I see my risk factors as being virtually nonexistent. I'm healthy, no interventions, third stage not disturbed. Some UCers have lost more blood than they liked and didn't die. They managed it with rest, uterine massage (_after_ the placenta is out,) herbs, ingestion of placenta.

Baby not breathing: Know that the transition to breathing isn't usually immediate, and also what the variation of normal is for a just-born baby. If there's trouble, infant CPR.

Going to the hospital is always an option.

Quote:

How much can you trust nature for things to go well?
How much can you trust nature for anything to go well? It depends on nature's goals, and on whether we allow or hinder those goals.

Quote:

Are there any books about UC that are good for people who don't agree with it and aren't too open minded? (for friends or family of people choosing an UC)
Not about UC, no, but I'd suggest Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering (written by a doctor) as an introduction to the benefits of undisturbed birth.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog*
So while there is ample evidence that home birth with a trained midwife is safe and again, maybe even safer than hospital birth for some, there is NO evidence to the same effect about UC. And yet its proponents act as though there is no difference between the two.

I beg your pardon. I know very well what the difference is. As requested in the OP, please leave insulting generalizations out of this thread.

Quote:

And the ones where home birth doesn't come out looking quite so good, like the Washington state study, don't differentiate between planned, attended births, unattended births, and "oops" precipitous births where the baby was born at home on accident.
They also don't differentiate between the various motivations behind choosing unattended birth.


----------



## sarahmck (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm only about half way through reading this thread, but I thought I'd pose my question anyway (before my baby wakes up and I have to go to bed for the night) since it's unlikely to have been asked already.

I have one baby. She was born at home with a midwife and doula in the US. I feel like it went well, and am very proud of myself for sticking to it since I had a huge amount of pressure on me to induce her early in the hospital (but that's another story). Now we live in the Netherlands, the #1 home birth country in the western world (as far as I'm aware), so you'd think that I'd be in a great situation for my next birth. However, my concern is that home birth is so normal here that being a midwife is just another job. In the US, I feel like a homebirth midwife has to be super dedicated to home birth, and has to be a bit of an activist. So I felt very confident that I would not be advised to transfer unless I really needed to, and I felt confident that I could generally trust that unexpected situations would be dealt with in the most natural way possible, even if there wasn't a lot of time to discuss options.

Since we've moved here, I've heard nothing but not-so-great birth stories. I've heard that all the midwife practices are groups, so that you don't know which midwife you'll get, and if your labor is long, there will be a shift change. I've heard that episiotomies are very common. I've heard that breaking the amniotic sac of all overdue babies is standard (to check for meconium and transfer to the hospital if any is found). I'm really wondering whether I'm going to be able to find a midwife who is really passionate about home birth, as opposed to on who hasn't thought a heck of a lot more about it than obstetrical doctors and nurses have thought about why they support hospital birth.

I'm not pregnant now, and don't intend to be for at least several more months. I have a niggling little thought in the back of my mind that I could get around the midwife problem by just doing it myself. But I know that I felt like I really needed my doula and, to a lesser extent, my midwife during my daughter's birth. The next time around I'll still have the same largely-useless husband, and now I'll have a toddler too! So I'm not sure if it's a good choice for me. But I really don't want some apathetic, unthinking, clock-watching midwife there, especially after having had a very nice home birth experience in the States.

I really want my birth experiences to get better and better, not worse. I tried hard to make my first one as good as possible because I hate the idea of not knowing much when you're first a parent and making all your mistakes on the first and then being all sad about how your first one got short-changed. But now I don't want my next one to get a worse birth because it would be doubly bad to experience something bad when you've already had a good one and know what that's like.

Okay, I'm rambling. If you can find a question in there and feel like answering it, I'll be thankful.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
They also don't differentiate between the various motivations behind choosing unattended birth.









:

I see a conscious decision to have a planned UC as very different than a genuine oops, whether it is b/c you didn't get to the hospital fast enough or the midwife didn't arrive in time or b/c you were in denial about pregnancy, on drugs, etc. That is not to say that those situations necessarily will have bad outcomes, but if you end up with a UC when you don't want to have one, it would seem likely that you will be panicked, upset, etc. And that would likely have a negative effect on the process.

Similarly, when someone choses to UP for philosophical reasons and either is very intuitive and pays close attention to their body's messages or else does more traditional care on their own (heart monitoring, urine testing, etc.) also while making an effort to get superior nutrition, avoid dangerous substances, etc. that it is not comparable to someone who doesn't have any sort of prenatal care due to financial reasons, drug addiction, mental illness, etc.

Also, although many UCers say that you don't _have_ to read books or study to prepare, it seems that pretty much all do. Although they may not have the same level of experience in witnessing births, many have as much technical knowledge as a typical midwife in terms of how to deal with most complications/variations on normal.

I would think a planned UC by a thoughtful educated mother would be much closer (in statistical outcome) to a midwife attended birth than it would be to a drug addict who births their baby in a back alley. (Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I assume it would have been an example of an out-of-hospital birth included in the study)
While there is no studied evidence that unattended births have as good (or better)outcomes as HB w/ MW, there is no evidence that they don't. It's just not something that has been studied.
And although they are not really acceptable according to the scientific rules of statistical sampling, the info at unhinderedliving seems to the best actual stats on planned UC we have at this point, and it is very positive.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sarahmck*
I have a niggling little thought in the back of my mind that I could get around the midwife problem by just doing it myself. But I know that I felt like I really needed my doula and, to a lesser extent, my midwife during my daughter's birth.

You _could_ do it yourself. But that still doesn't mean it's the best choice for you, right? And that's your problem, obviously. Well, I know that Midwifery Today has conferences in the Netherlands and they're pretty progressive, so maybe if you contacted them they would be helpful in pointing you in the right direction? There are radicals everywhere, and I would not yet lose hope if I were you. Maybe also PM Pamamidwife, I don't know how closely she's following this thread, and she might have some suggestions.

Quote:

The next time around I'll still have the same largely-useless husband, and now I'll have a toddler too!
The difference in my husband between my first and fourth births was just incredible. What I remember of him during my first labor was not terrible, but it wasn't impressive either. He had no idea what to do for me and pretty much just sat there looking helpless and scared. With my last labor he was a rock. He was calm and passionate and nurturing. I think part of it was just getting used to what normal birth looks like. But it was also that he felt unsure of himself in a setting that was dominated by other women, and felt very inhibited and powerless (much like I felt, actually.)


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

This is a great thread--got me thinking about how my homebirth went and what, if anything, I would like to do different with the next baby. It also made me think about how I could birth with fewer "interventions", although really there were very few in my birth.

I had a mostly unattended homebirth--my labor went much faster than I expected and I was in second stage labor when DH and the midwife arrived. I actually liked being alone for most of labor--nobody was there to try to get me to eat or drink (which DH would have done), or to tell me not to do housework, or whatever. But it was scary toward the end when I knew the baby was ready to come now and there was no one there. Even though I knew (and told myself) that if the baby came when I was alone it would be just fine, I was still scared. Whether I would have felt differently if DH had been there with me, but not the midwife, I don't know. Once they arrived there was a little more "intervention", although not a whole lot. I went on my knees to push (that's what felt natural). The midwife checked me and said the baby's head was right there (yeah, I knew that)--it didn't bother me and I couldn't feel the check, but I'm glad that was the only one there was--I was planning to refuse checks before I felt ready to push anyway. She did perineum support during pushes, from behind, but I wasn't really aware of it other than knowing she was doing it. She did also listen to the heartbeat once, after my water broke, which I was okay with, also. After the birth she was mostly concerned with making sure the baby stayed warm and with helping us get started nursing. There was never a second midwife/assistant there as it happened so quickly. I absolutely loved my midwife, and she was very hands off overall during pregnancy and birth--unfortunately we've moved so I'll have to find a different one for my next birth.

I think for my next birth (ideally) I will have DH there the whole time, but I may be in a different room, or even send him out for a while, since things went well and I liked being alone for most of labor (although I also want the reassurance next time of having someone else there for support if I want them). I will probably wait (although not quite so long!) to call for the midwife since I don't want dilation checks or much fetal monitoring, anyway. I think I would prefer either to not have a second midwife/assistant present, or for them to be in a different part of the house and not be at the birth unless there is a complication. I might think about having the midwife be more off in a corner during the birth, too, although the perineum support seems like a good idea and that's not something I want to do myself (and I don't think DH would feel comfortable doing it, either). I think I will have the midwife back off a little more after the birth, also, since now I know what to expect and what needs to be done afterward. (Does it sound like I'm starting to lean a little toward an unassisted-but-attended birth?







)

I personally don't feel comfortable with UC. I feel more comfortable having an attendant at least present, and I don't think I could live with myself if something did happen with a (planned) UC, whereas I think I could live with myself if something happened with a homebirth. But if I were in a situation where I couldn't find a midwife I was comfortable with, or one wasn't an option, I would seriously seriously consider UC before going to a hospital.

Thanks for giving me a chance to process my homebirth and prepare for the next one


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rico'sAlice*
And although they are not really acceptable according to the scientific rules of statistical sampling, the info at unhinderedliving seems to the best actual stats on planned UC we have at this point, and it is very positive.

Ours here are limited (only tracking live births and transfers at this point) but we have a bit larger group (of close to 200.) Our transfer rate is 7% (higher than hers) and c-section rate is about 1.5%. There may be a bit of cross-over, with about 35 of our births happening before her study ended. She also didn't have any deaths, and we have one reported.


----------



## haleyelianasmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
I'd suggest Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering (written by a doctor) as an introduction to the benefits of undisturbed birth.

who is it by? I can't find it on Amazon (or at our library!)


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *haleyelianasmom*
who is it by? I can't find it on Amazon (or at our library!)

Sorry! Sarah J. Buckley, MD

http://sarahjbuckley.com/html/gentle...-mothering.htm


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

mom2seven wrote>>>"Personally, esp. after having a homebirth that turned UC, I know that for me, I don't want to be in that headspace during the birth. I want to turn the 'thinking' part of my brain off and let my midwife deal with any issues that might arise."

so what is your UC story?
It is not just you but I think most people do not want to be tooling the finer points and going into labor land at the same time. Odent talks about this and is even careful during pregnancy/prenatals to recommend less clinical care and more community like sing-a-long because too much clinical focus ends up equaling too much stress-
not disturbing birth is nearly a lost skill in our society- and there are new things in the mix all the time- like a generation of moms who as infants were in daycare- so does institution=home and safety to these women on a deeper unconcious level?

people talk about brainwashing but women are who they are when they come to birth "brainwashed" or not- the alternative birth movement is rife with thinking that we have to know every tiny detail about birth this is it's own culture and you know what even if you are completely ignorant a baby will come out so we are guilty of our own biases but more than education what I want to is integration in care around birth


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

My hb turned UC story is merely this - had a 50 minute labor, mw lives 1 hr. away. Doula was freaking out, cord around neck, sticky shoulders and I was in the bathtub. I had to basically talk dh and the doula through what we were going to do, but I did need assistance moving and squating, as well as dealing with the CAN.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2seven*
My hb turned UC story is merely this - had a 50 minute labor, mw lives 1 hr. away. Doula was freaking out, cord around neck, sticky shoulders and I was in the bathtub. I had to basically talk dh and the doula through what we were going to do, but I did need assistance moving and squating, as well as dealing with the CAN.

whew a 50 min labor alone is alot to integrate-- our #2 was born in 1 hr - half of that was spent in the car...
I have one friend who had 3 labors this fast...
I also find it hard to be the most organized and calmest head when it is happening to me- it is absolutely just not fair-I don't like the division.

so what did you do? how did you manage it? how long was the baby stuck?


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mwherbs*
whew a 50 min labor alone is alot to integrate-- our #2 was born in 1 hr - half of that was spent in the car...
I have one friend who had 3 labors this fast...

Yeah, tell me about it. I've had 4 that were under 1 1/2 hour.

Quote:

I also find it hard to be the most organized and calmest head when it is happening to me- it is absolutely just not fair-I don't like the division.

so what did you do? how did you manage it? how long was the baby stuck?
I don't know how long the baby was stuck - it seemed a long time. Enough time for the bathtub to drain. The doula was trying to get me out of the water and I said, 'if you are really worried about it, let the water out'. It was totally unnecessary, but whatever. Anywho, yelled for dh to come help, he came in and helped me get one leg up and out she came. Her head was PURPLE for a day or so after, but she pinked up right away and was fine. I'm really glad she didn't need more extensive manouvers to get her out though.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prettypixels*
Well, first of all, I'd guess that the majority of women planning homebirths attended by a midwife do trust their bodies to give birth, or they'd go straight to the hospital. I surely do trust my BODY to give birth. I am not so sure however, of trusting my own HEAD while I am giving birth. It's not easy to overcome a lifetime of being told it is going to be horrible, it is going to be painful, you're going to need drugs, you're stupid to deny yourself drugs, etc. Not to mention the worries that most birthing moms have about the things that can (and do, sometimes) go wrong. That is all head stuff.

I did not hire a midwife to "fix" my body or "deliver me" from labor. I hired her to support me emotionally through the labor, to help me in the event of something I couldn't handle on my own, and to be there for me in the event that something goes wrong and I need a hospital transfer. I can tell you unabashedly that in the event I do need to go to a hospital, I'd 100 times prefer being there WITH MY MIDWIFE as my advocate... so my husband can focus on me and our baby, and I can focus on doing what I need to do instead of fighting all those silly battles that come with being in a hospital.

Does that seem like not trusting my body? I guess it might to someone who believes with every fiber of their being that their birth will go 100% perfectly. My best friend had two preemies and I have had so many friends have soooooo many problems... I could debate with you at length about whether or not medicine helped or hindered some of those problems... but for me, I want my bases covered. I want someone who knows what they are doing there with me to help my BRAIN through this process. My brain is always the trouble, darnit.

I'm all for women being given every option in the world to choose the birth that is perfect for THEM. But I would not presume to determine what is perfect for someone else, and I wouldn't assume that someone else is uneducated about their body or untrusting of their body because their choice is different from yours.

Agreed, that the majority of women would survive... after all, humanity is HERE after all these millions of years epidural-less. But frankly I'd prefer to do more than survive... I'd prefer to feel safe, secure, and relaxed through my birth. And if a midwife that I trust will enable me to do that, or if being in the hospital would enable me to do that, or if being home alone would enable me to do that, those are all valid choices.


As I said before, the most important thing is that the mother feel comfortable and safe. I'm not encouraging everyone in the world to birth a certain way. In fact, the post you're responding to merely advocates that women should not feel obligated or unable to birth any other way than society teaches.

You said,
"Does that seem like not trusting my body? I guess it might to someone who believes with every fiber of their being that their birth will go 100% perfectly. My best friend had two preemies and I have had so many friends have soooooo many problems... I could debate with you at length about whether or not medicine helped or hindered some of those problems... but for me, I want my bases covered. I want someone who knows what they are doing there with me to help my BRAIN through this process. My brain is always the trouble, darnit. "

You don't know me or know how I feel or what I think. I don't believe that every birth will go 100% perfectly. However, I believe in the power of thought, affirmation, suggestion and prayer to ease stress and help make delivery more smooth. Are there women who have sick babies, preemie babies, still born babies, etc. and no one is to blame? Absolutely. I never hinted that this was not the case.

While many babies do struggle, have emergencies during birth and die, the vast majority of babies born to healthy women live and are born healthy and fully developed. While I am aware of the possible troubles that potentially could arise, I am much more focused on the probability that I will have a normal, healthy birth and a baby.

Like you, I'd also prefer to feel safe, secure, and relaxed through my birth. That is precisely why I choose to view birth as a normal, spiritual, personal part of the human life cycle. It is not a medical crisis, a critical emergency, and illness or a disablitiy. By understanding what birth really is and how it was designed to be, I become more safe, secure, and relaxed.

I don't know why you seem to be aiming hosility at me. I have tried to be polite and understanding in this thread. I don't presume to tell other women what birth they should have, nor do I assume that women are uneducated or untrusting if they choose a different method. However I DO assume that a woman who says, "I would be unable to survive birth without medication" or "I could not birth outside of a hospital" must be uneducated on alternate birthing methods and must not understand how the power of the female body. If they did, they would not make statements citing their body's inability to do its job.

If a woman weighs the evidence, studies the different options available to her for birth and chooses to have a medical birth, that is her choice and I have NEVER put anyone down for making that choice. The comment I made displayed my sorrow that many women don't even know that there are options available and have been brainwashed into believing their bodies are incapable or untrustworthy of giving birth uncontrolled.

Again, I don't know why you are directing your hostility towards me, as I have not made ungly or judgmental comments towards you. I'm sorry you choose to view me as a bigot or self-righteous, or whatever you think.

Kristi


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:

But frankly I'd prefer to do more than survive... I'd prefer to feel safe, secure, and relaxed through my birth. And if a midwife that I trust will enable me to do that, or if being in the hospital would enable me to do that, or if being home alone would enable me to do that, those are all valid choices.
I feel the same, sort of. I'd prefer to do more than survive...I'd prefer to feel safe, secure, and relaxed through my birth, which means being at home, with no midwife there to possibly hinder the birth. You are right, they are all valid choices. No one said they weren't. I don't think anyone here is trying to judge whether your choices are right or wrong.

Quote:

when I think of the birth as high risk, a la twins, non-frank breech, etc. I haven't quite swept out the cobwebs enough in my own psyche to determine why it is that I am willing to let go of control and trust the process with a low-risk birth (as determined by me and my own experience) and not with a higher-risk one. I think that back there is the idea that those births go better with an attendant, even though I am not sure that they really do.
Yes, it is very difficult to let go of control and trust the process when there are what seems to be higher risks. Often, it became easier for me to let go when I learned more about what it was I was worried about. The higher risks you mention aren't really more risk in my mind, just another variation. It is unfortunate that there aren't any "real" studies on UC, as then we may be able to see what the "dangers" are in comparison with hospital births, homebirths w/midwife, oops UCs, and planned, thought-out UCs.

Quote:

I tried hard to make my first one as good as possible because I hate the idea of not knowing much when you're first a parent and making all your mistakes on the first and then being all sad about how your first one got short-changed. But now I don't want my next one to get a worse birth because it would be doubly bad to experience something bad when you've already had a good one and know what that's like.
I totally agree! I wanted so badly to birth my first child in the most gentle way possible, because I didn't want to start out with a bad taste in my mouth about birth. I didn't want to have to have a not-so-great experience be my reason for trying to have a better birth next time. I want each of my births to be as positive as they could be. While it was scary going against the grain and deciding to have a UC with my first, it was oh so empowering. Like a huge "AHA!" So there IS a way to bypass this huge negative block am having about giving birth. There is a way to break free from this weight on my shoulders. Once I decided to go the UC route, it was like almost-instant clarity. So THIS is what I've been searching for!

Quote:

The difference in my husband between my first and fourth births was just incredible. What I remember of him during my first labor was not terrible, but it wasn't impressive either. He had no idea what to do for me and pretty much just sat there looking helpless and scared. With my last labor he was a rock. He was calm and passionate and nurturing. I think part of it was just getting used to what normal birth looks like. But it was also that he felt unsure of himself in a setting that was dominated by other women, and felt very inhibited and powerless (much like I felt, actually.)
Thank you for sharing that. It is very encouraging.









Quote:

I feel more comfortable having an attendant at least present, and I don't think I could live with myself if something did happen with a (planned) UC, whereas I think I could live with myself if something happened with a homebirth.
I think this may have something to do with the sharing of the responsibility (?). I am not trying to judge anyone here, and am treading carefully with my words, as this can become a touchy subject. The possibilty of a death is a valid concern in ANY birth. It seems to get a little tricky when it comes to UC, because the issue of the parents soley carrying the responsibilty of the birth can be a bit scary to some when the thought of a death crosses the mind. It has definitely crossed my mind before. Obviously, it would all depend on circumstances and the mother's intuition about when to get help if she thought she needed it. I have read of some UCers who have had the intuition that something was majorly wrong but at the same time, that intuition told them that they were better off staying at home. That nothing more could be done by getting "help", that their babies would become subjects of test/analysis/etc and they would much rather spend that extremely sensitive grieving period in peace where they feel safe and loved. That is just the way some people feel. Others have intuitive messages that they are best off going straight to the hospital, NOW, and there is usually a reason in the end. I truly believe in going with your intuition, but it can be very difficult to really tune in to it, especially in distracting situations. Personally, I would be able to live with myself if we had to endure a death at home. Sure, there may be scrutiny from others like "WHY didn't they just go to the hospital??" but they have absolutely no right to judge a situation that they were no part of and have no understanding of, including what the parents' values, beliefs, and intentions may be. We are all human, and we all have different beliefs about life and death. There is a wide comfort range for all, and we just have to support each other in any situation like that.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024*
I think this may have something to do with the sharing of the responsibility (?). I am not trying to judge anyone here, and am treading carefully with my words, as this can become a touchy subject. The possibilty of a death is a valid concern in ANY birth. It seems to get a little tricky when it comes to UC, because the issue of the parents soley carrying the responsibilty of the birth can be a bit scary to some when the thought of a death crosses the mind. It has definitely crossed my mind before. Obviously, it would all depend on circumstances and the mother's intuition about when to get help if she thought she needed it. I have read of some UCers who have had the intuition that something was majorly wrong but at the same time, that intuition told them that they were better off staying at home. That nothing more could be done by getting "help", that their babies would become subjects of test/analysis/etc and they would much rather spend that extremely sensitive grieving period in peace where they feel safe and loved. That is just the way some people feel. Others have intuitive messages that they are best off going straight to the hospital, NOW, and there is usually a reason in the end. I truly believe in going with your intuition, but it can be very difficult to really tune in to it, especially in distracting situations. Personally, I would be able to live with myself if we had to endure a death at home. Sure, there may be scrutiny from others like "WHY didn't they just go to the hospital??" but they have absolutely no right to judge a situation that they were no part of and have no understanding of, including what the parents' values, beliefs, and intentions may be. We are all human, and we all have different beliefs about life and death. There is a wide comfort range for all, and we just have to support each other in any situation like that.

For me it's not about sharing of responsibility (with homebirth vs. UC), it's about feeling more comfortable having someone there who is better trained to recognize and handle complications than I feel I am. I know how to do infant CPR, but if it was necessary, I would really prefer someone there to do it. I'm sure we could handle a cord wrapped around the neck, but again I would prefer someone else to be there for that. Same thing for maternal hemorrhage (sp?).

I personally don't feel fully convinced that UC is as safe as a midwife attended homebirth. I'm not trying to step on any toes with that statement--I know those who UC feel comfortable and confident with it, but I don't, so although I think birthing should be as natural and non-interventionist as possible, I prefer to birth with an attendant present. Just my feelings, though.

I'm sure there would be a tremendous amount of scrutiny and criticism if anything happened to a baby at home, whether it was a UC or a homebirth, although probably even more so with UC. I am fully confident that a homebirth is as safe as a hospital birth, or really much safer in terms of not having complications from unnecessary interventions. I can live with the very slight chance that a baby/mother might need instant emergency care that could only be provided in the hospital--I think the advantages of homebirth far outweigh the risks of that. But I don't feel the same way about the risks of UC vs the benefits of it (as compared to a homebirth).

Again, please don't take offense at this, it is only my personal feelings. That's why there's different choices in birthing--so people with different comfort levels can make the choice they feel most comfortable with


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife*
Perhaps those people who are new to the idea of unattended birth have questions, concerns, responses..perhaps those who are NOT new have some!

I'd like to start a discussion - a sane, rational, dialogue - about birth choices.

I've heard some UC birthers all lumped together as radical extremists that would rather die or have their baby die than go to the hospital. I think this is interesting, because I would venture to say that more UC birthers transport to err on the side of caution than maybe they would had they had an attendant present. Not that transporting is negative - that's not my intention to say, I just wanted to clear up some generalizations and stereotypes about those who choose to birth unattended.

As a midwife, many births I see are "unassisted". My definition of unassisted birth is one that happens under the woman's own power and her direction only. What I see UC birth being is "unattended". So, pardon if I get these crossed sometimes.
-----------snip-------------
Let's get it all out in the open. Let's discuss it. Ask questions. I ask that people are conscious of the UA when we go from here and refrain from name calling, generalizations or attacking.

(And this is NOT in the UC forum because frankly, those people have enough BS to deal with based on their choice and they deserve a haven of support)

I think that although Pam is asking for some pleasant discourse here I do not think it is her intention to quell any and all criticism other wise this discussion could happen just as easily on the UC forum which is set aside as a support group.

when BelgianSheepDog wrote a statement about studies it may not have been in the form of a question but does deserve an answer as she clearly had some questions on the midwifery thread just previous to this thread-

there are some studies done that have to do with some extreme religious populations that would not transfer care- and the numbers are not good from that study but as has been pointed out to me by members of MDC in the past this is not representative of the majority of the UC birthers who are on MDC and maybe that is a self-selecting group that does have lower risks---

the truth is that even on a national level the midwifery study numbers are not big enough to have achieved statistical importance when we are talking about millions of births and we have a group of 5000 or a group of 200 these are just drops in a bucket-- in the midwifery study Johnson and Daviss 1.7/1000 was the neonatal mortality rate for a range of risks from low to high if they were evaluated in medical terms.The reason I point to risk status is that in a low risk population neonatal death rate is 1/1000 in the hospital
( there is a trick to this number that has to do with definition of neonatal and infant mortality. the infant mortality rate has risen because they can keep babies alive during the neonatal period,29 days, so we don't know the true- birth related death rate of infants)
Maternal risks at midwife attended homebirths are much lower than in the hospital, hands down. how these numbers will play out in comparison will take years and years of studies at a rate of 5000 + births/year. I do not know how UC births will ever achieve statistical significance in this realm but to have a group of 200 with a neonatal death could that 1 baby be the one or nearly 2 per thousand ( depending on risk status) or is it going to add up to be 5 in 1000 ?

what other studies are there in support of UC birth ? other evidence?
without being attacking just asking for more information.


----------



## hayley27 (Sep 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kathryn*
What a great thread! I am constantly put down (even on here) for doing UP with triplets and planning a homebirth (even though not UC). It's very frustrating and annoying, but I just keep my head high and know that I am letting my body do what it does best.









Hi Kathryn,

Just wanted to say well done stuff what others think this is your pregnancy and your babies. I suspect I'm pregnant with triplets (7w) and I always uc (not the first tho she came 8wks early...if I'd known I was in labor I would've UC her too.) Trust yourself and keep your head up.









Hayley xx


----------



## hayley27 (Sep 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *haleyelianasmom*
who is it by? I can't find it on Amazon (or at our library!)

I personally know the doc who wrote the book her name is Sarah Buckley and she lives in my city...she is so lovely and she homebirthed her four.

Hayley


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

I'm sure there would be a tremendous amount of scrutiny and criticism if anything happened to a baby at home, whether it was a UC or a homebirth, although probably even more so with UC.
Yes. All of us choosing UC have to come to terms with this.

If my baby died in an assisted birth, _I_ would say, "What if the doctor/midwife hadn't done this or that? What if my body malfunctioned because they were there?" The mother is ultimately responsible for her choice -- and therefore the outcome -- regardless of whether she's allowed others' involvement. Society sees it differently, though, and it's a heavy thing to know that you will be absolved of all blame if you just go along with public opinion of what is the "right" choice, but that you will be crushed with societal judgement otherwise.

You have to really believe in what you're doing. If my baby had died at my midwife-attended homebirth, the judgement that would have come my way would have been devastating. But it was more important to me to make what I felt was the best decision for me and my baby in the moment, than to ensure public approval no matter what, so I went ahead with that midwife-attended birth. I've come to feel the same way about UC. I believe it best for me and my baby, so I can't, in good conscience, make any other choice, even if it means that it makes me terribly vulnerable to condemnation from my community.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mwherbs*
in a low risk population neonatal death rate is 1/1000 in the hospital (there is a trick to this number that has to do with definition of neonatal and infant mortality. the infant mortality rate has risen because they can keep babies alive during the neonatal period, 29 days, so we don't know the true- birth related death rate of infants)

Right. Also, ill infants born in hospitals are pretty much put on life-support no matter what, whereas it would seem that parents who choose homebirth would also be slightly more likely to choose death over taking extreme measures to prolong life with poor prognosis.

Quote:

I do not know how UC births will ever achieve statistical significance in this realm but to have a group of 200 with a neonatal death could that 1 baby be the one or nearly 2 per thousand ( depending on risk status) or is it going to add up to be 5 in 1000?
Right. It's also difficult because many UC births are not reported as UC births, out of fear of involvement of CPS or prosecution.

If you're going to UC, you can't put any weight on statistics, because we just don't have them and probably never will. I think about the homebirth movement beginning 40 years ago, well, they didn't have stats to go on, but they went ahead with it anyway because the philosophy and theory made sense to them. Somebody had to say, "well, this is enough for us to make this choice." We're in a similar situation, except that it's unlikely to ever progress to the point where philosophy and theory _don't_ have to be enough.


----------



## MamaTaraX (Oct 5, 2004)

After about a week, I have finally managed to read this entire thread. And I have nothing to add at the moment. I'm a future UCer, I just hope that my DH is on board with me by then. For now, I'm just gonna grab a brownie and enjoy the tactful conversation of our diverse members









Namaste, Tara


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Hi, everyone







Just popping over to see how things are going. Thanks for keeping it respectful







Please PM me (or report) if you see a post that you're really concerned about rather than replying to the thread.

Carry on, mamas


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

I just made the point elsewhere about how hospital death stats really don't tell the whole picture. They tell you nothing about quality of life. In hospital, you could resusitate a baby that would have died at home - and it will survive with enough of a brainstem to be vegetable. But that is a 'live birth' and not tossed into the death rate.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Do statistics really matter in these cases? Except as ways to convince reluctant support people, I mean.


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Statistics are interesting, and could be beneficial as a whole I guess, but statistics barely had any role in my decision to have a UC.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

IMHO, the issue boils down to one thing........

Women birth most effectively where they feel safest, in the company of people with whom they feel most safe.

I'm so fed up with people meddling in my births and it just frustrates me, that's my modivation for wanting to UC next time. (That is unless I can pay Pam enough money to come down and attend my next birth...







)

I don't believe UC is for everyone just as I don't believe, currently, homebirth is for everyone. The potential is there, though. We're all capable of becoming experts in our births, IMHO.


----------



## babycatcher01 (Nov 28, 2005)

Quote:

I don't believe UC is for everyone just as I don't believe, currently, homebirth is for everyone. The potential is there, though. We're all capable of becoming experts in our births, IMHO.








This is the truth. Woman have to want to do something. You cant be talked into something that you are not ok with. UC and hb are for woman who seek this option. Their ideas about birth change as they edcuate themselves on other options and their bodies. There are a slew of questions that one could ask about the subject. What if something goes wrong, what if the baby dosnt breath? I just say all these things can and do happen more then we like to know about in hopsital with "trained" medical persons, who might I add have a had time focusing when a problem does arise.

I feel we have a job when we are pregnant and birthing. We need to edcuate ourselves on how our bodies do work and what is normal for us. We need to know there the ins and outs of the labor and birth, knowing that when problems come how can we deal with them. Edcuation is always key, the more we know the safer( in theory) we are.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024*
Statistics are interesting, and could be beneficial as a whole I guess, but statistics barely had any role in my decision to have a UC.

Ditto


----------



## prettypixels (Apr 13, 2006)

Quote:

I feel so sad when I hear women say, "I couldn't do it without medication" or "I have to have a midwife" or whatever.
Mama2B, since you asked, this is what you said that got me a little riled. I don't feel hostile towards you, but sending pity out to a woman who chooses to have a midwife is kind of condescending, and doesn't seem to give her credit for making an informed choice. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Anyways my post was not meant to be hostile... just a response and discussion.


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

I dont *think* she was sending pity out to women who choose to have midwives attend their births, I *think* (and correct me if I'm wrong please!) she just meant that the thought that so many women out there are not confident in their body's ability to birth, with or without meds or a midwife or whatever is saddening for her. If women instead said "I know my body is designed to do this, and I have confidence in myself, my body and mother nature, but I'd prefer a midwife to be there because ---insert whatever personal reason here---" it would be a little different, yk?

I also feel sad that as a whole, so many women out there do NOT believe their bodies can birth a baby without someone there to assist them, or provide pain medications. (Not directing this at anyone, I'm generalizing a bit here...)

I think Mama2B's comment was meant in hope that someday women will feel empowered and take control of their births, with or without someone attending.

Let me know if I'm way off here, lol.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024*
I dont *think* she was sending pity out to women who choose to have midwives attend their births, I *think* (and correct me if I'm wrong please!) she just meant that the thought that so many women out there are not confident in their body's ability to birth, with or without meds or a midwife or whatever is saddening for her. If women instead said "I know my body is designed to do this, and I have confidence in myself, my body and mother nature, but I'd prefer a midwife to be there because ---insert whatever personal reason here---" it would be a little different, yk?

I also feel sad that as a whole, so many women out there do NOT believe their bodies can birth a baby without someone there to assist them, or provide pain medications. (Not directing this at anyone, I'm generalizing a bit here...)

I think Mama2B's comment was meant in hope that someday women will feel empowered and take control of their births, with or without someone attending.

Let me know if I'm way off here, lol.

That's what Iw as trying to get across. Like I said, I do not pity or condemn women for choosing to have a med or midwife or birth center birth. Your birth is your decision. I only feel sad that women don't believe their bodies are capable of birthing, or that they are not capable of handing birth.

It wasn't meant to be rude of as an attack on women who make informed choices to birth with attendants or whatever.

I have a friend who believes she *could not physically make it through birth without an epidural.* The thing that saddens me is not that fact that she has epidurals, but the fact that our society leads women to believe that they cannot get through birth wihout assistance.

To me its just like the former belief that women were not physically capable of working outside the home. I personally hope to be a SAHM someday and I think its a wonderful and healthy choice. However, I would feel sad if society still made the choice for us and we accepted it as fact, not knowing we *are* capable of a different (and in some circumstances, better) path should we choose to take it. Does that make more sense?

Kristi


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~*
I have a friend who believes she *could not physically make it through birth without an epidural.* The thing that saddens me is not that fact that she has epidurals, but the fact that our society leads women to believe that they cannot get through birth wihout assistance.
Kristi

This is so true! I know women who made up their minds to have an epidural before even the hint of a contraction. Women have been socially conditioned to believe/accept that they are not capable of birthing their babies without medical intervention. Granted, there are women for whom the pain is unbearable, and I am grateful that there are options available to ease a woman's suffering. However, I believe that much of the pain is due to an irrational fear of childbirth, and that if women were empowered to trust in the strength of her body, there would be a lot less medical intervention. Anyway,that's my two cents.
Great conversation!


----------



## poetesss (Mar 2, 2006)

When I hear UC discussed a lot of times what comes up is the idea of UCing because the woman "trusts her body." It seems like the flip side would be that if you do feel the need for an attendant, you have a lesser sense of trust in your body. As mentioned in a pp:

Quote:

the thought that so many women out there are not confident in their body's ability to birth, with or without meds or a midwife or whatever is saddening for her. If women instead said "I know my body is designed to do this, and I have confidence in myself, my body and mother nature, but I'd prefer a midwife to be there because ---insert whatever personal reason here---" it would be a little different, yk?

I also feel sad that as a whole, so many women out there do NOT believe their bodies can birth a baby without someone there to assist them, or provide pain medications. (Not directing this at anyone, I'm generalizing a bit here...)
Forgetting about the pain medications and just focusing on the desire for an attendant here--I'm not so sure that the reason people who _don't_ chose UC is that they "do not believe their bodies can birth a baby without someone there to assist them." Heck, I know that my baby is going to come and I'm going to birth him whether I'm alone, with dh, with a group of friends/family who are not "medical attendants" OR if there is a midwife in attendance. It's going to happen, I fully trust my body to do it (in fact, part of me is intuiting that I will end up birthing alone because of a fast birth, but we'll see). I guess this is the distinction the pp was describing above--the ones who feel they *can't* do it alone, and those who don't *want* to do it alone.

So for me, the question is, do I *want* to be flying solo during that time? While I agree that pregnancy and birth are not illnesses, they are conditions where, to put it bluntly, sometimes "sh*t happens." If something does happen, I'd just feel more relaxed if I had a helping hand there to deal with it. Otherwise, I just want to be the swimmer who's doing her laps without interference from the lifeguard. So personally, for me it's not an issue of trust or whatever. And that's just for me, not something I'd apply to others. Everyone has their own desires and ideas about birth, and to each her own.









And if you carry the trust metaphor far enough, then why not question the need for prenatal care? A lot of UCers do unassisted pregnancy as well, but a lot also see midwives/OBs. Sometimes I hear some UCers questioning other UCers "trust" in their body simply because they are going to someone else for prenatals. Again, I don't think it's about trust, rather comfort level.

Anyway, end of my soapbox...can other UCers chime in with your thoughts?


----------



## stellimamo (Jan 9, 2006)

Quote:

A lot of UCers do unassisted pregnancy as well, but a lot also see midwives/OBs. Sometimes I hear some UCers questioning other UCers "trust" in their body simply because they are going to someone else for prenatals. Again, I don't think it's about trust, rather comfort level.
I think it's also CYA for alot of UCers because having prenatals w/ MW or OB and than having an "oops" UC looks alot better to CPS, than not having any prenatal records. If you can show that you did have some "medical care" you are less likely to be charged w/ medical neglect by some overzealous CPS worker.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *poetesss*
When I hear UC discussed a lot of times what comes up is the idea of UCing because the woman "trusts her body." It seems like the flip side would be that if you do feel the need for an attendant, you have a lesser sense of trust in your body. As mentioned in a pp:

Forgetting about the pain medications and just focusing on the desire for an attendant here--I'm not so sure that the reason people who _don't_ chose UC is that they "do not believe their bodies can birth a baby without someone there to assist them." Heck, I know that my baby is going to come and I'm going to birth him whether I'm alone, with dh, with a group of friends/family who are not "medical attendants" OR if there is a midwife in attendance. It's going to happen, I fully trust my body to do it (in fact, part of me is intuiting that I will end up birthing alone because of a fast birth, but we'll see). I guess this is the distinction the pp was describing above--the ones who feel they *can't* do it alone, and those who don't *want* to do it alone.

So for me, the question is, do I *want* to be flying solo during that time? While I agree that pregnancy and birth are not illnesses, they are conditions where, to put it bluntly, sometimes "sh*t happens." If something does happen, I'd just feel more relaxed if I had a helping hand there to deal with it. Otherwise, I just want to be the swimmer who's doing her laps without interference from the lifeguard. So personally, for me it's not an issue of trust or whatever. And that's just for me, not something I'd apply to others. Everyone has their own desires and ideas about birth, and to each her own.









This is the way I feel--I have no problem trusting my body to be able to birth without intervention. But I feel more comfortable having a midwife present in case of complications or emergencies that I don't know how to handle or feel comfortable handling.

And besides...it was really nice having another woman around to help me take a shower and that sort of stuff after the birth while DH held the baby (we live several hundred miles from family and didn't have any close friends in the area, so I didn't have any other options as far as birth attendants).


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i think that a lot of women who choose midwives at their homebirths do so not because of fears of complications and what not, but because of what the PP wrote which was about getting diverse support during and after the birth.

this makes sense to me. though, i would prefer to be on my own.


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn*
This is the way I feel--I have no problem trusting my body to be able to birth without intervention. But I feel more comfortable having a midwife present in case of complications or emergencies that I don't know how to handle or feel comfortable handling.

Ditto for me. And part of it for me is also the fact that my body *has* failed me in pregnancy before (the birth itself went fine - very quick vaginal delivery), so while I have trust that my body will spit out a baby, I don't fully have trust that baby or I won't need some sort of assistance after the birth. I am pretty positive we'd be ok (and I'm planning to be mentally prepared to accidental UC, since my first labor was very fast and it's the norm in my family to have fast labors), but I just feel better knowing that a midwife would be near or close to being near IF the baby wasn't breathing or if I started bleeding excessively, etc. I personally am not good in "emergency" situations. I can't think in those situations. I'd make a horrible midwife.







My DH is great in emergency situations, but I don't think he should have to study midwifery to be ready to handle complications. That's what the midwife is for - to handle complications. If I have no complications, then she can sit on her hands or just help me out by massaging or whatever I need.









Part of it for me this time around also is that I really have no clue what to do with a freshly born baby.







So I'd feel more comfortable with another woman there to assist me in figuring out that part of things, since I didn't get to even hold my first baby until he was a day old, and when I did hold him, he was already swaddled and handed to me. It was several more days before I even changed a diaper or tried to pick him up myself. And it was 3 weeks before I got to try breastfeeding. So I'm just a bit nervous about the whole freshly born baby thing. Probably sounds weird, but I'll appreciate having my midwife and her apprentice (who is a friend of mine) there to walk me through that fresh newborn stage, getting nursing going, etc. Honestly, I'm not worried about a midwife being there during labor/birth - it's just that time immediately after the birth that I really want her there.









And when #3 comes along, I might consider planning a UC, and just having a nearby midwife "on call" (probably the one that is currently apprenticing - she'll have her CPM by then, and she lives about 10-15 minutes from me). I don't know. The idea of UC appeals to me and has from my first pregnancy, yet the fresh newborn baby thing still has me too nervous to actually go with a UC. Not to mention the DH subject... I did good to talk him into out-of-hospital birth last time (even though we didn't get to do it). Talking him into UC may or may not be doable, but would probably be more doable after we've done an out-of-hospital birth. He's pro-out-of-hospital birth now, and that's a huge change from the "absolutely not" answer I got when I first brought up the idea 3 years ago.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

this is dropping off the page so though I would bump it up - plenty of readers any more discussion?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

On the silly side, if Pamela's partner gives birth with Pamela as the only one there, does that count as "unattended" or "unassisted"?









1. With partner = unattended
+
2. Who's a midwife = attended
+
3. Who's totally hands off = unassisted
=???


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

It does make me sad though when they just choose it out of desperation because there are no midwives available for whatever reason (cost, regulations, geography, legalities, etc)
I really want a homebirth with a CNM, but there is only one CM nearby (40 miles away) that Tricare Prime will cover -- and I don't even know if she does homebirth or if I will be compatible with her. Our only options are hospital, unassisted, or switching to Tricare Standard and footing part of the bill which we may not be able to afford. (Does anyone know any Colorado midwives or even mamas who have done homebirths themselves that might assist for free?









I love the idea of UC so much, but I have concerns. I tore with #1 and am afraid the same will happen with #2, for example. I'm also concerned about doing my first home birth without a CNM's support. I know I can do it but I think it will be much easier and more pleasant with an experienced helping hand, at least this time around. I wouldn't want a totally unassisted/unattended childbirth... my husband would have to attend and assist, and my son, too







I think it would be nice to have a midwife, too, though, so long as she is hands off.

I'm considering mostly doing [mostly] unassisted pregnancy / prenatal self-care as well, seeing a healh professional only if something seems wrong. I'd probably go in to confirm the pregnancy, get a 20 week ultrasound, and probably have a check-up near my due date as well....and again of course if I was bleeding or incredibly nauseated and wanted some help. I don't think I would like to go TOTALLY unassisted with pregnancy, or with birth, not if I could help it. I would like to be made aware of anything, such as if the baby is in a breech position or if there's some abnormality, so that I can prepare myself.

Jenny, you say your second-degree tear healed naturally on its own. Are you 'altered' down there because of it? Did it take longer to heal than if it had stitches, do you think? This is one of my concerns. If everything can heal on its own, even a retained placenta, then that is a real relief. Do you think that's typical?

When did you all go to the hospital for a postpartum check-up and well-baby visit? I would wnat to make sure everything was okay with me and the baby, just in case, or at least to be made aware of any thing I should watch out for maybe. I was thinking within two days would be good, but sometimes that seems like such a short time and sometimes it seems so long, too!

I was so uneducated and totally unready for a homebirth or UC. While I hate most of the memories of my hospital birth I am incredibly grateful for it at the same time. I could not have made it without the epidural...only because I had nothing to distract, calm, or soothe me. I was clueless about pain management and ways of coping. I was lost.

What would you consider a circumstance where transfer would be required? Are there any circumstances where you would not consider a homebirth at all?

That people see UC as child endangerment worries me as well :/ I mentioned homebirth to my ob/gyn today and she was almost shocked. Just said few people will do those because of the 'risks.' I was like...what risks???? The funny thing about me is that... I like to shock people. I love to expose people to things they aren't familiar with. Most of the time I find their reactions hilarious, though I don't laugh (until later on) but enjoy the chance to educate and expose them to something new. Sometimes people can be REALLY rude and offensive, and that bothers me. Maybe I like the attention or something. I just think shock is kind of funny, especially when it's mostly unfounded. I'm the odd girl out, and I love it (most of the time). It's dealing with things like belligerant docs that I despise. My Memaw said "oh no!" when I told her I wanted a homebirth, and I just laughed and explained...and within moments she was as convinced as I was that this was a great choice! My husband was appalled at first and within just a few days he's a lot more supportive of it. I think he may secretly be looking forward to it.

I'm attracted to UC because I think it is very safe, much safer than a hospital or even just an assisted home birth in some situations. I think it is preferable to other options, in many cases. I see it as a chance to get in touch with myself, with nature, and with my child. Also, I would love to just be able to say "I did that!" I think it would give me so much confidence especially in my parenting. I feel safe and comfortable at home, where I am free and in control, and it seems so pleasant to give birhth there. I think this will bring me in touch with myself and my child and life in general.

I would love more info on pain management techniques, homeopathic remedies, etc...too.

And the poster above me... I think you've got it right with the attended/unattended/etc definitions.


----------



## prettypixels (Apr 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024*
I dont *think* she was sending pity out to women who choose to have midwives attend their births, I *think* (and correct me if I'm wrong please!) she just meant that the thought that so many women out there are not confident in their body's ability to birth, with or without meds or a midwife or whatever is saddening for her. If women instead said "I know my body is designed to do this, and I have confidence in myself, my body and mother nature, but I'd prefer a midwife to be there because ---insert whatever personal reason here---" it would be a little different, yk?

I would like to think that at least here on MDC, we can agree that the women who are *choosing* to have a midwife-attended birth have informed themselves adequately, and just came to a different decision. Being sad over that decision on their behalf, to me, feels condescending. Perhaps that wasn't the intention, but to be honest I've seen a lot of different comments about midwife-attended births by UCers that feel that way to me. One thing which seems consistent to me on the UC boards when I peek is a large amount of disdain for midwives in general, and I have to say my midwife doesn't behave at all like the ones I've seen described. I'm sure there are bad apples in any group, but it sucks to judge the group based on the bad apples!

I just think it's important for all of us to *respect* the choices we are making for ourselves. Whether that is UC, a hospital birth, or a midwife attended birth.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
On the silly side, if Pamela's partner gives birth with Pamela as the only one there, does that count as "unattended" or "unassisted"?

I don't think it was quite either in their case, but theoretically it could be either or both.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024*
Originally Posted by shell024
I dont *think* she was sending pity out to women who choose to have midwives attend their births, I *think* (and correct me if I'm wrong please!) she just meant that the thought that so many women out there are not confident in their body's ability to birth, with or without meds or a midwife or whatever is saddening for her. If women instead said "I know my body is designed to do this, and I have confidence in myself, my body and mother nature, but I'd prefer a midwife to be there because ---insert whatever personal reason here---" it would be a little different, yk?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prettypixels*
I would like to think that at least here on MDC, we can agree that the women who are *choosing* to have a midwife-attended birth have informed themselves adequately, and just came to a different decision. Being sad over that decision on their behalf, to me, feels condescending.



First, she's not talking only about women on MDC, and second, she's _not_ saying that for women to choose a midwife-attended homebirth in itself is sad. She's saying that it's sad for women to have to make the choice based on lack of confidence.

I'll put it another way: it's sad when people can't reap the benefits of what they are capable of because of ignorance or fear, and I'll add, regardless of whether the choice is homebirth or hospital birth or UC. So I am not supposed to feel _anything_ about that? Well, sorry, but apathy is not my thing. I feel badly because I would feel badly if it was true for me. That's called compassion and empathy. And _I'd_ like to think that here at MDC when people say these sorts of things that's where it's coming from. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Whether you feel defensive or not colors how you perceive others' words.

Quote:

One thing which seems consistent to me on the UC boards when I peek is a large amount of disdain for midwives in general, and I have to say my midwife doesn't behave at all like the ones I've seen described. I'm sure there are bad apples in any group, but it sucks to judge the group based on the bad apples!
I've read probably 90% of what's on the UC forum, which I assume is probably more than a peek here and there. I sometimes see anger at _individual_ midwives in the context of working through traumatic birth experiences, but nothing to suggest than anyone other than a few extremists (whose anger and hurt is probably blinding them a bit) are anti-midwifery. To imply that UCers in general are of low enough intelligence and reason to judge all of midwifery by the actions of a few midwives is utterly insulting. And your commentary is ironic considering that you are doing the very same thing you accuse us of doing -- judging the group based on the few "bad" apples.

It seems like I (and many others) are constantly having to make the disclaimer that _we don't hate midwives_ and _didn't choose UC because we hate midwives._ It is really tiresome. If people wouldn't make the assumptions... but okay, I get it, UC is an extreme choice so we must all be nutcases, so therefore we must all believe these crazy things. Listen, I did have a traumatic first birth with a midwife and I have criticized her practices all over MDC, as well as criticizing common practices and myths of midwifery, and I have that pretty UC icon in my siggy too. I guess it would be easy enough to draw the conclusion from that that I am anti-midwife. Think again. I am friends with midwives, have spoken to groups of midwives and midwifery students _because_ I believe in midwifery and want to see it improve, and I had an empowering healing birth with a midwife.

This is supposed to be an informational thread, not a "this is what is wrong with UCers thread". The "Us Versus Them" mentality is just really not constructive. Try to see us as real people with brains and real concerns, many of which are similar to those who choose homebirth, just taken another step farther. It may not be a step that some may be comfortable making or have the need to make, but it's on the same path, and some of the issues that compel women to make this choice are relevant to all women no matter with whom or where they give birth.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

yeah, my partner's birth was not the hands-off birth you'd expect it to be. she asked me to check her, she asked me to break her water. if I hadn't been a midwife, she wouldn't have asked these things, so it was not unassisted or unattended in any sense of the word. she did catch her own baby, but I was a midwife.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

depends on what you define as hands off many women who UC have partners check them- discussed this with couples before- where she can't reach and wants him/her to check- any time in pregnancy as well as finding out before labor how to do this or later when partners describe what they have felt or found when they have done checks. ROM is a bit different but I have had women tell me they have ruptured the membranes on their own.


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
It seems like I (and many others) are constantly having to make the disclaimer that _we don't hate midwives_ and _didn't choose UC because we hate midwives._ It is really tiresome.
















: I think it's been said many times in this thread that no one is trying to be condescending towards anyone's birth choices. It has been said many times that each woman's individual preferences and choices regarding birth ARE respected and taken into consideration.

In my mind, my visual ideal of birth would be that globally, birth is considered normal, an everyday sacred event in which the woman experiencing it has the free, un-judged choice to give birth in any way she wants, with whomever she'd like to be present. Meddling's and the like would be kept to a serious minimum and medical intervention is reserved for serious emergencies, so as not to get carried away in the technocentric way that it is today.

Now, did that sound condescending? I hope not because it was never meant to.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
I tore with #1 and am afraid the same will happen with #2, for example.

Jenny, you say your second-degree tear healed naturally on its own. Are you 'altered' down there because of it? Did it take longer to heal than if it had stitches, do you think? This is one of my concerns. If everything can heal on its own, even a retained placenta, then that is a real relief. Do you think that's typical?

I healed naturally. I have "minor" alteration, but nothing that is really noticeable. I tore with my first birth (due to my birthing position), so I have nothing to compair it with. It was tender for a few days, and would sting a bit when I used the bathroom, but after that I have had no problems at all. I was surprised with my second birth when I did not sting for a few days (I just thought that was part of having a baby







). I never did tear again other than perhaps a skid mark. I have heard that everything can heal on its own so long as there is no fisure (sp?) and it is kept clean.

Quote:

When did you all go to the hospital for a postpartum check-up and well-baby visit? I would wnat to make sure everything was okay with me and the baby, just in case, or at least to be made aware of any thing I should watch out for maybe. I was thinking within two days would be good, but sometimes that seems like such a short time and sometimes it seems so long, too!
I have never gone to the hospital, ever. I have never gone in for a pp checkup, ever. I have taken my newborn to a pedi, usually within a day or two (at least before the cord drops off) for a well checkup (and I ONLY do this so that I will have the "new baby" record for the birth certificate; and I do this before the cord falls off for the verification of dates).

Quote:

What would you consider a circumstance where transfer would be required?
EXCESSIVE blood loss that could not be stopped.
Me passing out (high b/p).
Excrutiating pain (I am VERY high pain tollerant, and if I could not handle it I would know there was something wrong).
Real "gut" instinct.
A Word straight from God!









Quote:

Are there any circumstances where you would not consider a homebirth at all?
Placenta Priva only. If I was not considering a HB, it would be because I was planning a c/s.

Quote:

I feel safe and comfortable at home, where I am free and in control, and it seems so pleasant to give birth there.
This is one of the main reasons I feel hb is right for me. I also feel UC is right because I can not "perform" with an audience.

Quote:

I would love more info on pain management techniques
For me, I have to just focus on relaxing. Totally and completely when the contraction begins. I have found that working "with" the contraction (relaxing and allowing it to do it's thing) makes things much easier than if you work "against" it by tensing up (which is what I naturally do in pain).

But then again, I am sure I am not a great person to give advice on this. As I stated above, I am VERY high pain tollerant. I have nearly had my toe cut off, never saying a word, and broke my clavical (sp?) playing football with my brothers, and never saw a doctor, or even cried out loud (although I did shed a couple of silent tears), the same when I sprang my ankle. I have also given birth to eight children without so much as a scream, a raised voice, or even vocalizations. I just breath loudly (like "loud" sighs).







That is just me.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Thanks so much. I feel a lot more comfortable about it now. I would be afraid of something happening but the nearest ER is only 10 minutes away so I'm not that worried. My big fear is that the baby will come out with something wrong that I cannot fix and die before he gets professional help if he needs it :/

Can anyone explain to me the procedure for cleaning/filling a birthing pool? What temperature should the water be? what should I clean it with, and when/how often before the birth?

What's the procedure for cord cutting? When should I do it, how should I sterilize the scissors? What about cord unwrapping?

Any tips for infant resuscitation / how long before I should call 911?

What about the placenta? Should I try to push it out right after the baby, or wait a few minutes? Or will it come out on its own or what? The doctor had me deliver it right after the baby came out.

I've got to figure out the specifics, the 'how-to' of birth. Last time I had someone directing me and wasn't really involved very much except for pushing.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I'll pick apart your questions.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
I would be afraid of something happening but the nearest ER is only 10 minutes away so I'm not that worried. My big fear is that the baby will come out with something wrong that I cannot fix and die before he gets professional help if he needs it.

MOST things that can and do go wrong with a birth, that can be prevented or corrected will have time for transport. So being only minutes away from help is really most all you will need. If you were in the hospital, in many instances, they would have to call the DR, and then wait for him anyways, so help from the ER DR would usually result in the same or faster response from a DR. There are always exceptions, though. However, many babies that die "minutes" from birth have problems that would cause survival to be in jepardy anyways.

Quote:

Can anyone explain to me the procedure for cleaning/filling a birthing pool? What temperature should the water be? what should I clean it with, and when/how often before the birth?
Sorry, I have never had a water birth.

Quote:

What's the procedure for cord cutting? When should I do it?
I wait until the cord is white and cold, and there in no blood left in it. It is usually after the delivery of the placenta. I may tie it or clamp it temporarily, but after a day, I trim it real short and remove tie or clamp at that time.

Quote:

How should I sterilize the scissors?
Sometimes I have totally forgotten to sterilize them at all. If there is no blood in the cord to transport the germs to the bood stream, then there is really no reason to fear infection. One of the benefits of delayed cord clamping.

However, I do try and sterilize them, usually with rubbing alcohol. If they are completely metal, you can place them in boiling water for, I think it is, 20 minutes. If you use alcohol, you should completely cover them (like by laying them in a bowl) for about 10 seconds. It is just as effective to pour the alcohol over the blade, but I think it is easier to have them in a dish, that way they are ready when you are ready.

Quote:

What about cord unwrapping?
If the cord is tight around the babies neck, you can just unwrap it once the head is out. However, in my cases, I have never really worried about it. The cord is usually plenty long enough and it is also stretchy and strong. So most of the time, you would never have to do anything at all.

IF there is a true case there the cord was around the neck, the baby's head was turning blue and would not come farther out (indicating the cord is too short) you would simply put two clamps (or tie it in two places) on the cord while it is around the babies neck and snip in between. Thus, the cord is realeased from around the neck and baby is no longer in danger. This rarely happens. Like my previous post stated (somewhere on this thread I believe), ALL my babies had their cords wrapped around their necks. Some once, some twice, and one three times. I never had any problmes because of it, and NEVER had to cut the cord before the birth for it.

As for a "knot" in the cord. (Although you did not ask, but many do) The cord is so slippery and squishy that knots don't generally cause any problmes at all. In the rare event that there is a knot in the cord, there is really nothing you can do about it, and there is nothing that any Dr could do about it. You can't tell there is a knot until after the birth, or at least until the cord can be seen. By that time the baby is completely usually out or almost out. And again, knots in the cord are rare, and a knot in the cord that causes a problem is rare in group that does have them. So there is no need to concern about that.

Quote:

Any tips for infant resuscitation?
I took infant/chil CPR. I believe any parent would benefit from it, especially if they are doing a UC.

The first thing to remember is that as long as the cord is pulsing (and still attached to baby) there is no need for them to breathe. Baby is getting oxygen from the placenta.

If a baby is not breathing or not breathing well after a birth, body stimulization usually works, all by it self. This is why the nurses are so "rough" with babies, rubbing them so hard. It stimulates circulation.

It would also be wise to succion out Baby's nose and mouth, in the event of breathing problems. A succion bulb, machine, or just your mouth on theirs would work.

If a baby is still not breathing, infant cpr can be performed. Most of the time, IF there is no birth defect creating the problem, it will not come to this. However if it does, you just have to do what you have to do. That is why you train for it. Take classes. Don't worry about doing it "perfectly". Most of the time, if it comes down to cpr, once the baby takes a breath, they pink right up and are perfectly fine.

Quote:

How long before I should call 911?
FOR ME, if my baby "pinked" up after whatever I did, I would not call 911. People always say, "sure you say that, but when it happens to you..." So I must qualify my statement with, "It DID happen to me".

My first born was born and did not breathe for 8 minutes. We gave her cpr for that time. Then she took her first breath, and pinked right up. Took her for a "check up" later that day, and they pronouned her perfectly healthy.

How long would I have waited to call 911, I don't know. I do know that she ALWAYS had a heart beat, just did not breath. If there were no heart beat, then that could indicate additional problems, and I would probably have called. (By the way, she is a perfectly healthy, sometimes frusterating, 16 year old now.







)

Quote:

What about the placenta? Should I try to push it out right after the baby, or wait a few minutes? Or will it come out on its own or what? The doctor had me deliver it right after the baby came out.
The placenta will come out on its own. You don't have to "decide" to push it out. After the birth of the baby, there is usually a lag in the contractions for a few minutes, at times it can be up to an hour or more. But at some point, they will begin again. Not the same intensity of before, but you will know them. And when you have one you may gently push (if you choose) or you may let your body do it on it's own. With my births, I delivered all my placentas within 15 minutes of the birth, and usually about 5 minutes after.

My experience goes something like this...
Baby emerges. Beautiful and "slimey". I take baby to my chest to hold, cuddle, and examine. Cord is left in tact. As I sit there enjoying my new baby, I feel the need to "pass off the baby". As I hand the baby over to whom ever, I feel a contraction begin, and after one or maybe two the placenta emerges. Then I am done and feel like showering.









Quote:

I've got to figure out the specifics, the 'how-to' of birth. Last time I had someone directing me and wasn't really involved very much except for pushing.
I have found that in the absense of someone else "directing" you on what to do, you will naturally just do what feels right. And it usually is. The only complication to this natural instinct is fear. Rid yourself of fear but prepairing yourself mentally. Educating yourself. Or simply by praying or thinking positively. Once you let go of the fear, natural instince usually just takes over.

Hope I have helped some. I love my HBs and UCs. I can not imagine doing it any other way.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Thanks! That is even more reassuring. I'm running out of questions here! Which is a good thing, lol. I'm still worried about something going wrong but not so afraid that something is going to go wrong that would have been taken care of better in the hospital. I'm going to have to tell my husband all this to reassure him and my family.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

I am planning a MW assited HB but want to be prepared for an accidental UC.

Quote:

If the cord is tight around the babies neck, you can just unwrap it once the head is out. However, in my cases, I have never really worried about it. The cord is usually plenty long enough and it is also stretchy and strong. So most of the time, you would never have to do anything at all.
I had my last ds in the hospital and he had a very tight double nuchal cord. The OB said it was too tight and she had to cut it off before I finished pushing him out. He was limp and not breathing. His head was very blue compared to his body and he had to be resuscitated. My cord was not short so that was not the issue. I was told the issue was because the double nuchal cord was so tight. It may be worth noting that when my water broke during pushing there was heavy mec staining. I was 2 weeks past EDD and had been pushing for a good while, he was 9 and half lbs with a 15 inch head.

What would you do in that situation? Would you not have cut the cord off before fully birthing him?

A few months after having him I really got into processing the birth and even posted asking if others thought it was really necessary for his cord to be cut off like that. Every single response was a yes including more than one UCer. If you know something they didn't I would love to hear it because this is one point of contention with my hubby and I on the point of even having an HB this time.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i think the difficulty is whether or not there is true knot, how tight that knot is, and then whether or not there is blood flow through the cord. if there is blood flow, then there is also oxygen flow.

i would have birthed him more, removed the cord from his neck and tried to open the knot a bit (unless it was open enough), and continued with birth and then started infant CPR to get him breathing (if necessary).

the reason is that the cord--unless compressed completely by the knot--is providing oxygen, hormones, and nutrients through the placenta during (and after) the birth. by cutting the cord early, she cut off his oxygen supply through his cord before he was ready to breathe (which happens after birth)--which likely caused him to be 'more blue.'

unless the cord was compressed during birth--decreasing or stopping the flow of blood through the cord--the baby was getting enough oxygen to survive outside of the womb without breathing until the placenta detaches.

and if the baby isn't breathing on his/her own in the first few minutes, with the placenta still attached to mom, you're in good shape to start the breathing, typically back massage or infant CPR.

and here's a resource: http://gentlebirth.org/archives/nuchlcrd.html


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

there was no knot in the cord. I was told by the OB who caught him, that it would have been dangerous to push him further out without cutting the cord because it was so tight and would have become tighter the further out he came. Is that hooey?

Yes it is a shame that the ones who need delayed cord clamping the most can't get it. That was a part of my birth plan that didn't happen and I was dissapointed about that. I sought education to see if it could have been avoided and I have not found one source who says it should not have been cut off.

Quote:

unless the cord was compressed during birth--decreasing or stopping the flow of blood through the cord--the baby was getting enough oxygen to survive outside of the womb without breathing until the placenta detaches
yes the compressing during birth must have been happening because of his condition when he immediately emerged from my body. I did not have any fetal monitoring during pushing. I only had a hand held doppler briefly hours earlier. I'm thankful for that because had I had the monitoring surely they would have wisked me off for a c-section when the compressing was happening and it wouldn't have been necessary because ds was fine after being resuscitated.

early cord cutting would not cause the baby to be blue that fast.


----------



## prettypixels (Apr 13, 2006)

Quote:

First, she's not talking only about women on MDC, and second, she's not saying that for women to choose a midwife-attended homebirth in itself is sad. She's saying that it's sad for women to have to make the choice based on lack of confidence.
Ah, well, there is my mistake... I thought we were talking about the MDC community as this is a discussion amongst MDC members.

Quote:

It seems like I (and many others) are constantly having to make the disclaimer that we don't hate midwives and didn't choose UC because we hate midwives. It is really tiresome.
I'm sorry you feel that way. For the record I would never come on the UC board and comment one way or the other about the community there's opinions about midwives, because it is your community. I did share my feelings here in direct response to something which I felt/feel was disparaging of midwives (sadness over a woman choosing one) and because it is on a board which is not exclusive to UCers.

Anyways while I certainly meant no offense to you or any other UCer, I felt I needed to explain my position and why I was offended by that statement.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

oh and I meant to talk about that link. I have looked at that before and it further supported the need for my ds's cord to be cut which is why I do worry about a UC because I worry about being able to do it myself safely. Such situation is rare but since it has already possibly happened to me once it is something that is real to me. I think I know why it happened though. I found out ds was breech and started Webster at 38 weeks and my ds flipped head down after the first visit. He went head up again within a day or two and I continued Webster and he went head down again. Maybe just coincidence, but I don't think so


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

I was told by the OB who caught him, that it would have been dangerous to push him further out without cutting the cord because it was so tight and would have become tighter the further out he came. Is that hooey?
Imagine the mechanics of it: the baby's head stays close to the perineum, and the rest of the body somersaults out. What exactly is causing a tightening of the cord, then?

I have more thoughts about your situation, but I'm being very slow about formulating them, and I have to go right now, so that'll have to wait!


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
I had my last ds in the hospital and he had a very tight double nuchal cord. The OB said it was too tight and she had to cut it off before I finished pushing him out. He was limp and not breathing. His head was very blue compared to his body and he had to be resuscitated. My cord was not short so that was not the issue. I was told the issue was because the double nuchal cord was so tight. It may be worth noting that when my water broke during pushing there was heavy mec staining. I was 2 weeks past EDD and had been pushing for a good while, he was 9 and half lbs with a 15 inch head.

What would you do in that situation? Would you not have cut the cord off before fully birthing him?

A few months after having him I really got into processing the birth and even posted asking if others thought it was really necessary for his cord to be cut off like that. Every single response was a yes including more than one UCer. If you know something they didn't I would love to hear it because this is one point of contention with my hubby and I on the point of even having an HB this time.

First off, IF there is a real need, I would simply put two clamps on the cord and cut between them, just as the OB did.

HOWEVER, "My cord was not short so that was not the issue", tells me that it may not have been necessary. If the cord is just tight, but plenty long enough, it should be just a matter of loosening it and slipping it over the head.

As PP stated, if there was pulsing in the cord, then the baby was getting blood and oxygen. If the short amount of time that it would take from baby's head emerging to body emerging, I, personally, would have just let it happen naturally. Unless there was a large amount of time, or unless the cord was real taunt with no pulsing, I would not worry. By leaving the cord in tact, if pulsing, the baby is better off.

But again, if it were necessary to actually cut the cord, it is simply done. But OBs are, in general, "cut cord" happy. They want that cut ASAP and will do just about anything to get it done. I have seen so many births that the OBs, and at times even the MWs, cut the cord before the baby totally emerges, no matter what. The sooner they cut the cord, the faster they can wisk away the baby after the birth. It is a very rare circumstance where NOT cutting the cord early is dangerous.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

fourlittlebirds - I would love to hear any additonal thoughts you have

kidzaplenty - I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. The cord was so tight that it could not be loosened. Somehow I am not getting that accross it seems.

Quote:

Unless there was a large amount of time, or unless the cord was real taunt with no pulsing, I would not worry
yes it was taking a good deal of time and the cord was very taut. I am not sure about the pulsing. I know there was no blood spatter when she cut it.

Quote:

But again, if it were necessary to actually cut the cord, it is simply done.
huh? Definitely NOT simply done in my eyes. I could barely even reach down there and I could not see what i was doing. Taking scissors to something very tightly wrapped around my unborn baby's neck area is not anything I would describe as simple. I would have to get a mirror and try to somehow get it into a position where I could see which would be extremely difficult given that I could not squat and would need both hands to be able to cut a very tight cord. I have played it over and over again in my head and it scares the crap out of me. If I were to end up with an accidental UC that would most likely be just me, not my husband given his military work schedule.

I don't think the OB was cord cutting happy, but I am not fully convinced what she did was necessary either. She did know that I wanted DCC and she fully respected all of my other birth desires with no contest (and they were all uncommon). She was very hands off up until that point. My doula actually took a picture of her cutting the cord. Can I tell from that if it was still pulsing? What do I look for?


----------



## Shirelle (May 22, 2006)

I'm glad this thread was started, as I had never even heard of UC (unless it was an accident







) until I came to MDC.

From where I stand today, if/when we have another child, I would not be comfortable with UC. My reasons are sad, but the truth is, that I'm afraid of the birth process. After two hospital inductions, my impression of birth is that it's scary, full of complications, and it's a tug-of-war between my wants and what a doctor thinks is "best" for me. I do know with every fiber of my being that I will NEVER have another hospital birth, but even birthing at home with a midwife will be a new, and somewhat fearful experience for me. I don't have the sense that I can handle the amount of pain that I may have, because I've been medicated the other two times. The pain is an unknown part of birth for me.

We hope to have many children, and my hope is that just by having a natural birth at home, maybe I can learn to trust my body again. Perhaps after one successful HB, I could consider UC. I love the idea of it because I really believe that my ideal birth would be quiet, peaceful, and intimate.

Thank you to those of you that shared such an intimate part of yourselves with all of us!


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
kidzaplenty - I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. The cord was so tight that it could not be loosened. Somehow I am not getting that accross it seems.

I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I was not suggesting that your situation could have been different. I was just stating how *I* would have handled the situation given a certain set of circumstances. Not knowing anything about your birth, I would never presume to say what should or should not have been done.

Quote:

yes it was taking a good deal of time and the cord was very taut. I am not sure about the pulsing. I know there was no blood spatter when she cut it.
It sounds to me like the cord was indeed tight and MAY have needed cutting. However, time does seem to stand still or rush ahead at any given time depending on the circumstances. It is possible that the time frame was not that long. If the cord is tight, it could prevent decent of baby down the birth canal, although I have never heard of this if the cord was long enough. But your OB could have been absolutely correct in cutting when she/he did.

Quote:



Quote:

But again, if it were necessary to actually cut the cord, it is simply done.
huh? Definitely NOT simply done in my eyes. I could barely even reach down there and I could not see what i was doing. Taking scissors to something very tightly wrapped around my unborn baby's neck area is not anything I would describe as simple. I would have to get a mirror and try to somehow get it into a position where I could see which would be extremely difficult given that I could not squat and would need both hands to be able to cut a very tight cord. I have played it over and over again in my head and it scares the crap out of me. If I were to end up with an accidental UC that would most likely be just me, not my husband given his military work schedule.
Again, not really responding to your specific situation, as every situation is different, there are ways to do what must be done. I keep on hand three items, in the event of this rare complication; 2 cord clamps and 1 large pair of surgical scissors (these are very sharp, but have a blunt nub on the bottom tip to allow them to slip between layers without poking or cutting in the wrong place).

Generally this situation is so rare that there is no need to worry about it. Also, there is usually a possibility that someone will be nearby to help if necessary. However, I have found, that for ME, in emergency situations, I can do most anything that I put my mind to. I would have to do it by touch, of course, but could reach down and put on the clamps, then feel again and cut where needed. It is quite a simple procedure, yet due to the very nature of having a baby sticking out down there, it could be tricky. But I must state again, that the true emergency in a situation like this is very rare.

Quote:

I don't think the OB was cord cutting happy, but I am not fully convinced what she did was necessary either. She did know that I wanted DCC and she fully respected all of my other birth desires with no contest (and they were all uncommon). She was very hands off up until that point. My doula actually took a picture of her cutting the cord. Can I tell from that if it was still pulsing? What do I look for?
I am not sure that a picture will be able to show one way or another, but maybe I am wrong. The one thing that you could look at would be the color. If there was no blood in the cord (cord so tight that no blood could get through), the cord should be white. If there were blood in the cord, it should look blue or purplish.

Plus, the cord being wrapped is in no way "genetic" or in any way foreseeable or preventable. It will happen or not happen. You can prepair for the worst, but you must deal with birth as it happens, on it's terms. Learning infant CPR is a VERY good idea, and one that could be very useful in UCing. That is about as prepaired as you can get for cord problems; that, and keeping cord clamps and scissors on hand.

I hope that something I have shared from my experineces has helped you in any way. But I never want to infer that I know the "right" way. All anyone can do is to share what is right for them and pass on advice based on their own experiences and education. The rest is up to you.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prettypixels* 
I did share my feelings here in direct response to something which I felt/feel was disparaging of midwives (sadness over a woman choosing one) and because it is on a board which is not exclusive to UCers.

Which is totally appropriate. My comment was in regard not to that but to your generalization of UCers as having disdain for midwives.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
I was told by the OB who caught him, that it would have been dangerous to push him further out without cutting the cord because it was so tight and would have become tighter the further out he came. Is that hooey?

Once the head is out, the body doesn't continue to just inch out. The body comes out all at once, and at that point the baby can be unwrapped. If the cord is very short, but long enough that the head has been able to be born, the baby's body will simply somersault out.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
It may be worth noting that when my water broke during pushing there was heavy mec staining.

Hm. Well, this indicates to me that there was distress before the baby started descending. Because the baby wouldn't have been trying to breathe at that point, it wouldn't have been caused by choking and because the baby had not descended yet it wouldn't have been caused by cord compression. So there must have been other issues going on. For instance, were you on your back? If so, that could have compromised the blood flow to the baby.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

so much to know-- to say that at home I have never seen a situation where the cord had to be cut before birth- I have talked with many other midwives and it is a very rare occasion indeed-- so when I hear that it was something of import in the hospital it could be or more likely they fell back on the routines they are use to if the doc who catches your baby is not a GP then he/she is probably not going to be comfortable dealing with the baby- that is left to others in the delivery room who are there for that purpose.
and I wanted to comment about this statement
"early cord cutting would not cause the baby to be blue that fast."

it can be very normal for a baby to look blue at emergence and for a small amount of time after birth- leaving a pulsing cord attached actually means that the baby is not going without a gas exhange- many babies come out a little stunned and take a small amount of time to organize good breathing- the act of breathing is what causes shunting and the cord to transition from the primary source of gas exchange to being not used in some babies it is instantly and in others it takes a bit of time---


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Jenny, thanks for sharing your perspective and experiences with me. It has been helpful. The cord does look very white in the picture but what I thought was scissors may be a metal clamping devise so that might explain it.

ETA - I have actually read some evidence that suggests that it is not unusual for the same mother to continue to have nuchal cords and cord accidents with subsequent babies.

Fourlittlebirds - thanks for your perspective as well. I guess I just don't understand why the cord was so taut and whether it would have become more taut but I suppose I'll never know.

Quote:

Hm. Well, this indicates to me that there was distress before the baby started descending.
The baby had already started descending when my water broke. My water broke while I was pushing.

Quote:

For instance, were you on your back? If so, that could have compromised the blood flow to the baby.
Nope, no back pushing for me. First I squatted for a while but I wasn't making any progress that way and I eventually became physically unable to squat anymore so I pushed the rest of the way on my hands and knees which felt amazing.

thanks for all the info. I think everyone should try to prepare themselves for a UC even if they plan on having an attendant.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

"early cord cutting would not cause the baby to be blue that fast."

it can be very normal for a baby to look blue at emergence and for a small amount of time after birth- leaving a pulsing cord attached actually means that the baby is not going without a gas exhange
What I was trying to get accross is that my son had a blue/purple face and the rest of his body looked much better. I can even see in the picture that his face was purple before the cord was cut. I pushed him out immediately after the cord was cut...well I started pushing while she was still cutting, lol. His head already looked that way and looked that way immediately so I know the cord cutting isn't what caused his face to look so blue.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

could have been the cord or could have been just pooling of blood in the head-- cutting the cord asap actually necessitates resuscitation efforts to be taken because the baby is cut off from its life support at that point which would be before the body has shunted the heart to increase circulation to the lungs--- so there is not time for transition the baby has to breath instantly- or else use up oxygen that is already in the body...


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

Did your baby need resuscitation?


----------



## hellyaellen (Nov 8, 2005)

well this thread has given me a lot to think about. i'm not planning to ttc for another year anyway but i've been processing my last birth for almost a year now.









my 1st was a standard hospital/ob/induction
my 2nd most recent was a natural hospital birth attended by a cnm

next time i am leaning towards homebirth or maybe a birthcenter

but i am lurking in the uc forum too because uc seems so empowering. i think that is what attracts me too the idea the most is the sense of empowerment i hear in those birth stories.

i do feel like i would need to do a great deal more reading than i have. which is a good deal more than a typical mom i think but probably less than most mdc moms. (or maybe just the low end of average for around here)

anyway i'd want to have a lot of textbook knowledge at the ready even knowing that i'd likely use more intuitive knowledge.

birthing from with in is on my reading list for next time b/c i don't have a lot of confidence in my intuition. also hypnobabies. (i flipped through it last time but didn't really absorb it ykwim?)

its not an option i'm ready to rule out yet.


----------



## L J (Apr 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~* 
I don't want an ugly hospital experience to lead me to a UC, even if it would provide experience. I want ALL of my birth memories to be spiritual and comfortable and in a place I want to birth. Saying that a woman should not UC with her first is reenforcing the idea that women are not capable of getting through birth without firsthand knowledge of what the almighty doctors/midwives are doing so that we can mimic them. I find this an offensive notion.









:

I am a first-time mom, having a UP, planning a UC. I have known for many years that my births would not be in a hospital, but at home. It wasn't until DH and I began ttc (Aug05) that I first began reading about UC. It was a really simple choice for us.

I know myself, truly know myself, and I know that with anyone else at the birth I would be negatively hindered. I have even had to tell my mother that no, she is not welcome in the house during the birth, because I know her nervous and fearful energy would transfer itself to me.

In a big way, I think my lack of practical experience in giving birth is going to be an asset to me during my UC. I have no bad experiences clouding my thinking and interfering with my instincts.

It has been (and will be, until the birth, I am sure) difficult to find that balance between reading enough and learning enough to be prepared for any situation that may arise, and reading so much (negative) that I am unnecessarily fearful.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:

i am lurking in the uc forum too because uc seems so empowering. i think that is what attracts me too the idea the most is the sense of empowerment i hear in those birth stories.
this empowerment extends beyond the place of birth. a woman can be empowered to and in her birth in any location, with any number of attendants.

to me, the optimal empowerment is that process of being empowered to choose and choosing to do whatever is right and necessary. this may mean doing something that doesn't including having or "achieving" (for lack of a better word) a UC. For example, a transfer that is determined through an empowered, intuitive thought process is a 'successful' "uc" in my book because it comes from that central place of empowerment.

an empowered woman who chooses a midwife, goes to a birth center, or even chooses an elective c-section--if done form a place of empowerment, deep knowing, and the desire to offer one's child the best care, fulfills what UC is striving to achieve in part: the empowerment of women.

the other aspect UC is trying to achieve is safe homebirths for healthy babies and mothers, as interventions can increase risks to babies and mothers and actually cause the need for more interventions to 'save' them.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
The baby had already started descending when my water broke. My water broke while I was pushing.

What I meant to imply was that the meconium would not have gotten into the forewaters (bulging in front of his head) if his head was already in the birth canal when he began to experience the distress that caused the release of meconium, because your tissues would have been taut around his head, creating a forewaters and hindwaters. So that the meconium was there indicates that the distress occured before his head was descending.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

What I was trying to get accross is that my son had a blue/purple face and the rest of his body looked much better. I can even see in the picture that his face was purple before the cord was cut.
Not to keep arguing with you, but as mwherbs said, a blue/purple head is not considered an emergency in itself.

From _Special Delivery_ by Rahima Baldwin:

Quote:

The first view you will have of your baby is usually the top of its head. As it starts to appear to the vaginal opening, you may wonder how anything so wrinkled, gnarled and bluish-grey can relate to a baby. [...] As the baby slips out, you may be amazed by his bluish color and the slippery, shimmery energy surrounding him. [...] [Primary apnea is] characterized by: a blue color, indicating adequate circulation of unoxygenated blood; [...] a baby who is not breathing, but is blue, shows fairly good muscle tone, and responds to stimulation, will start to breathe on his own. [...] If the baby is blue and his breathing efforts are not successful, it means his circulation is good and the baby just needs mouth-to-mouth resusitation.
A blue baby is of course not a fully oxygenated baby, so it's important that the cord still be attached so that there is no break between oxygen being received by the cord and oxygen being received through the nose and mouth. If there is a break, the baby will be less likely to start breathing spontaneously. Many babies in the hospital have to have help getting started breathing because their cords are cut before they've started breathing spontaneously.

So, going back aways,

Quote:

If the cord is tight around the babies neck, you can just unwrap it once the head is out. However, in my cases, I have never really worried about it. The cord is usually plenty long enough and it is also stretchy and strong. So most of the time, you would never have to do anything at all.

Quote:

I had my last ds in the hospital and he had a very tight double nuchal cord. The OB said it was too tight and she had to cut it off before I finished pushing him out. He was limp and not breathing. His head was very blue compared to his body and he had to be resuscitated.
Okay. Perhaps the problem here is that, as could be inferred in the first quote (although I'm sure she didn't mean that) the doctor believes like so many people that the cord needs to be loosened from around the neck before the baby ican be born. This is standard I think in most hospitals and many midwives do this as well, but there is no evidence that it is necessary and the argument can be made that it creates problems, as increased exposure to air and stimulation of the cord can cause it to begin shutting down, and the fooling around with the mother at that stage can also inhibit her body from spontaneously pushing the rest of the baby out quickly. So, while the doctor probably sees lots of blue-ish babies, if she assumes that the cord *must* come off before the baby is born and can't get it off and sees this in conjunction with a blue scalp, she may assume further that the cord is choking the baby or being compressed. The meconium wouldn't have helped keep it from feeling like an emergency situation, even though (like I said before) the meconium was more than likely not due to cord compression. So the cord "must" be cut, and the baby needs help breathing due to that.

Of course, all this is speculation. But theoretically it's as much a possibility as the explanation your doctor presented to you.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

I don't ever check for cords or loosen cords before birth.

Certainly cutting off a baby's oxygen supply before the birth (cutting the cord) will autotmatically put baby in need of resuscitation. It more than likely wasn't the cord that necessitated the resuscitation - it was the cutting off of your baby's oxygen supply before it was ready. Will do it every time. No amount of slight pressure from a cord around the neck will do the same serious insult that cutting the cord before the first breath will do. It's a very, very SERIOUS intervention.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

Not to keep arguing with you, but as mwherbs said, a blue/purple head is not considered an emergency in itself.
I see what you are saying. HOwever I did not say that it was considered an emergency in itself. It *was* an emergency but for other reasons as well.

Quote:

a baby who is not breathing, but is blue, shows fairly good muscle tone, and responds to stimulation, will start to breathe on his own.
yeah, he wasn't doing those things.

I don't think it is totally "normal" for a baby to have a blue/purple head and the rest of his body looks fairly normal in color (normal for a just born babe). Surely it could happen for a variety of reasons but I think given the variety of other things going on it is a pretty safe assumption in my son's delivery that the tight nuchal cord had something to do with it.

Quote:

This is standard I think in most hospitals and many midwives do this as well, but there is no evidence that it is necessary
This could definitely be true. I didn't get that impression from her at the time but it could be. I didn't get the feeling that she thought it needed to be cut for any other reason than the tightness of it. I don't think it is standard in most hospitals though. I think that might just be your impression. When researching the matter I didn't find it to be more common for the cord to be cut in those cases nor did I find the recomendations to be for cutting (unless the cord was very taut). The problem is the situation is rare but you do not know if there is a short cord going on. I have started to suspect that *that* is what she was thinking, but who knows for sure. I think you are right about the mec effecting her viewing of the situation being more emergent. That is unfortunate but I'm not sure she was too off in her thinking. My gut (and common sense) tells met that the mec probably was from distress from the cord compression. I hate telling people that my first son who was 18 days past edd and induced with the works did not have mec but my son who I refused induction with and allowed to go naturally with NO drugs of any kind was the one who had mec. Purely anecdote but still increased risk of mec is just another little reason to avoid pit.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

Certainly cutting off a baby's oxygen supply before the birth (cutting the cord) will autotmatically put baby in need of resuscitation. It more than likely wasn't the cord that necessitated the resuscitation - it was the cutting off of your baby's oxygen supply before it was ready. Will do it every time.
interseting view, someone else said that earlier in this thread. However I have actually heard of several babies who had early cord cutting NOT requiring resuscitation. I just tried a google search and found some cases where it was not needed.

Quote:

No amount of slight pressure from a cord around the neck will do the same serious insult that cutting the cord before the first breath will do. It's a very, very SERIOUS intervention
yeah I don't think it was slight pressure but rather strong pressure. That can in fact cause serious insult above and beyond cutting the cord before the first breath such as death or serious brain injury.


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

hopping in, then subscribing to catch up..

I grew up in an area of almost no midwife access. I cannot tell you how many friends i had that UC's simply because they refused to go to the local crappy hospital with a 98% episiotomy / 60% C sec rate to have a baby and be treated like crap.

they often had babies at home, with husbands, friends, and other moms.

Was it always safe?? No..I have heard some stories of babies...babies blue/white, cord tied in 3 knots and wrapped around the neck...who were only resuscitated after a lot of work and prayer.

however....those families also couldnt afford to pay the fee of the one operating midwife in the state at the time. They were just poor.

So their reasons for UCing were valid i suppose.

Fast forward to me...I have had one midwife attended birth center birth. And one unplanned UC. with just my husband and I. It was an amazing experience, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

I do feel its sad when moms feel like they HAVE to do it b/c they have no other choice.


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

Pamamidwife - I must disagree from experience that cutting a nuchal cord does NOT automatically mean resuscitation.
I performed one that I wish I had not during my training (I just wish she had shown me how to wait for babe to somersault - hurts me when I think of it now). - thrice wrapped nuchal cord (it was a LONG cord!) that incidentally was loose enough to easily get the clamps onto - should have been loose enough to somersault baby out - anyway needless to say baby did not need resuscitation.
It was a completely unecessary invasion but was not dire.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
I don't think it is standard in most hospitals though. I think that might just be your impression. When researching the matter I didn't find it to be more common for the cord to be cut in those cases nor did I find the recomendations to be for cutting (unless the cord was very taut).

_Checking for the cord_ is standard, agreed? And what's the point of doing that unless you're planning to do something about it if it's not loose?

Anyway, perhaps you could share your sources. I've had trouble finding any that refer specifically to cord-clamping on the perineum.

ETA: if you haven't already seen this you might find it helpful: http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/nuchlcrd.html (It's titled "somersault maneuver" but there's also general discussion on cord issues. And it's from a non-UC perspective, if that helps.







)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
interseting view, someone else said that earlier in this thread. However I have actually heard of several babies who had early cord cutting NOT requiring resuscitation. I just tried a google search and found some cases where it was not needed.

Are we talking about all early cord-cutting, or cutting the cord while most of the baby is still in the uterus? I'm going to assume Pam was referring to the latter and exaggerating for emphasis... there are of course exceptions to nearly every rule. In any case, we can probably all agree that cutting the cord before the baby is born increases respiratory difficulty. If we can't agree on that, perhaps a new thread should be started to hash it out and provide sources, because this is getting a bit away from the subject of UC.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
it is a pretty safe assumption in my son's delivery that the tight nuchal cord had something to do with it.

In that case, it's pointless to continue on examining it, so let's get back to your original question: _What would you do in that situation? Would you not have cut the cord off before fully birthing him?_

My first reaction when reading your story was, what in the environment was contributing to a constipated second stage? Forgive me, I know this is going to raise some ire among non-UCers and many will not approve, but I don't have concern about cord compression issues because I have no reason to not expect a normal second stage in an unhindered environment. If second stage is spontaneous and instinctive, it will be quick, and there will be no time for the baby to languish on the perineum, so no need for fiddling with the cord (which as we know carries its own risks.)


----------



## crysmomofthree (Mar 18, 2004)

just subbing, very interested in this conversation


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Loved, I definitely respect your experience and feel like you were lucky that the baby didn't need resuscitation. Likely the baby came right after the cutting, right?

Anytime we totally and completely cut off a baby's oxygen supply, we're not exerting some stress on the baby, it's much worse than that. It's done - there is not a "reduction" in oxygen...it's just *not there at all*.

I recently read a birth story here at MDC of a mom whose mw cut the cord on the perineum and then had issues getting the baby out! Another reason to NEVER do this! Surely if it looks like the cord is holding the baby up, it could also be a shoulder dystocia. These have to be considered - is the baby rotating? head turtled in? In the end, everyone was grateful for the resus equipment of the mw when in fact, it was her that caused the need for the resuscitation! A baby with a TRUE shoulder dystocia needs all the oxygen it can get from the cord. Cutting it before the baby is born is essentially slitting its throat! I know that sounds harsh, but it's so true. You can cut the cord, but you better be sure that baby is going to slide out RIGHT THEN or you're in for a mess.

I agree that there could be a small percentage of cases in which babies do not need resuscitation, but on the whole, they will and do. Physiologically, it forces them to transition faster and harder before they're even ready to. Most cannot make that huge, quick adaptation!

The whole "cord around the neck" myth / urban legend telling really is interesting to me. I'm glad Fourlittlebirds started the other thread.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Speaking of nuchal cords & knots!

Two months ago I birthed my 13 pounder, in water, on hands & knees.....and she had a TIGHT nuchal cord (just once round her neck) & a true knot!!!!!!!! It was amazing.

What happened was: I birthed her in the water, turned around, went to pick her up out of the water, & realized her cord was so short I'd have to get myself out of the water some to bring her up to the surface. When I did, I immediately saw the tight nuchal cord.....and was amazed at how it didn't just come off all that quickly. I had to really maneuver myself to remove it. Later, after I pulled the placenta out of the water, I saw the knot....and the cord itself was weirdly flat & straight in many places, particularly on either side of the knot.

All that I did happened very instinctually...there was no stress involved and it was like time stood still.

She breathed immediately and I had to hunch over to nurse her in order to not cut the cord!!







I cut the cord about 3 hours after she was born.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Surely you lie, Mama! That can't be! a 13lb baby with a nuchal cord and true knot? you didn't need a cesarean?? and you had no midwife to protect your perineum???

[/sarcasm]


----------



## kristenburgess (Sep 15, 2002)

subbing to read this later. falling asleep at the keyboard...


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

fourlittlebirds - at this point I think we are really going in circles. You are asking me about a link that i have already been shown and addressed in this thread already. Here is a quote from your link:

Quote:

c. If the cord is too tight to slip back over the shoulders, *but has a little give to it*, somersault the baby out, as follows:
bold is my emphasis. Not sure how much more clear I can be. I think you and some others are trying to argue the point of standard nuchal cord checks, standard cutting, etc. I am not saying that. What I have said all along is that basically ever single piece of evidence I have read gives exception to the rare situation where cutting the cord on the perinium is the right thing to do. Do I think that all double nuchal cords should be cut? No as I've already said it is a shame that my son's was cut when he needed it delayed more than most.

My last pregnancy was an amazing journey for me. After the birth of my first I felt totally broken and didn't know if i could ever go into labor on my own. For 10 months I researched childbirth for hours every single night. I got in touch with myself and my body to a point I never knew was possible. I enjoyed the birth instead of feeling pain I felt incredible. Almost 14 months later I am still on a high from it. My life will never be the same, I have found my calling.

Now I am planning a homebirth for my third child and my husband has reservations. Yes I know I can have a homebirth without my husband approval and he respects that but I also know that by knowing my husband is uncomfortable with it, that will hinder me in the birth process. I won't be fully comfortable knowing that the person with me (hopefully) is very uncomfortable with the situation. His main concerns center around the cord incident with our 2nd and how that would be handled at home and believe me I wanted nothing more than to come to him with evidence to show him that what the OB did by cutting our cord was totally unnecessary and caused all of the problems. Looking at the evidence without bias, I am not able to do that. Was it necessary or at least appropriate given the circumstances? I'm not so sure that it was, but I have concluded that there are rare times when it is necessary and all I can really do is focus on how to handle it at home (possibly UC) should the situation ever arise so that we can get past this issue..

Quote:

In any case, we can probably all agree that cutting the cord before the baby is born increases respiratory difficulty. If we can't agree on that, perhaps a new thread should be started to hash it out and provide sources, because this is getting a bit away from the subject of UC.
Yes of course I agree that cutting increases respiratory difficulty. I think this is getting so far off subject because of misconceptions of my view on this matter.

Quote:

My first reaction when reading your story was, what in the environment was contributing to a constipated second stage?
Thank you for trying to answer my original question. That is a valid concern and I'm sure that the enviornment after the head was out did effect how long that stage of labor lasted. But I also think it would be foolish for me to think that the only time a tight nuchal cord can effect the baby is if the enviornment constipates the situation or that an enviornment can not be constipated in a UC.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

you didn't need a cesarean?? and you had no midwife to protect your perineum???








:

The funny thing is, my big girl was really not much different getting out than my tiny little first born at 9 & 1/2 pounds! All the hooplah over big babies is just ......well, not true! That is, I think when they are born in an environment where mama is left to her own devices.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
I think you and some others are trying to argue the point of standard nuchal cord checks, standard cutting, etc.

No, and I apologize for not being more clear about what I found relevant there. The part that I thought might be helpful was:

Quote:

Our major concern should be to avoid pulling on a taut cord. We don't want to increase the tension already there. This is done one of two ways: 1) by cutting the cord from around the neck - the standard medical view; or 2) by keeping the baby close to the uterus as it is born, delivering through the loops or else using the "somersault maneuver." [...]

As for the second part of the question, it shouldn't make a difference how hard mom pushes, since the cord is not holding back the baby. One other possible factor to consider: if a tight or short cord is slowing labor, then can the cord "stretch" to allow descent? Theory says it could and that this is more likely than pulling the placenta off. Tight cords can cause fetal distress, of course, and that's what practitioners should be watching for. If mild stress is present but the baby is coming quickly, then the baby will be better off if the midwife can keep the cord intact after birth. He's the kid who will really NEED an intact cord to help him recover. But if we follow the advice of cutting the cord around the neck, we will be putting the baby through a good deal of additional stress! [...]

I can't say there won't be the very rare case of a baby who really needs his cord cut after the birth of the head. I will say I've seen more than a few who would have been cut following the old rule, but who were born through the loops or somersaulted out and were fine, vigorous babies.
The reasons I thought it might be helpful: one, because she acknowledges that there might be rare cases in which the cord needs to be cut on the perineum while still questioning under what circumstances this makes sense, so that it is a relatively unbiased opinion (as opposed to, say, someone who believes that the cutting of a tight cord is always indicated, as with one of the previous -- and more traditionally medical -- opinions on that same page.) Two (and this is probably the most relevant part of it at this point,) because she talks about the fundus following the baby, which I thought was interesting regarding the fear of short cords. You had written earlier, _"The problem is the situation is rare but you do not know if there is a short cord going on. I have started to suspect that *that* is what she was thinking, but who knows for sure."_ Third, she explains in yet another way why she feels that cutting a tight cord for a mildly distressed baby (which was the indication in your case, as the head was blue/purple on the perineum) does not make sense, which supports my own opinion of how it would be handled in the event of a UC (_my_ UC, I should be clear,) which is what you were asking for.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

But I also think it would be foolish for me to think that the only time a tight nuchal cord can effect the baby is if the enviornment constipates the situation[...]
Yes. The constipated birth does not cause the tight nuchal cord (although it may exacerbate it,) so it follows that there can be a tight nuchal cord in an unconstipated birth. But if the second stage is _not_ constipated, there's nothing you can (or should) do about it until the baby is born anyway.

Quote:

[...]or that an enviornment can not be constipated in a UC.
Agreed again. This is one of the major dangers of UC in my opinion -- when people are not aware to what extent their own actions and thoughts affect the process negatively.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

Admittedly, a tight nuchal cord is one of those things that scares me a little bit about planning a UC. I tend to have large babies, my last was 10 lbs. 2 oz. and I am a little fearful of having an issue with a tightly wrapped cord coupled with a long pushing stage. I'm curious to see what I would check for or what it would feel like if the baby had a tight cord. Anyone?


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

Two (and this is probably the most relevant part of it at this point,) because she talks about the fundus following the baby, which I thought was interesting regarding the fear of short cords.
How does one know if the fundus is following the baby? Is this a visual thing from the outside? Just curious because none of that was visible because of the position I was pushing in. I'm thinking I'll probably push that way next time as well, I loved that position.

I remember seeing a drawing of a baby whose cord was wrapped around its neck and then continued on to the opposite side of his body and then through his legs. Seems like that would be a bad thing during pushing to have the cord pulling on both sides of the baby and could make the cord taut even with a normal/long cord.


----------



## jillybeans (Mar 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife* 

We all have different belief systems. Just as there are a hundred different philosophies with midwives (and their own biases to go with those), there are different values with birth and parenting.


I could not have said it better. Thank you for your post, i think it gave people a lot to think about!


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

the fundus naturally follows the baby - every contraction as the baby descends takes up more of the "slack" from the uterus to help push the baby out. the body is designed to be able to get the baby out without mother's pushing efforts - this means that the fundus is always right on the baby. unless something is seriously wrong (like she stops having contractions altogether), the fundus is right on the baby until it comes out. then there's a lull and contractions start again.

right after the baby is born, the fundus is usually at or right above the belly button.

physiologically, it makes sense that the body would work to be able to push the baby out without any effort from mom - and it does this by pushing down on the baby through the pelvis.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DreamsInDigital* 
Admittedly, a tight nuchal cord is one of those things that scares me a little bit about planning a UC. I tend to have large babies, my last was 10 lbs. 2 oz. and I am a little fearful of having an issue with a tightly wrapped cord coupled with a long pushing stage. I'm curious to see what I would check for or what it would feel like if the baby had a tight cord. Anyone?

I wouldn't check for anything - just push your baby out. He/she will come out, then unwrap the cord. Instinctively, you'll just do it.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife*
this means that the fundus is always right on the baby. unless something is seriously wrong (like she stops having contractions altogether),

I was just gonna say -- unless you're in the "rest and be thankful stage"! So what are you talking about here?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DreamsInDigital*
I am a little fearful of having an issue with a tightly wrapped cord coupled with a long pushing stage

As well as thinking about the tight cord, think about why you would have a long pushing stage (that is, baby in the birth canal a long time, not including the lighter pushy feelings pre-second stage.) What contributed to a long second stage with your others? What do you think might cause a long pushing stage in an unhindered birth?


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

pamamidwife - yes - baby came right after. Come to think of it - I had seen maybe 6 doula hospital births where nuchal cords were cut and about half babies needed help. The rest really were o.k. Just my experience. I am NOT saying it's o.k., at all. I think it goes along the lines of what you have said - babies that are distressed need that life-blood even moreso. Many times, though, practitioners cut nuchal cords as a matter of course - or in my case the midwife wasn't comfortable with the tautness or the amount (wrapped 3x's) - and I know for sure there was a power-trip going on! I just wish I seen different.
We midwives, need to be trained differently!

Back to UC: I too, have always respected every woman's right to choose where, how and with whom...and it has never stopped at UC. I love women, and I really tend to trust them (US!).

I worry about aspects of UC - or maybe it's factions of the UC community. I worry about the fear that can initiate one to give birth alone...(but I know there are 'bad' midwives out there)...but I also know that "worry" is just fear on my part.
Mostly, I love the movement and think it will do a lot of good (and has already.).


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Or the fears of bad midwives will cause women to ask better questions of midwives they are considering hiring.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

I worry about the fear that can initiate one to give birth alone..
What do you mean by this? Do you think women who birth alone are motivated by fear?


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:

As well as thinking about the tight cord, think about why you would have a long pushing stage (that is, baby in the birth canal a long time, not including the lighter pushy feelings pre-second stage.) What contributed to a long second stage with your others? What do you think might cause a long pushing stage in an unhindered birth?
I haven't had a long pushing stage since baby #1. My 2nd I pushed out in 20 minutes, my 3rd was 15 minutes.
I'm just trying to address every obnoxious little fear that my irrational brain can come up with so I can remind myself that the true answer to every fear is I will instinctually deal with it if it comes, and in all likelihood my baby will be born as normally and easily as my last 2.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Or the fears of bad midwives will cause women to ask better questions of midwives they are considering hiring.


I so agree with this. The purer birth gets, the more women expect and want for their birth. The UC movement has made me a better midwife...in fact, it's oftentimes made me think about NOT doing midwifery any longer.


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife* 
right after the baby is born, the fundus is usually at or right above the belly button.

I remember this! I remember looking down like, whoa! look at my belly! its like there's a smooshy ball in there, just sort of "hangin around" starting just at my belly button.

I am pretty sure that for the next birth, I wil prefer more time alone because I am almost certain that my inability to just LET GO AND BE, free of fear, free of hinderance was partly just because I knew dp was there. When I am alone, I dance freely, sing freely, dress freely, speak freely, move freely. When dp is around, while I am pretty outgoing and open around him there is still a shyness in me







that is hard to explain. I can only dance in front of people who DONT know me or in front of a few "crazy" girlfriends who motivate me, lol. So, if there is that bit of reserve I have, I think it transfers to birth easily, even though during ds's birth it didn't occur to me at all that I'd be better off if NO ONE were there but me for the larger part of it all. That's just me though, maybe there are others who coud relate?


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest* 
What do you mean by this? Do you think women who birth alone are motivated by fear?

Some are.

It's one thing to be motivated by a desire to NOT have something happen. It's another to be motivated by a desire to HAVE something happen.

See the difference?
Pain pushes.
Vision pulls.

What worries me are those women who never get to the "vision" part of thier births.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

I was and am motivated to choose a UC because I was SO empowered by my last birth, which was my 3rd baby but my first homebirth attended by a midwife. It was incredibly empowering and amazing, save for one obnoxious thing that my midwife did during my pushing stage that took me SO far out of laborland and put my mind back in my body where it did not belong. It ruined the last 15 minutes of my birth.
By choosing a UC I can experience it completely the way it ought to be without anyone interfering.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

the fundus naturally follows the baby - every contraction as the baby descends takes up more of the "slack" from the uterus to help push the baby out.
um, yeah I get that. Why watch for it though? I thought that info was a given. What a random thing to have been brought up then. I thought it was supposed to be some kind of help in determining how long the cord was. Either way a cord can be any length and knowing that doesn't really tell you jack. When the head is out the fundus could be varying lengths away given the size of the rest of the baby. Does it matter anyhow?

ah well, I couldn't trust myself if I had the attitude that everything will always be fine if I just do nothing. Unfortunately that isn't always the case and I'd rather be prepared.

One way that I know that UC isn't the way it is meant to be for everyone is my strong uncontrolled desire to want to be a part of childbirth beyond my own. Why would I feel this way if many women weren't supposed to have other women with them during childbirth? Of course that doesn't mean there isn't room for UC too







, I'm sure nobody thinks it is meant for everyone.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
One way that I know that UC isn't the way it is meant to be for everyone is my strong uncontrolled desire to want to be a part of childbirth beyond my own. Why would I feel this way if many women weren't supposed to have other women with them during childbirth? Of course that doesn't mean there isn't room for UC too







, I'm sure nobody thinks it is meant for everyone.

we all know that birth is an incredibly special, sacred, magical time. to want to be a part of that - even if it's another person's sacred, magical time is somewhat normal. but, if we look at it like sex (because the two are so close physiologically), it's almost *weird* that we'd have people who would want to be a part of it - if it wasn't their experience, you know?

but, there are people out there.it's a dangerous line, because there is a huge rush from being in that atmosphere, yet as a care provider, we're really in a space that can do serious damage to the normal physiology that is meant to occur when birth happens naturally.

providers especially need to be cautious that another woman's birth experience doesn't become their source of power, natural high, or ability to boast.

hope it makes sense what I'm saying here. I don't disagree that UC birth isn't for everyone, but just because everyone and their dog wants to see a birth (it seems like everyone shows up at births these days to watch), it doesn't necessarily mean that historically, evolutionarily, or even physiogically we're made to have an audience.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

oh and erin - about the fundus thing...I was responding your post when you posted:

Quote:

How does one know if the fundus is following the baby? Is this a visual thing from the outside? Just curious because none of that was visible because of the position I was pushing in.

were you not asking a question there?


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

I don't think that most of us are motivated to be in the same room while someone else is having sex in this country- but there is no denying the cross cultural and timeless presence of other women attending births-
in places and in times where women haven't read about birth- how is/was the information conveyed about safety and what is normal? usually instructions and information is/was taught in some timely fashion like prodromal labor... or when the birth hut is made.... just like education about breastfeeding- women and babies just nursed- how was it made easy? by access to other women doing the same thing- you had daily reminders of positioning and timing because you would see others nursing all the time - while doing your daily work side by side... and when it is important to you or of interest like when you are pregnant you observe more how other women do things...
I think that our senses have been hi-jacked by industry wearing the guise of cultural informant - the majority of birthing women going to hospitals just like the birth hut but the information is not there and that end of things is not being held up , I do think that all those women are following forms of intuition of being with others in a place that is felt to be "safest" to give birth just as women who follow other intuition to stay away from those places. or who birth alone..

but I do agree with Pam about this-----
"providers especially need to be cautious that another woman's birth experience doesn't become their source of power, natural high, or ability to boast."


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

but, there are people out there.it's a dangerous line, because there is a huge rush from being in that atmosphere, yet as a care provider, we're really in a space that can do serious damage to the normal physiology that is meant to occur when birth happens naturally.
if the right care provider is chosen, I wonder how much damage can be done by her being there? I wonder if we would worry so much about the damage of another women being present for childbirth if childbirth hadn't gotten so far of track in America today. I personally don't think birth and sex are the same in as many regards. For one thing for sex to happen (in the traditional sense) a partner has to be present. Birth can happen alone. If sex is not meant to be alone, is birth also not meant to be alone? In todays world there are many times when the partner who had sex with the woman won't be available for the birth. I know for me, I went into the birth thinking that I wanted the birth to be just my dh and I but I learned the hard way that my dh actually made things worse for me. Mostly because he had a lot to learn about childbirth but also because he isn't a woman and just didn't understand it the way that another woman does. Fast forward to birth number 2, with my doula present it was a million times better. I looked to my dh for a different kind of support because I also had the support of another woman. For both of the births I did have a strong desire that no one else be present. That isn't to say that one day my dh and I won't be able to do it alone, but we are both trying to overcome the effects of the modern view of childbirth. We aren't living in culture of normal childbirth. I hope to see that change in future generations.

I can understand how a provider could get off on a sense of power from attending births but I guess the idealistic side of me thinks that doesn't happen much with the type of attendants that I would be interested in.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

oh and erin - about the fundus thing...I was responding your post when you posted:

Quote:
How does one know if the fundus is following the baby? Is this a visual thing from the outside? Just curious because none of that was visible because of the position I was pushing in.

were you not asking a question there?
I was asking how a provider would be able to see this, was it something to be observed from the outside of the woman's body?


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

you can see the change in shape of the uterus as the baby desends depending on what position the mom is in... just like you can see the difference between a resting and contracting uterus.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

This is an interesting discussion. The idea that women are meant to give birth with other women _could_ be culturally based, I don't know. I doubt it is biologically based. I can see the benefits of attended birth for many mamas, particularly very young ones and for first time births. Within this line of thinking, if women are motivated to birth with other women (whether it be culturally based or not), where do the prenatal visits fit into this mindset? What prenatal "exams" or visits have morphed into are women forced to attend sessions where they are monitored, assessed, questioned, tested, measured, & psychologically examined. And, if her body or mind are not performing to whatever level a given midwife deems appropriate, she is dumped....let go....abandoned....or given over to someone with an even more medically based mindset. How do these culturally motivated practices fit in with the argument that women are meant to be attended during birth?


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

Some are.

It's one thing to be motivated by a desire to NOT have something happen. It's another to be motivated by a desire to HAVE something happen.

See the difference?
Pain pushes.
Vision pulls.

What worries me are those women who never get to the "vision" part of thier births.
I don't know what I see. This morning as I went out to the chicken house to gather eggs, I happened upon a very surprised mother mouse with her newborn babes.....they were attached to her nipples & nursing away! The second she saw me she was OFF! Running with nurslings in tow desperately trying to hang on to then nipple.







One little pink newborn mouse had fallen off, and she risked a trip back to retrieve it. She grasped it in her mouth & carried it to safety.

This reminded me that what a woman describes as _fear_, could indeed be something as simple as the age old mammalian instinct of protecting the unborn child. I think that is how I see it. Anytime I am afraid of a midwife, I am simply wanting to keep my body and my child safe.


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

mama in the forest said:


> This is an interesting discussion. The idea that women are meant to give birth with other women _could_ be culturally based, I don't know. I doubt it is biologically based. QUOTE]
> 
> Is it biologically based to have a man there?
> 
> ...


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest* 
I

This reminded me that what a woman describes as _fear_, could indeed be something as simple as the age old mammalian instinct of protecting the unborn child. I think that is how I see it. Anytime I am afraid of a midwife, I am simply wanting to keep my body and my child safe.


I can agree with you on this all depends on what a woman thinks of as a threat.. fear and preservation intersect-- but not all mammals find others of their own species a threat and domestic animals may find that you are not a threat- have had dogs give birth in my bed.. and friends who's cats sought them out to be around when the gave birth...

as far as prenatals and taboos and other rituals observed... some of this also comes out of fear and preservation- in the days before antibiotics and VD was not treatable this is when eye treatment began for the newborn they could atleast prevent GC caused blindness but there was a long history before that of not being able to treat- women and children suffered and I am actually old enough to remember when it was very hard to diagnose chalymidia so women on the pill were more likely to become infertile because of this infection so these are modern tests just like checking bp-and lab values to find women who have illness in pregnancy- not all old technology but maybe maybe to some degree- our minds have gone places and do things to helps us it is in our "nature" to do these things just as much as building shelter (like nests) or nursing babies or gathering food-- not to say that everything offered or done need be done by everyone- tracking bp is useful- as is giving consideration to your overall state of health-- concern if you have enough good food to eat, clean water to drink,- home to live in- supportive relationships, ability and awareness of child care needs- or things like finding that ovarian tumor that is essentially benign and we know this because of repeated scans and hormone levels---


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

How do these culturally motivated practices fit in with the argument that women are meant to be attended during birth?
It's just part of taking care of each other as a society. If we failed to do that then we would become extinct. I think it's the same as taking care of a sick or elderly person. When a person needs help, most societies provide it. Not every woman needs to be attended, but I think for many it can be a great comfort which is a good thing.

As for the man/woman thing, I think women--being the only gender that can go through it--just know more about birth. A man can attend and help out, do massages, even understand the process...but having never dealt with the pain can only make recommendations he's heard have helped other women. He can't speak from his own birth experience.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loved*
I worry about aspects of UC - or maybe it's factions of the UC community.

Yes, me too.

Quote:

Mostly, I love the movement and think it will do a lot of good (and has already.).










Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024*
I am pretty sure that for the next birth, I wil prefer more time alone because I am almost certain that my inability to just LET GO AND BE, free of fear, free of hinderance was partly just because I knew dp was there.

Yep. I think that if I _were_ to give birth again (planning NOT to







) I would want to do it alone. I've been thinking a lot about this lately, how it would have been different, psychologically and in terms of state of consciousness, if I'd be alone. I would *not* do over my last birth to have my husband not attend. There were things that happened because he was there that are very precious to me. But still, I'm curious about what it would be like to be focused fully on my body and baby. My husband is the person I can be least self-conscious around, but there's still that element of my awareness that is focused on him.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loved*
It's one thing to be motivated by a desire to NOT have something happen. It's another to be motivated by a desire to HAVE something happen.

See the difference?
Pain pushes.
Vision pulls.

Absolutely.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
One way that I know that UC isn't the way it is meant to be for everyone is my strong uncontrolled desire to want to be a part of childbirth beyond my own. Why would I feel this way if many women weren't supposed to have other women with them during childbirth?

Because you have psychological and spiritual needs that are met by doing so? Which may mesh with another woman's needs, but neither yours nor theirs defines Birth itself. In other words, your desire to be part of childbirth beyond your own says precisely nothing about what birth is supposed to be for _me_. By your reasoning, I could ask, why would I have a strong desire to UC if it wasn't meant to be that way for all women? But there's something missing there, which is that we all have different needs and goals.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mwherbs*
there is no denying the cross cultural and timeless presence of other women attending births-

There's also no denying that all of these cultures in which attended/assisted birth is the norm, are partriarchal/aggressive cultures. We have very little knowledge of non-patriarchal/aggressive cultures, but that which we do have shows that the more earth-based and respectful the culture, the less the birth process is directed or interfered with, and the more likely women are to give birth either alone or autonomously with the emotional support and protection of her sisters. We can call the latter "midwifery" but it is very different from the midwifery we see commonly practiced today and historically, for the most part.

Quote:

in places and in times where women haven't read about birth- how is/was the information conveyed about safety and what is normal? usually instructions and information is/was taught in some timely fashion like prodromal labor... or when the birth hut is made.... just like education about breastfeeding- women and babies just nursed- how was it made easy?
Instinct. Anything else is cultural and the need of the society or conditioned need of the individual, not of the body.

Quote:

by access to other women doing the same thing- you had daily reminders of positioning and timing because you would see others nursing all the time -
Well, I breastfeed on the baby's cue and hold her in the way that is most comfortable for our bodies. Somehow I managed without those daily reminders of positioning and timing, how could that be? I do agree that it's helpful to have others with experience around -- not to show women how to do what is normally an instinctive bodily function, but to help with solutions if the body is hindered in some way. We had thrush. That isn't normal. At that point, my body needed help from the outside, and that's where my sisters came in with their experience.

It's the same with birth, and I've never met a UCer who wasn't open to seeking and receiving help when she intuited or had direct evidence that it was needed. But UCers are different (generally speaking) from those who believe in assisted birth in that they believe that _in a normal situation_ their bodies already know perfectly how to give birth without being told or shown, better than any outside source.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Well I'm a big ole feminist, but I'm not buying that attended births are a symptom of the patriarchy. By the same logic I could declare that urinating on the ground (or into a hole in it) is a symptom of patriarchy. We just don't know any other kind of social system well enough to guess how it might handle the fundamental basics of life differently.

In my feminist utopia world, however, it's women helping women with childbirth, not women being isolated from other women and relying on a man. That's one thing that annoys me about the UC propaganda that anything other than UC is somehow not "free." I'd rather rely on wise women than clueless men, whether they're an OB or a husband.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
if the right care provider is chosen, I wonder how much damage can be done by her being there?

Given that you can never guarantee that the person you've chosen will act in your best interest (even if that is their intention,) I don't know how practical this line of reasoning is. I thought I'd chosen the right care provider for my first -- she was well respected in the community, I had recommendations from people I knew, she had mounds of experience, she answered all my questions right (at least the ones I knew to ask at the time,) she had a pleasant, sweet, calm demeanor, our prenatals were pleasant and encouraging. What more could I do to ensure that she was an appropriate care provider for me? Yet she wasn't, and her actions during the birth led to a traumatic experience.

I had the "perfect" midwife the second time around. Yet the moment she walked in the house everything changed. I was in active labor, near transition, and managing beautifully, even enjoying myself. I was glad to see her when she arrived -- I like her a lot -- but I was instantly transported out of the altered state of consciousness I'd been in and I never really got back there. I was self-conscious and aware always that I was being watched. I let myself be led after the birth and so felt allowed (and also the need to get away from the eyes and activity) to "check out" a bit, which interfered with my bonding time with my son. The birth was healing and empowering in the sense that nobody tried to take over and tell me what to do, and it was quiet and gentle, and the baby was fine and I was fine. No outwardly obvious damage, no. But I lost something with her presence -- it feels like it was stolen, but to be reasonable and fair I make myself say "lost" -- and to me it was not a small thing.

Quote:

I personally don't think birth and sex are the same in as many regards. For one thing for sex to happen (in the traditional sense) a partner has to be present. Birth can happen alone. If sex is not meant to be alone, is birth also not meant to be alone?
It's a good question, and I'm going to try to answer it in a roundabout way.

In conception the essential dyad is the woman and man. As a heterosexual and monogamist, I'm pretty partial to keeping the sex act to that essential dyad. But many people are able to become sexually aroused, with their genitals fully and normally functional, in other configurations. In birth the essential dyad is mother and baby. It is natural and normal for it to remain so throughout the act. Nothing else is needed for it to be complete and whole in a biological and spiritual sense. But it's also possible to have other people involved and still have the body continue functioning normally. The key in this happening in both sex and birth is that anyone outside of the essential dyad be inside the experience also. Ideally, this should happen in midwifery. I get this feeling from reading a book like The Red Tent, and I think that it's the romantic vision of midwifery in our culture, but almost never the reality. It's probably similar with women having others attend a UC. Sometimes the husband isn't inside it with her, and that's not ideal; it might even cause problems. She might make that choice anyway for various reasons, just as a woman might make the choice to have a midwife there for various reasons, and that's valid. But neither choice is in itself the way birth is just "meant to be".

Quote:

Mostly because he had a lot to learn about childbirth but also because he isn't a woman and just didn't understand it the way that another woman does.
I hear you, although I think it's a mistake to say (and I'm not saying you're implying this, just running with it) that a man can never be a more appropriate birth attendant than a woman just because he hasn't given birth.

My husband doesn't understand _birth_ in the way a woman would (although it could be argued for that matter that no woman can understand birth in the way that another does) but he understands primality.

He wasn't that way with our first or second. He felt unable to be part of it, except as far as he was sort of given the approval to from the midwife, because other women were involved to the extent that it became "a woman thing". He was worthless, to be honest. But without someone there to make *him* self-conscious he was able to enter into it with me to a certain extent. No, he didn't feel the pain and he didn't feel the baby moving down through him, but he did enter a very primal, non-intellectual place with me and was fully present for me there. And for me that was far more positively affecting than support from my women friends would have been.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

NAK

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by loved
I worry about aspects of UC - or maybe it's factions of the UC community.

Yes, me too.

What worries both of you about UC?


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

It's just part of taking care of each other as a society. If we failed to do that then we would become extinct. I think it's the same as taking care of a sick or elderly person
Perhaps that is part of what drives me to UC...a small part, but it exists. I do not feel CARED for when I am scrutinized, measured, palpated, assessed, and psychologically examined. Now, should someone want to send me a box of chocolate, massage my feet, have a glass of wine with me, or send me a funny card, THAT would be caring for me!







I just do not see birth in the same medical way that the ritualistic prenatal exams feel like. I see it more of a spiritual emotional family path. I think much of our common birth practices, including the supervisory role of the midwife, take away a woman's instinctual power. One more reason why I love UC.....I feel very wild, very UN domesticated.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Well I'm a big ole feminist, but I'm not buying that attended births are a symptom of the patriarchy. By the same logic I could declare that urinating on the ground (or into a hole in it) is a symptom of patriarchy.

Not the same logic at all. Taken in the context of the rest of my post, it should be clear that I'm talking about disturbed birth vs. undisturbed birth. If you'd read a little further you would have seen that I included "autonomous birth with emotional support and protection" in the kind of birth that is seen in non-patriarchal societies. (ETA: or perhaps in resistant sub-cultures within patriarchal societies.)

Quote:

In my feminist utopia world, however, it's women helping women with childbirth,[...]
Good for you. Not everyone's like you.

Quote:

[...]not women being isolated from other women and relying on a man.
I asked you once before to leave the insulting generalizations off of this thread. No one here is advocating women being isolated from other women and just relying on men.

Quote:

I'd rather rely on wise women than clueless men, whether they're an OB or a husband.
Me too. Better yet, a wise lover and mate. Better yet, myself.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest* 
What worries both of you about UC?

Not UC itself, but certain conditions and belief systems under which it's done.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Something that I feel needs to be said flat out even though it's been implied, is that in a UC *no* one acts as a midwife. If a woman has a UC with her partner present, her partner is not a "substitue midwife", if a woman has a UC alone she does not "act as her own midwife". She is a woman giving birth or they are a couple giving birth.

(Even, perhaps, in the case of the ideals protrayed in the Red Tent, et al "all of them are a community giving birth"?)


----------



## poetesss (Mar 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 

But it's also possible to have other people involved and still have the body continue functioning normally. The key in this happening in both sex and birth is that anyone outside of the essential dyad be inside the experience also. Ideally, this should happen in midwifery. I get this feeling from reading a book like The Red Tent, and I think that it's the romantic vision of midwifery in our culture, but almost never the reality. It's probably similar with women having others attend a UC. Sometimes the husband isn't inside it with her, and that's not ideal; it might even cause problems. She might make that choice anyway for various reasons, just as a woman might make the choice to have a midwife there for various reasons, and that's valid. *But neither choice is in itself the way birth is just "meant to be".*

(emphasis added)

so where is this definition of the way birth is "meant to be" coming from? If a woman made that "choice" as you term it to have a midwife, for example, why is this choice considered less than ideal? Who's setting these ideals anyway? Seems awfully subjective to me.

If someone wants a UC I'm all for it







but I find the idea that it's the way birthing "should be" a little off putting, kwim?

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your intent.


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
Not UC itself, but certain conditions and belief systems under which it's done.









:

The religious reasons. The fear-based reasons (no, I don't think it's all about self-protection and instinct in protecting our babies...I think it's fear and mistrust of people). The belief that this birth will somehow prove something...
Or the romanticism...lined with naivete (sp?).

The belief that one needs to be independent - do-it-yourself, get away from the mainstream to the extreme. I think this can be very isolating. There's other stuff here that I can't put my finger on....the lack of cultural recognition of the rite of passage, maybe?


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loved* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
Not UC itself, but certain conditions and belief systems under which it's done.

The religious reasons.
The belief that this birth will somehow prove something...
The belief that one needs to be independent - do-it-yourself, get away from the mainstream to the extreme. I think this can be very isolating.

Just wondering why these beliefs would be worrisome. Unless I misunderstood the post.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

The religious reasons. The fear-based reasons (no, I don't think it's all about self-protection and instinct in protecting our babies...I think it's fear and mistrust of people). The belief that this birth will somehow prove something...
Or the romanticism...lined with naivete (sp?).

The belief that one needs to be independent - do-it-yourself, get away from the mainstream to the extreme. I think this can be very isolating.
I guess although none of these quoted reasons are **my** reasons for birthing UC, I wouldn't feel worried about the woman who owned these reasons. When I think about what you wrote, it's as though you're looking at UC birth through the eyes of attended birth...which makes sense. I see you're a home birth midwife from your signature.

Let's start with religion: who are any of us to judge that someone shouldn't birth privately because they feel a religious calling to it? Additionally, many UC'ers report that their private births had a spiritual or religious component. If there has been a poor outcome from any UC birth that was religiously based, that in itself is not a reason to assert that all of these such births are inappropriate.

Fear based reasons are so subjective and I also think cannot be judged as inappropriate. I do not think we can get inside a woman's head to exactly KNOW that whatever fears she is voicing are not good reasons to UC. I also disagree with this being a fear or mistrust of people. We are all people, and we live with each other & interact with each other on a daily basis. I can't speak for other UC mamas, but I have spent almost 20 years living & learning about my own fears. I do not have any kind of baseline mistrust of people.

Some of my best births have been very romantic & I always approach each birth with an openness & innocence.....which were I to try and write about it or describe it to someone could very well sound like naivete. (sp????







)

As far as being independent......I would use the word autonomous probably. There will always be people who choose to get away from the mainstream & do things in a new way. (though probably in the case of UC we are really doing things in an _ancient_ way) These are the people that force the rest of the world to grow, to push through their commonly held beliefs, and to bring needed change. I think it's a good thing.

Isolation? I don't know. I do isolate myself during birth. But it feels beautiful, peaceful, spiritual, sexual, and welcomed. That privacy/isolation is exactly where I need to be. After birth I emerge powerful, and more sure of myself than ever.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

In other words, your desire to be part of childbirth beyond your own says precisely nothing about what birth is supposed to be for me.
fourlittlebirds - go back and read what I wrote again. I never said that my feelings say anything about what birth is supposed to be fore *you*. I think you can agree with me that there are _many_ women who have a strong calling to be a part of other women's childbirth in *some* way. And that does say to me that not every woman is meant to UC. Don't take it as saying that every women is meant to be attended because that is not what I said, nor is it what I implied.

Quote:

By your reasoning, I could ask, why would I have a strong desire to UC if it wasn't meant to be that way for all women?
nope, actually by *my* reasoning you could say that you know attended births weren't meant to be for everyone. See what I'm saying now









~Erin


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

hard to say about male dominated societies-- here in the SW we have some long standing matriarchal societies and women did attend other women's births and it is so in some other countries where women dominate the society-- it actually looks like women moved to birthing alone during times of war or great stress on society/social bonds.


----------



## poetesss (Mar 2, 2006)

Quote:

The religious reasons. The fear-based reasons (no, I don't think it's all about self-protection and instinct in protecting our babies...I think it's fear and mistrust of people). The belief that this birth will somehow prove something...
Or the romanticism...lined with naivete (sp?).

Re: fear as being a "bad" reason for UC...

Actually, I don't see what's so bad about fear as a reason for UC. It's not a "fear of people" that drives a woman during such an intimate event to withdraw with only those she trusts (whether her partner, only family, friends she chooses, etc. excluding medical attendants). BTW this fear aspect assumes that UC necessarily means a private birth, which doesn't have to be the case. You could UC with your husband and friend, as long as no one is acting as a midwife.

I'll give an example--if I had no option for a midwife and hospital was the only other route, I would probably (if other factors allowed it) choose UC because I have a FEAR of OBs and the way they practice. I've had some bad experiences to the point that when my knees go up in the lithotomy position for some kind of exam, they start to shake. I do NOT need to be birthing in that environment of fear, and I think that the adverse effects would be to such a degree that UC would be the safest option for me.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
fourlittlebirds - go back and read what I wrote again. I never said that my feelings say anything about what birth is supposed to be fore *you*.

I apologize _profusely_, I misread what you wrote to say, "why would I feel this way if women weren't supposed to have other women attend them in birth?"


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
I apologize _profusely_, I misread what you wrote to say, "why would I feel this way if women weren't supposed to have other women attend them in birth?"









Don't feel too bad, that is exactly what I read too.


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest* 
Isolation? I don't know. I do isolate myself during birth. But it feels beautiful, peaceful, spiritual, sexual, and welcomed. That privacy/isolation is exactly where I need to be. After birth I emerge powerful, and more sure of myself than ever.









Yes!!


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
Not UC itself, but certain conditions and belief systems under which it's done.

I guess I should elaborate.

Things that to my mind make UC less safe. (Edited to remove the words "not the best idea" which implies a judgement of someone else's, when I only meant it to be from _mine_.)

When the parents are fearful enough of others becoming involved that they avoid seeking help even when there are indications that something is very wrong.

When the mother is UCing only because her husband is in charge as the "head of the family" and *he* wants her to.

When *all* medical care is rejected for religious reasons.

When the mother and father believe that nothing undesired can happen.

When the husband (or anyone, really,) acts in the role of midwife, directing the mother.

When there is anyone present who makes the mother feel unhibited or self-conscious or unsupported.

When the birth, for whatever reason, is not allowed to be spontaneous and instinctive.

When the mother has serious health problems.

When the mother does not have enough body awareness to intuit what is normal and what is not.

When UC is chosen because there is no other choice, out of desperation.

When UC is chosen only to save money.

When UC is chosen despite the mother still having serious reservations and fears about it.

I could probably go on but I ought to go to bed...


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

Yes - sometimes it is fear and mistrust of other people that drives a woman to UC. And I do think that can be a bad thing.
Again, pain pushes.
Vision pulls.

It is my belief that fear is the opposite of love.

Yes, I am a homebrith midwife but my perspective comes from the discussions I have had with women, books I have read, the many years of online discussion boards on this very topic, and that I, myself, am a mother and had a wonderful UC (unintended).

And no, poetess I am not assuming anything about how or with whom a woman chooses to UC. I think that mistrust can be the driving force regardless.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

Loved wrote>>"And no, poetess I am not assuming anything about how or with whom a woman chooses to UC. I think that mistrust can be the driving force regardless."

yes, I can go with this but I feel more complex. I had already been battered by my previous hospital births and uplifted by a mind altering homebirth the few imperfections in that birth and the serendipitous place I lived were things leading me to have the best birth experience to date atleast that is what I though, and went toward. But during birth things can change and I really had no resources to call on just the dread hospital and my deepest want/intuition was to call someone for reassurance, just someone to take certain concerns over so I could let go , this was not in early labor this was in active labor I did not have that so faced the darkest parts of my fears and endured but it was not beauty- so yes there are pieces of fear in the decision to UC- because the hospital is a hell I never want to go though again and i mean this not just for birth- DH had a stroke 5 1/2 years ago and it was as horrible and inhuman during that as birth is culturally i am just not cut out for industrial style care-


----------



## loved (Jun 10, 2002)

I also, just want to say that I think there is a difference between choosing to homebirth because of fear of hospitals and the crapola that happens there and choosing to UC out of fear of midwives.

Please, before I get bashed, I KNOW there are crappy midwives out there. I do think there is a distinction between choosing between the two though.








:


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

What about fear of a specific midwife?


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loved* 
I also, just want to say that I think there is a difference between choosing to homebirth because of fear of hospitals and the crapola that happens there and choosing to UC out of fear of midwives.

Because the push/pull dichotomy applies in both situations -- you can make a choice either out of a reaction against the thing or out of an embrace of the other -- I'm assuming you're talking about something else but I can't think what it is. Would you elaborate?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I chose to UC because it is something I feel I need to do myself, at least once. I think it will be empowering and give me a great sense of confidence to say "I did that. All by myself." It would prove to me that I can do anything and that I am strong, and I think that would affect my life forever. Moreover, it's not that I'm afraid of hospitals or midwives; it's that I don't want unnecessary interventions, and that could happen with both a hospital or a midwife. Lastly, getting Tricare to cover a homebirth is a hassel that I almost don't even wanna deal with! I really don't think that 'fear' is a very common reason for women to chose to UC. Fear isn't enough of a motivator, imo, to get you through labor and delivery. If anything I think it is the opinion that it is empowering, natural, or preferable to assisted birth...not fear of assistance.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

I also, just want to say that I think there is a difference between choosing to homebirth because of fear of hospitals and the crapola that happens there and choosing to UC out of fear of midwives.
Though the issues and problems are different, I don't like the crapola that happens with midwives either.







:

Fear of midwives is a valid reason to UC.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

so I don't think that we can really judge why women choose to birth the way they do, moving away from something, required by religious faith , fear of providers, fear of no provider . But when deciding for ourselves is when judgment should come in and who we share the birthing experience with or choose not to share is our individual choice- do I think that fear of midwives is any different than fear of hospitals and docs no- there are some midwives famous or not I would not want near me- maybe instead of a CSection or some sort of life saving thing but this would be instead of going to the hospital.

---I would also like to comment on a previous post about watching other women parent and breastfeed- to say that in this country where we do not generally see women nursing babies we have tons of breastfeeding related problems more so than in primary cultures where women/babies have remained attached- irregardless of disturbed births-much of what is taught has to do with seeing a behavior in context not so much about problem solving by talking about things or reading about them but learning by observation and doing. I do think that many things are nature and nurture just like language, people all over the world speak a language if they are hearing and not mute, but we don't all speak the same language we speak what we hear-
for me deeper cultural things I was raised with extended family until I went to school- so women ran things the household and the work and it was not only run by women but shared- and no one was boss- things got done, if one woman was doing dishes then one scraped plates or rinsed and dried.. and no one micromanaged even when I learned I was given a towel and not instructed - when I lived in communes it was similar but different because too many bosses and not enough just get it done folks and way too much talking and probably too many cultural differences - micromanagement down to how to squeeze a tooth paste tube...If my grandmothers had been alive when I had my children either one I would have trusted or both no second thoughts- to find women of their actions in the US midwifery world is not an easy feat-- when I have met midwives from other countries many are similar to my grandmothers humble, strong, compassionate, sensible, women i would trust.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
I guess I should elaborate.

Things that to my mind make UC less safe or not the best idea (and I realize that not everyone will agree with me on every point):

When the parents are fearful enough of others becoming involved that they avoid seeking help even when there are indications that something is very wrong.

When the mother is UCing only because her husband is in charge as the "head of the family" and *he* wants her to.

When *all* medical care is rejected for religious reasons.

When the mother and father believe that nothing undesired can happen.

When the husband (or anyone, really,) acts in the role of midwife, directing the mother.

When there is anyone present who makes the mother feel unhibited or self-conscious or unsupported.

When the birth, for whatever reason, is not allowed to be spontaneous and instinctive.

When the mother has serious health problems.

When the mother does not have enough body awareness to intuit what is normal and what is not.

When UC is chosen because there is no other choice, out of desperation.

When UC is chosen only to save money.

When UC is chosen despite the mother still having serious reservations and fears about it.

I could probably go on but I ought to go to bed...










While these may make you uncomfortable, they certainly do not diminish the validity of the choice to UC. Many women who plan a UC will do much more research than a woman who plans to give birth in a hospital and let someone else run things. Therefore they are not ignorant and naive, but educated and empowered.

Likewise, many women who choose a hospital birth do so for many ofht ereasons you were concerned about. They don't think there are other options, they don't think anything can go wrong at a hospital, the husband/partner makes them, they are afraid of rejection or persecution from friends and family, etc. I have always believed that the best place for a woman to birth is in the place in which she feels the most safe and comfortable. However, the choice should be an educated one. The only people I "worry about" are those who don't know they have birthing options. They either birth the way society deems appropriate or the way they are pressured into by friends and/or family.

The original reason I looked into homebirth was because I wanted a child but could not afford the hospital bills. However, I now am committed to a homebirth (UC) because I will be more free and relaxed to have an empowering birth. Will I choose my dream birth over my baby? No. If something seems off or abnormal, I will run to a hospital or a doctor to get help.

The issue I find irritating is the notion that a woman choosing to UC must have all the "right" motives, reasons and mindsets to make her choice valid, whereas a woman can stroll into a hospital and give birth without the slightest backlash. Her motives and rationale is never questioned, she is not blamed if something goes wrong and life goes on.

I'm ranting, so I guess I'm done.

Kristi


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

the breasfeeding thing strikes a chord with me. I believe in "unassisted breasfeeding, if you will. I have never sough help or assitance with BFing either of my babies...not from a nurse, not from an LC, not from anyone. BFing has been one of the easiest experiences of my life. Meanwhile I see mother after mother struggle and fight battles with it daily. Was I just lucky? I don't believe I was any luckier than most of them. I believe that most women have the ability to BF easily just like I did. I put 100% trust in my body to do what it needed to do *OR* for it to let me know when something was wrong. When I read other women's BFing horror stories some of the "problems" they had were things that happened to me as well only I did not view them as problems and I did what came naturally to me and carried on with my wonderful nursing relationship. I think *so often* the advice given by even well meaning/educated LCs just makes things worse because BFing is not one size fits all. I think getting in touch with your body and trusting your instincts is the most important aspect to successful BFing.

I have been bashed (for lack of a better word) for my views on this because so many think it is important to have more awareness for the problems associated with BFing and more assitance for those issues and I do agree that all of that can be good but I still think *some* women would be better off if they ignored every bit of BFing advice and just looked inward and did it on their own. I think there is definitely a place for both.

Anyway, my point is that I think there is a place for both assisted and unassited birth as well.

~Erin


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~* 
The issue I find irritating is the notion that a woman choosing to UC must have all the "right" motives, reasons and mindsets to make her choice valid, whereas a woman can stroll into a hospital and give birth without the slightest backlash. Her motives and rationale is never questioned, she is not blamed if something goes wrong and life goes on.

ITA with this. I think that "motivating" reasons as just a map. I believe that most every woman can benefit from HB or UC no matter what her motives. I also believe that it is just as safe, no matter the motives.

So I may not agree with so-and-so's motives (say, her husband made her do it), but that does not mean that her doing it "because" her husband made her do it will make it any less safe than if she had gone to the hospital. On the other hand, I DO believe that if she goes to the hospital "because her husband made her do it" she could be worse off. So motives or no motives, I believe HB or UC are still the best (at least equally as save, with UC, IMHO, being more safe).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom* 
the breastfeeding thing strikes a chord with me. I believe in "unassisted breastfeeding, if you will. I have never sough help or assistance with BFing either of my babies...not from a nurse, not from an LC, not from anyone. BFing has been one of the easiest experiences of my life. Meanwhile I see mother after mother struggle and fight battles with it daily. Was I just lucky? I don't believe I was any luckier than most of them. I believe that most women have the ability to BF easily just like I did. I put 100% trust in my body to do what it needed to do *OR* for it to let me know when something was wrong. When I read other women's BFing horror stories some of the "problems" they had were things that happened to me as well only I did not view them as problems and I did what came naturally to me and carried on with my wonderful nursing relationship. I think *so often* the advice given by even well meaning/educated LCs just makes things worse because BFing is not one size fits all. I think getting in touch with your body and trusting your instincts is the most important aspect to successful BFing.

ITA with this also. I believe that many women that have trouble with BF are because of all the "help" and "advice" they get from friends, family, and well meaning strangers, as well as nurses and others at the hospital. That, and combined with all the "hospital" birth stuff; drugs, separation right away, formula and fluids given to baby, and so on. It's no wonder that there are so many mothers that have trouble BFing.

For me, I never was raised watching anyone BF. I don't think I ever saw my Mom do it, or anyone else for that matter. But BFing was just what you were "suppose" to do when you had a baby. No one told me this, no one had to. If we were given milk for our babies naturally, then it must be best to give them that instead of powder stuff, right?







:

So when I had my first baby and began BFing, I had no trouble at all. The only time "advice" and "opinions" became a problem for me was when I was told I should wean Baby at 5 months old (which I did







)

I have successively BF seven babies "unassisted". And have wonderful memories. My children will never be able to say, "they never say BFing" like I am able to say. And I am proud!







They will be second generation experts in HB-UC-EBF. My son already expresses that his wife will not go to a hospital "just" to have a baby!







And he is only 10.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:

I believe that most women have the ability to BF easily just like I did. I put 100% trust in my body to do what it needed to do *OR* for it to let me know when something was wrong. When I read other women's BFing horror stories some of the "problems" they had were things that happened to me as well only I did not view them as problems and I did what came naturally to me and carried on with my wonderful nursing relationship. I think so often the advice given by even well meaning/educated LCs just makes things worse because BFing is not one size fits all. I think getting in touch with your body and trusting your instincts is the most important aspect to successful BFing.
this might sound funny, but i'm retreating for the baby moon in order to avoid meddlin'.

my DH and I had a huge sit-down with my ILs a few weeks ago. during this sit-down, we talked about a lot of things: our move, our process in trying to secure a job in order to move, our process once we move to establish a home and new career for DH, my process in establishing a home and my work-life (finding balance in that), and our tenative goals for TTC.

i talked about when we would TTC, that we would HB, and that we were going to do a baby moon retreat. we also told them that we are going to AP.

the reason for this is that i realized almost immediately that my MIL or my mother would LOVE to visit the moment the baby was born (or be present) and that for me, that would be an absolute nightmare. Both women are rather high strung, my MIL more so, and my MIL is a negative, negative judgemental person.

She is well meaning, i understand this, but she's down-right meddlesome. she believes that there are ways that things "should be" done and any other way is "wrong" and makes you a "bad person" if you do them that way.

i realized that my hsuband and i are well read and emotionally prepared for many aspects of parenting--as well as becoming more responsible for ourselves and our finances to prepare us for this process. But, we also know that there is a 'practicum' to this knowledge called "actually having a baby" and that great sense of awe (and probably a bit of sublime-styled fear) when you hold that little person and go "now i have to figure out how to make sure i don't kill you or get you killed in the next 20 years!"

we want to lotus birth, to EC, to avoid circ. These are "bad" things to my MIL, as is AP ("i've heard that AP is really bad for kids!"--her direct response when told we were going to AP). well, i assume they are. i haven't told her about them.

i figure that i'd like that first month or 6 weeks with the baby to be time for DH and I--alone and unassisted/unhindered--to learn how to be parents and apply these things that we're learning about now and figure out what works for us (all three of us--him, me, baby!).

my MIL is not too happy. She moans and whines. All of her friends get to go to the hospital to watch the birth or they get to go and see the baby right after the c-section. they get to see their grandchildren right way--and help out (i read that as meddle).

and on top of that, since we are moving, my MIL said "well, if we can't come to see theb aby right away, then i guess you'll be bringing the baby to us, right?' and i said 'no, because we're not going to fly with the baby or do extensive travel for the first year at least, maybe more' and she said "but so-and-so's daughter flew to five different states with her week-old daughter to visit all the major relatives." and i said "too bad so-and-so raised an idiot.'

sometimes, i get caustic, i'm sorry. please forgive that. just, a new immune system, fed formula, on an airplane four or five times in a couple of weeks is just too much stupidity for me to keep m mouth shut. LOL

yeah, so, yeah.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

The issue I find irritating is the notion that a woman choosing to UC must have all the "right" motives, reasons and mindsets to make her choice valid, whereas a woman can stroll into a hospital and give birth without the slightest backlash. Her motives and rationale is never questioned, she is not blamed if something goes wrong and life goes on.
Additionally they have to have lots of research and statistics to back it up, and they sometimes really have to fight for it. It's ridiculous.

Quote:

I believe that many women that have trouble with BF are because of all the "help" and "advice" they get from friends, family, and well meaning strangers, as well as nurses and others at the hospital
I agree. I think if we all had a "Do it yourself, but DO IT. Try everything you can think of, and find out what works for you" sort of attitude, maybe there would be less problems. Help would be beneficial if we had reliable sources, but unfortunately, we don't. Even LCs can be full of misinformation. You know, I think the best person to ask if you need to would be a woman who breastfed like 3 kids up until they were 3 LOL. She's been down the block and probably won't steer ya wrong!!

Most of my relatives are freaking out about the UC too, going on about how much more safe hospitals are and how I should at least have a midwife present...


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
Additionally they have to have lots of research and statistics to back it up, and they sometimes really have to fight for it. It's ridiculous.

I agree. I think if we all had a "Do it yourself, but DO IT. Try everything you can think of, and find out what works for you" sort of attitude, maybe there would be less problems. Help would be beneficial if we had reliable sources, but unfortunately, we don't. Even LCs can be full of misinformation. You know, I think the best person to ask if you need to would be a woman who breastfed like 3 kids up until they were 3 LOL. She's been down the block and probably won't steer ya wrong!!

Most of my relatives are freaking out about the UC too, going on about how much more safe hospitals are and how I should at least have a midwife present...

Totally. It sucks. My mom is surprisingly supportive of HB but she really would like a mw present at the birth. Also, while she doesn't mind the UP too much she does think I should get a check up at some point just to make sure everything's okay. Most of my other friends however have flat out told me I'm endangering the baby or being selfish or whatever. It's really irritating, because I know I've don'e so much research into this that my UP is probably just as healthy if not healthier than a lot of other pgs where there is no research done and they just rely on the dr to tell them what to do.

Another thing that I know happens is that the blame of any problems falls on the mom if she UCs whereas it is shared or even given completely to the MW or dr in other situations. That isn't fair. Sometimes babies get sick, come too early or are stillborn. It isn't anyone's fault (neccesarily) and it isn't fair that the mother is blamed for being negligent just because she UCed and had a stillborn or whatever. That would be so devastating and terrible for me. Blah...

Kristi


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~* 
While these may make you uncomfortable, they certainly do not diminish the validity of the choice to UC.

No, they certainly don't. We all have different motivations and it is not for me to question the validity of another's.

But I can say that the more you do to make the birth dysfunctional, the more likely you will be to need emergency care. I wholly support freedom to choose and that includes any amount of intervention a woman feels she needs, but that doesn't mean I think hospital birth generally a good idea, or (for instance) that I think "managed UC" (an oxymoron to my mind anyway) is a good idea.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidzaplenty*
So I may not agree with so-and-so's motives (say, her husband made her do it), but that does not mean that her doing it "because" her husband made her do it will make it any less safe than if she had gone to the hospital.

No, but at the hospital at least there are emergency services to deal with the fallout from a created dysfunctional labor. I believe that spontaneous, instinctive labor in a healthy, free mother will the vast majority of the time result in a good outcome. I don't believe that's true when labor is interfered with either pyschologically or physically, which is exactly why hospital workers have such a skewed understanding of the level of inherent danger in birth -- the births they see are all interfered with, so they see a lot of potentially life-threatening complications, so they think emergency backup care is necessary because in those cases it is. Interfered-with UC is also going to see a lot of potentially life-threatening complications. Remember the study of a small religious community in which most of the women UC'd? The infant death rate was terribly high. Why? Probably several reasons that were on my list. That's not to say that their choice to UC was invalid. Only to say that the conditions under which they did UC were less safe.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~* 
Another thing that I know happens is that the blame of any problems falls on the mom if she UCs whereas it is shared or even given completely to the MW or dr in other situations. That isn't fair. Sometimes babies get sick, come too early or are stillborn. It isn't anyone's fault (neccesarily) and it isn't fair that the mother is blamed for being negligent just because she UCed and had a stillborn or whatever. That would be so devastating and terrible for me.

That was one of the hardest things for me to come to terms with. I fully believed that I was giving the baby the safest and most beneficial entrance into the world. And I was also prepared, spiritually and morally speaking, to accept a natural death. What I could not prepare for and which would have devastated me also, would have been the social and possibly legal ramifications of an infant death with no professional to blame for it. I think it's a HUGE factor in why more women don't UC.


----------



## rixafreeze (Apr 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loved* 
It's one thing to be motivated by a desire to NOT have something happen. It's another to be motivated by a desire to HAVE something happen.

See the difference?
Pain pushes.
Vision pulls.

What worries me are those women who never get to the "vision" part of thier births.

Fantastic insight. I have come to UC from both ways.

It's easier to explain my decision to birth unhindered by talking about what I am trying to avoid (high intervention rates in hospitals, bossy/interventive midwives, etc).

But what really inspires me are UC stories--that's what keeps me going when I have doubts or fears. It's that vision that will pull me through. I have my own personal "visions" about this birth, mostly drawn from my birth dreams. In nearly every dream, I give birth on my knees. No one else is touching me or telling me what to do. I am usually alone, although in one a good midwife friend was there chatting with me until I realized the baby was suddenly coming out! I always cradle my baby's emerging head in my hand, then catch the baby myself. (I even had a birth dream in a hospital--I ran away from the hospital staff, locked myself in a bathroom, and caught my baby while sitting on the toilet!).

I'm loving this thread, by the way!


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i was pulled.

and now i'm both pushed and pulled!


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rixafreeze* 
But what really inspires me are UC stories--that's what keeps me going when I have doubts or fears. It's that vision that will pull me through. I have my own personal "visions" about this birth, mostly drawn from my birth dreams. In nearly every dream, I give birth on my knees. No one else is touching me or telling me what to do. I am usually alone, although in one a good midwife friend was there chatting with me until I realized the baby was suddenly coming out! I always cradle my baby's emerging head in my hand, then catch the baby myself. (I even had a birth dream in a hospital--I ran away from the hospital staff, locked myself in a bathroom, and caught my baby while sitting on the toilet!).

I too was continuosly inspired by stories of real women and their experiences. I looked for the ones that were truly unhindered for that positive vibe.

I only had one vivid birth dream, that was two nights before I gave birth. There was a midwife, my mom, & my best friend. I was semi reclining, legs open, midwife ready to catch the baby I was trying to push out. I remember her unexpectedly spreading my thighs a little more (gently still) and I was immediately annoyed. I felt agitated inside and wanted everyone to leave. I woke up and was completely certain that this baby was going to be born at home, unhindered. And he was







Story:http://www.mothering.com/discussions...assisted+birth


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Visualization is such a helpful tool. It really helped me to become more clear about my needs and wants.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

I am not telling my family I am having a UC. I just don't think they could understand. They loved my midwife-attended homebirth last year but I did not as much and I know they would try to talk me into getting prenatal care.
I have been in touch with a midwife and have her support but we haven't done any prenatal care and I don't plan to, aside from the ultrasound I just had.


----------



## funluvnmommy (Apr 2, 2006)

I have not read all 12 pages of this thread, but I do have a question-I think. Based on my past 3 pregnancies and deliveries, I feel that I would be happy having an UC.
However, my dh is terrified at the thought or UC and HB in general. His monther delivered one of his sisters at home with a midwife and it was quite traumatic for him. I know that sounds funny but he was forced to watch the birth (his mother insisted all the children be there and be activily watching) he was 14 at the time.
From what I've heard the baby was in an odd position, couldn't decend, there was a lot of blood loss, long labor, mother was dehydrated and exhausted, the baby well over 10lbs, the midwife and the father ended up pressing on either side of MIL's pg belly to 'help' her push the baby out. An ambulance was finally called and the baby was born just minutes before it arrived.

wheww...

So I guess my question is did you all (UC'ers) have your dh's support for the begining? Did it take some educating/convincing?


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *funluvnmommy* 
So I guess my question is did you all (UC'ers) have your dh's support for the beginning? Did it take some educating/convincing?

My DH has been on board with my HB/UC decisions right from the beginning. I never did have to convince him that it is what I wanted or needed to do.

Overcoming a tragic event, like your DH went through, may not be easy. But with a lot of TLC and a lot of education. I am sure it could be done.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *poetesss* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
Sometimes the husband isn't inside it with her, and that's not ideal; it might even cause problems. She might make that choice anyway for various reasons, just as a woman might make the choice to have a midwife there for various reasons, and that's valid. But neither choice is in itself the way birth is just "meant to be".

so where is this definition of the way birth is "meant to be" coming from? If a woman made that "choice" as you term it to have a midwife, for example, why is this choice considered less than ideal? Who's setting these ideals anyway? Seems awfully subjective to me.

If someone wants a UC I'm all for it







but I find the idea that it's the way birthing "should be" a little off putting, kwim?

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your intent.

I know this is an old thread, but I never answered this and wanted to clarify. No, I wasn't making a judgment as to whether attended or unattended birth is more ideal. I was asserting that attended birth is not inherently more ideal than unattended birth.

My quote above was in direct response to another poster's question:

Quote:

If sex is not meant to be alone, is birth also not meant to be alone?
She was asking whether it's possible that it's true that "birth is meant to be attended by others". My response was that no, it's _not_ the way birth is just meant to be, that is, the ideal expression of birth; for the mother to be alone with the baby is also a perfectly valid expression of normal physiological and spiritual birth. I put "meant to be" in quotes so as to make it clear that I was referring back to her question where she used that wording.

It might help too to see the quote in context. I wrote:

Quote:

In conception the essential dyad is the woman and man. As a heterosexual and monogamist, I'm pretty partial to keeping the sex act to that essential dyad. But many people are able to become sexually aroused, with their genitals fully and normally functional, in other configurations. In birth the essential dyad is mother and baby. It is natural and normal for it to remain so throughout the act. Nothing else is needed for it to be complete and whole in a biological and spiritual sense. But it's also possible to have other people involved and still have the body continue functioning normally. The key in this happening in both sex and birth is that anyone outside of the essential dyad be inside the experience also. Ideally, this should happen in midwifery. I get this feeling from reading a book like The Red Tent, and I think that it's the romantic vision of midwifery in our culture, but almost never the reality. It's probably similar with women having others attend a UC. Sometimes the husband isn't inside it with her, and that's not ideal; it might even cause problems. She might make that choice anyway for various reasons, just as a woman might make the choice to have a midwife there for various reasons, and that's valid. But neither choice is in itself the way birth is just "meant to be".
There's nothing in there that implies that solo UC is the only valid form of birthing -- in fact I was trying to express the opposite belief, that while something that is outside of the essential dyad may not be _necessary_ (in the case of normal birth, anyway,) it may still be desirable for one reason or another.

In fact, in my own last birth while I know that it would have been different and certainly with less risk of distraction and inhibition if I'd birthed solo, my husband was with me and his presence was a tremendous gift and was part of one of my favorite memories of any of my births. For me, that was as ideal as it could get; I even used the words in my birth story, "it was finally the way it was meant to be." So no, I wasn't saying that attended birth isn't meant to be, only that it is not THE way (the only way) it is meant to be.


----------



## eminencejae (Nov 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~~Mama2B~~* 
....
I have a friend who believes she *could not physically make it through birth without an epidural.* The thing that saddens me is not that fact that she has epidurals, but the fact that our society leads women to believe that they cannot get through birth wihout assistance....

This brings about a question with me for the UCers that would hope that a best friend or even a stranger who has no clue that UCing would be a possibility for themselves... If you wanted to share your experience with that person and try to educate them on the fact that they could do it physically and that they wouldn't go crazy and lose complete control without and epidural; What examples of the differences in coping with the physical sensations would you use to differentiate between an epi and going without the drugs?
I ask this because it's something that I'd personally like to know about the sensations; Kind of like, I've heard in other posts about the 'pain' question -that it's like having the stomach flu and the diff is the purpose of birthing as oposed to the purposelessness of the flu and pain related to it...and the fear relation that goes with all that. (At least that's the understanding I gather from the things I've read) Does anyone else have any differing examples other than the flu pains veres labor sensations? My first birth and so far any birth, was horrific. It was in the hospital and I had 3rd stage complications (I believe due to the epidural, the emotional and pysiological interuptions, and the interferance of the OB by rushing the placenta out by pulling it out, and I didn't even know if I should push because I didn't/couldn't feel contractions/didn't know what they were, etc. I was very drugged and felt very out of control the entire time, and hemmoraged. I don't even remember being in pain persay before the epidural, but I know that the pushing stage burned and was very scary and the afterbirth was the worst part for me. It was really emotionally and physically traumatising for me. I don't feel that I was at any comfort or mentally positive level at all during my birth of my son in the hospital. (Which is the biggest thing leading me to other options) Otherwise it was okay without other complications except for my major discomforts with the hospital procedures that I believed hindered breast feeding etc) -short story of my first birth- This time I'm hopeing for a home birth and don't know how to find a midwife who could help me because of the access, and mostly the cost. I feel that so many others have done it unassisted (without a pro) that I should be able to as well and that I would possibly have a better chance of not hemmoraging, ( due to the fact that I wouldn't have anyone rushing/managing my labor and the fact that my hormones would work properly -I'm hopeing for a more intimate, private, experience via UA/UC- and that even if I did hemmorage; at least there are 3 hospitals within 5 min and I could always eat a peice of the placenta if it came out in time and breast feed right away to help expel the placenta. (the hemmoraging is my biggest fear about going UA; but my worst fear of all is going through medical monitoring, mental mistreatment and the standard medical procedures; basicly losing the potential intimacy of the birth experience)
I'm not sure if I'm straying from the origional topic but basicly I'm asking this question that I think is a little deeper and productivity related to societies opinions/fears of against going without drugs and interventions.

I'm pondering what we as UCers (even though I'm not officially one yet, but hopeing to be) can do to help others understand? (Other than this wonderful thread)
At the same time I'm trying to find ideas and experiences to help myself feel more comfortable with how I may be able to cope.
In a nutshell I've described the reasons why I'm leaned towards a partner assisted home birth, and some of the things I'm still concerned about. Which goes to show that UCers do put alot of time and consideration into evaluating the risks/benefits because I'm one of them. Even if I could afford a midwife assisted/hospital birth, which I can because I have insurance... I'm trying to opt out because I feel it would be safer for me and my baby to go unhindered, and hope that it will give my whole family a more positive peacful experience.


----------



## Munchkimo (May 26, 2005)

I'm wondering what transition is like during a UC. Last time, when I entered transition while laboring at home with a midwife, I got scared and demanded my husband take me to the hospital. In retrospect, I really regret doing that. I will never know for certain whether the complications that occurred in the hospital were the result of the interventions used there or if they would have occurred at home.

How does a woman know the difference between instintively knowing something is wrong and the common "I can't do this" feeling of transition?


----------



## nudnik (Aug 9, 2006)

eminencejae, I saw somewhere that taking an epidural for a normal birth is like taking an epidural during a marathon. The same overworked muscles, possibly even pain, can be overwhelmed by the exhilaration of knowing you're about to finish the race! Drugging yourself up so you can't experience the sensations of winning... well, it just wouldn't be the same.


----------



## eminencejae (Nov 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nudnik* 
eminencejae, I saw somewhere that taking an epidural for a normal birth is like taking an epidural during a marathon. The same overworked muscles, possibly even pain, can be overwhelmed by the exhilaration of knowing you're about to finish the race! Drugging yourself up so you can't experience the sensations of winning... well, it just wouldn't be the same.

Thank you! That's a great example! I read that somewhere too. Especially in the study I read about the effects of the drugs and how they mess with the other hormones that the body needs in order to make a healthy balance, and in a nutshell the absence of that balance is what is beleived to be one of the causes of post pardum depression. I really wish more people would understand these things... Not to mention the effect the drugs have on the baby and the tiring of the mother that affects being able to establish bf early on.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Munchkimo* 
I'm wondering what transition is like during a UC. Last time, when I entered transition while laboring at home with a midwife, I got scared and demanded my husband take me to the hospital. In retrospect, I really regret doing that. I will never know for certain whether the complications that occurred in the hospital were the result of the interventions used there or if they would have occurred at home.

How does a woman know the difference between instintively knowing something is wrong and the common "I can't do this" feeling of transition?

Munchkimo, If you are comfortable going over this a little bit more, would you explain in more detail, possibly in a PM or another thread just incase this isn't an apropriate category for it; What did the midwife say about your impending transfer? Did she think it was nessecary? Why? Was it just something that happened because you were overwhelmed and not coping? Was it an extended amount of time thing/stalled labor/unknown position of the baby?

I've been wondering about this recently myself and it's one of my big worries about UCing - with my partner. I'm afraid that I'll freak out or that a combo of others around me getting nervous will cause us to transfer without a really good reason and am trying to figure out how to draw the line between really good reason and just plain fear and discomfort. One of the birth stories I read this happened to the woman who was trying to UC and there really didn't seem much reason for her to have had to tranfer IMO. I've told my partner that no matter what I say or do just put up with it but don't bring in any medical interventions until this baby is OUT! Prefurably not even until the placenta is out! The last thing I need after all that work and perserverance is to end up at the hospital having them rip whatever they can, charging us for it, and losing the bonding time with the baby.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i find those 'i can't do it any more' moments in life have two origins: reality or fear. when it's reality--time to stop. when it's fear--time to keep going on.

they 'taste' different.

since i've experiencd them in other aspects of my life, i believe that the 'taste' factor will be similar in transition. if it 'tastes' like fear, then it will be fear and time to press on. if it tastes like reality, then time to embrace that and get help.

but i don't know for certain. i just know that we come to those 'i can't do it anymore' moments in yoga asana all the time, as well as in meditation, and, well, you either keep going (because it's the body complaining and that's it, the fear that goes with it) or you let go of it and take rest (which would be akin to getting help in the birth process). so, there it is.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

I think a very real danger to UC in our culture is that our whole lives we are taught to cultivate a fear of life in general rather than an ability to sense danger, because "instinct/intuition isn't real or isn't enough". _Protecting the Gift_ by Gavin de Becker explains the concept very well.

I had that feeling of "just take me to the hospital and have then cut me open" but at the same time I was able to recognize it as being about my desire not to have to be in pain anymore, rather than about a sense of danger.


----------



## Munchkimo (May 26, 2005)

I don't mind sharing here at all. I'm thankful to have a place to gain valuable perspective. I've tried to keep this brief, but sometimes with births small details are very important.

My midwife was very hands off, to the point that she preferred to be called a baby catcher rather than a midwife. My labor started when I was four days "overdue". I had attempted to start labor by using nipple stimulation. I did this partly because I was anxious to meet my baby, but I was moreso just concerned about my family leaving for vacation before the baby was born.

The nipple stimulation triggered light contractions that came every 10-7 minutes for the next three days. During these three days, contractions only let up once for about an hour, so I was quite sleep deprived when true labor actually started. I know this was not actual labor because I only dilated to 2 centimeters.

After a day and a half of active labor, I had my husband and my midwife check my dilation. I was 7cm with a cervical lip in the front. I labored for about three more hours in the positions that were most uncomfortable for me thinking that this would help resolve the cervical lip. Then my dilation was checked again and I was still at 7cm with the cervical lip now on the right side of my cervix. I didn't handle labor well after this point. I was aggravated and discouraged. I felt like I was working harder than I ever had in my life and getting nowhere. Then my water broke. It was clear. This compelled me to keep persevering at home.

Three hours later, I felt slightly like pushing. I wasn't sure. Things just felt different and I found it suddenly impossible to relax at all. I told my husband it didn't feel right and had him drive me to the hospital. I don't recall having my dilation checked before leaving, but I remember telling the doctors at the hospital that I was 7 and a half centimeters.

At the hospital, they confirmed that I was 7.5-8cm. They decided to send me to another hospital that was 20 miles away by ambulance as there was no doctor on call who could perform a cesarean if neccessary. By this time, I was pushing involuntarily. The nurses started an IV and administered Nubain in hopes that it would prevent me from pushing before dilating fully.

The Nubain did absolutely nothing and the ambulance ride was quite stressful as I was pushing hard involuntarily and being told that I was going to rupture my cervix if I kept pushing. When I got to the next hospital, the offered a spinal block to numb my pushing urge. I reluctantly complied. I dilated shortly thereafter but no longer felt much of anything let alone a pushing urge. I pushed when the nurses told me I was having a contraction. It was slow going. I was tired and numb.

The baby's heartrate was showing decelerations and the OB thought it would be best to use vaccum extraction. The baby's head was born. The hindwaters showed meconium. The OB called for fundal pressure while he tugged on the baby's head with the vaccum. My son's shoulders were born. I held him for half a minute (best half minute of my life) before they took him away to do suctioning, eye goop, and vitamin K. I believe they also took blood at that time.

Needless to say, I'm left wondering why I had such a hard time dilating beyond 7 cm. I also wonder if the shoulder dystocia was caused by poor positioning, by the vaccum, or if it was truly a matter of my son's shoulders being too large for my pelvis.


----------

