# Honest question: Why no drugs/pain relief?



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Seriously, after having 3 children, one with an epidural, one with nothing, and one emergency C-section with a prolapsed cord, I can honestly say that I've experienced the entire gamut.

Please tell me why you think that having no pain relief is preferable.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

#1. It's best for the baby.

#2. It allows you to move around and birth more effectively.

-Angela


----------



## Patchfire (Dec 11, 2001)

Because I didn't want to expose my baby to high amounts of drugs after carefully watching everything I took in for the nine previous months. Because I didn't want to be confined to bed, unable to move. Because I didn't want to take a chance of developing a fever, which could then lead to a full septic workup being performed on my baby. Because I wanted to do everything I could to get breastfeeding off to a good start. Because I wanted to be able to listen to what my body was telling me, without 'noise' interferring with the 'signal.' Because I already have low blood pressure, and I didn't need to be lowered any further.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

#1 I'm afraid of needles - specifically needles stuck in my back!!
#2 Sometimes epidurals can make it so you can't push effectively. Then I might tear or get cut, forceps, vaccum, c-section. After natural childbirth, I'm not injured, and I feel great afterwards.
#3 Sometimes babies can be affected - I wouldn't want to give the hospital any reason to separate me from my baby (if I can help it, they still find their ways.)
#4 I can't get drugs at home.
#5 I feel a sense of accomplishment, especially when I can use hypnosis and be comfortable without drugs.
...

I'm actually quite a fan of a little Stadol around transition. But I wouldn't birth in a hospital just to get it. (EFM, IV, not being allowed to eat or move around easily, pushing on a bed, not catching my own baby, the hospital treating my baby rough - things I did not like about the hospital). [1st baby at home, 2nd baby transport to the hosptial]


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

- I want to birth at home- hospitals are NASTY

- Birth is not a medical event

- The pain is there for a reason- disconnect it and you're more likely to end up with damage.

Oh yeah, and #1. It's best for the baby.

-Angela


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Dangerous for mom and baby.

Increases complications including increased "need" for Pit, ineffective pushing, more chances of tears and worse tears, and ultimately increased risk of C/S.

Impaired breathing for baby.

Risk of injury to mother in injection area.

Increased risk of incorrect drug administration.

Risk of shock reaction to drug.

Etc.

Personally, I would never use it ever, but I'm very sensitive to drugs. Even stuff that most people like and consider extremely benign (Tylenol, etc.) makes me feel terrible. I'm unusual in that way I think. But I think it should be available, but I think the risks need to be well communicated and I really think it should be actually used RARELY (not even just LESS but RARELY). JMHO.


----------



## hellyaellen (Nov 8, 2005)

with my first i had what the medical community calls a "managed" labor and birth with inducement, epidural, threatened c-section, etc

but what really made me want to go natural with the next one was the catheter they inserted b/c of the epidural. i said to myself never again









but then when i actually got pregnant again (6 years later) i started reading. i found out how much better it is for mom and baby. in terms of possible complications, in terms of avoiding a c-section, in terms of breastfeeding relationship, in terms of drugs passing to baby, etc

and then when i actually experienced natural birth (except for the damn episiotomy!







: ) i found out how much more in control i felt, how much more in tune with my body i felt, and most importantly how strong i felt handling the pain. i think iwas able to birth more easily and ,more efficiently/effectively without the drugs.

and yeah i did mention demerol during transition but i was mostly being sarcastic and glad nobody gave me any.

next time i plan to remove myself from the hospital setting altogether and either birth at home or at a free standing birth center


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

here's a great article that explains it for me:

http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr.../ecstatic.html

when women's bodies are left alone to their own devices, there are fewer complications and fewer issues for baby.


----------



## crunchymama2two (Jun 21, 2006)

1. It's best for the baby.

2. It allows you to move around and birth more effectively.

3. I prefer to birth at home.

4. I hate needles and pills.

5. I really dislike the huge bruise on my back I got after DS's birth from the epidural that should never have been given to me so late.

6. I like being in control of my own body.

7. With hypnobirthing I truly didn't need any artificial painkillers.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

I want to birth at home.

I do not want to be strapped to a bed.

I want to be in control.

with drugs so many more complications can arise because you are not laboring naturally and in control of what is going on- feelin git and moving.


----------



## shellbell (Jun 18, 2006)

When I birthed my children... I couldn't really have told you all the reasons I wanted to go natural, except that :

I was meant to as a woman

Then, I had a friend who kept asking me why I didn't want epidurals with my births and after many questions, my answer morphed into:

Because I want to be completely present during the births of my children... I want to feel my legs, and my butt and my abdomen and all that is happening with my body. I don't want drugs to hide my children's births, and I want to be able to move freely when they are born.

Somehow, I could never imagine myself intentionally ignoring the sensation (as painful as it became) of my child's life coming through my body... I am grateful, and I want to do it again one day.


----------



## DoomaYula (Aug 22, 2006)

If there were a way of getting pain relief that didn't affect the baby, didn't involve a needle, IV, EFM, being confined to bed (by orders or choice), kept me feeling like myself, and didn't lead to a zillion interventions, I'd be all for it.

I had an epidural with my first labor. It was a nightmare -- I had one of those "windows" where all the pain just concentrated into one spot on my leg and it was more painful than before. Plus I was cathetered, on my back, tore, and couldn't see my babies (I had twins) for about 2 hours after their birth because I was numb and in bed. I just swore I wouldn't do it again.

Second time, I had a shot of stadol during transition. YOW. Granted it took the "edge" off, but the feeling of being hazy and drugged and totally out-of-it for an hour during labor was NOT enjoyable. Cross THAT off my list too!

We plan to ttc #4 next year, and it will be a homebirth -- without drugs, ha. I think getting a woman into a comfortable environment where she's empowered and supported, and the pain would be completely manageable.


----------



## blissful_maia (Feb 17, 2005)

For me, the first and foremost reason is because of the negative effects on the baby. It's really amazing to me that mamas can have a completely healthy pregnancy, eat lots of healthy food, exercise, connect with their baby - but then when they're in labour they just forget about it and dope their baby up with extremely strong pain-killing drugs that affect their breathing and nervous system.







:

Also extremely important for me personally is the experience of giving birth. I would not want to be numb to my body's efforts and hard work to birth the baby it has been growing for the last 9 months. Women need to work on not associating labour with "pain" in the traditional sense, and see it more as a purposeful physical experience. Giving birth naturally is an extremely satisfying and emotionally/physically empowering experience.


----------



## AnnesMoM (Jun 19, 2005)

#1. Like 1st poster, what's the use of not taking even a Tylenol for a headache for 9+ months if you're just going to drug them up at the end

#2. I've had a spinal for C-Sec., that was the worst experience of my life.

#3. I can't even stand to lay on my back in the tub (hurts my lower back), I don't know how I could stand to give birth that way.

#4. VBAC's aren't allowed at the hospitals close to me.

#5. I want to minimize my chances of a C-sec unless an emergency - I'm allergic to Nubain (the stuff they give you in the spinal). They'd probably knock me out.

#6. The more I learn the more I'm scared to death of hospital birth.


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Thank you to all who have posted with such honest answers...

I am pregnant with #1 right now, scared of labor (and not from lack of information--it's just a big unknown), and have been adamant about WANTING pain meds the entire time I've been pregnant. Of course, now, I'm wavering a little and thinking about natural childbirth.

We'll see what happens, but I appreciate the honesty and non-flaming of this thread.


----------



## sehbub (Mar 15, 2006)

Honestly, it's REALLY not that bad.







And this is coming from a woman who was in labor for 33 hours, and had been flat on my back for 10 days prior to going in to labor, save for sitting up to eat and going to the bathroom.

I chose to go pain killer free for several reasons (although I did get one mg of Stadol at hour 31 which lasted 20 minutes and got me through transition and then just stopped working...







)

1) I didn't want my 30 week preemie to come out drugged and at any more of a risk than she already was

2) I wanted to experience everything my body was capable of

3) I'll do it again with this baby, because I felt like a complete and total rock star after delivering DD, and I was able to get out of bed and walk to the bathroom by myself immediately post partum

Honestly, it was mostly selfish reasons. The anesthesiologist told me he didn't think I could do it drug free, because it's "hard to deliver a baby", and I basically wanted to tell him to bite me, so I made sure not to ask for an epidural. And I was terrified of the spinal headache, blocks, and ending up numb from the waist UP like a woman I know.

Alright, I'm rambling. Sorry!


----------



## crunchymama2two (Jun 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyS*
Thank you to all who have posted with such honest answers...

I am pregnant with #1 right now, scared of labor (and not from lack of information--it's just a big unknown), and have been adamant about WANTING pain meds the entire time I've been pregnant. Of course, now, I'm wavering a little and thinking about natural childbirth.

We'll see what happens, but I appreciate the honesty and non-flaming of this thread.

I fully admit that I've been blessed with really easy labor and deliveries both times, but I don't think it's that bad either. Before I had my DS people tried to scare me with all their horrible scary birth stories. I chose to tune them out and instead believe in my ability as a woman to accomplish childbirth. Afterall women have been giving birth since the beginning of mankind.

I do understand the fear of the unknown. I remember how it was when I was preparing to deliver DS. Even though I was confident I still ended up asking for pain relief right before pushing. I was 9cm dilated and they never should have given me anything, but my OB was a dope and didn't give a darn about my birth plan which stated that I shouldn't be given anything despite what I say during labor. Anyway, it was such a light dose of epi (I could still walk) that I didn't even need because DS came out right after. All it did was leave me with a huge bruise on my back that hurt like heck for months. Not to mention the headaches!

I highly recommend taking a natural birth course of some kind (i.e. hypnobirthing, bradley, etc...), getting a doula, and preparing yourself mentally. It really helps to be prepared and the more prepared you are the less you will worry. YOU CAN DO IT!


----------



## MotheringHeart (Dec 18, 2005)

I had an epidural for my first birth and it was awful (I had an open incision from an appendectomy three days earlier). Here I had carried this beautiful being in me, we were attached from the moment she first gained conciousness, and then I had to let go of her and I had no sensation of the experience. I wanted to feel that little being leave my body and come into the world. I felt totally disconnected and emotionally raw from the experience. For me, childbirth is the conclusion of an amazing journey and I want to be present the WHOLE time.

Add to that, epidural babies have a hard time nursing often. Epidurals do carry risks. I've still got pain in my back where I had one almost five years ago w/DD#1. Your body is desgined to deliver babies. God made you that way, biology made you that way, evolution made you that way; whichever way you choose to look at it, you are designed to get babies out. Is it *comfortable* uhhhh no, BUT I have to say I love giving birth. I get to be at home, where I'm in charge, and my body is allowed to do what it needs to. I'm totally connected to the experience and in the end, out comes a BEAUTIFUL baby, that I pushed out!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyS*
Thank you to all who have posted with such honest answers...

I am pregnant with #1 right now, scared of labor (and not from lack of information--it's just a big unknown), and have been adamant about WANTING pain meds the entire time I've been pregnant. Of course, now, I'm wavering a little and thinking about natural childbirth.

We'll see what happens, but I appreciate the honesty and non-flaming of this thread.

The single biggest tip I have is- Homebirth.

My labor was around 31 hours. With about 6 hours pushing. It was uncomfortable and I was tired, but it was never so painful I felt like I couldn't stand it. I was in my own space and no one was bossing me around or putting me in uncomfortable positions. I would never plan to birth any other way.

-Angela


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

The first time there were no drugs available so I just got on with it

Second time I knew I could do it without drugs so I did.

Third time I was offered an epidural to go with the Pitocin drip but I was afraid that if I had the epi I would end up in theatre so I refused and made it through by vocalising horribly trying to take the pain out of my body and project it into the corner of the room.

The first two I had no intellectual reasons for not choosing drugs - I just didn't. We don't keep pain killers in the house and I don't worry much about everyday pain so I think I approached labour as an extension of that.

The third time I was well aware of the possible cascade of interventions and alreading having transferred from birth centre to hospital I was desperate to avoid any more complications and trauma.

This time I will be at home and although here in the UK you can have Entonox (gas and air) at home I won't choose to have it.

As for what is preferable - I have no wish to be anything less than 100% myself in labour and I feel that drugs would affect my judgement and perception of what is happening. I was a Demerol baby and my mum says I slept for days and was not very perky at all for about a week. Drugs can't be good for babies either.


----------



## ndakkitten (Jul 1, 2006)

First off, by "no pain relief", I assume you mean pain relief from drugs. I will say that I am not totally opposed to drugs, but I certainly think a woman should do her research ahead of time and be aware of the risks/side effects before just getting an epidural the minute she steps into the hospital. In some cases, drugs can be very useful, but can also cause harm. Pain can be difficult, but it is also a useful tool for a woman in labor. Too much pain usually means something needs to change, such as your position. You need to be able to decide when the benefits of the drugs outweigh the risks. A woman also needs to be aware of the alternatives to drugs, such as a doula, labor tubs, hot/cold therapy, etc.

First off, I ended up with an epidural for my first delivery, but only because I couldn't tolerate the high dose of Pitocin after several hours and lost my ability to relax. (I had the Pit because I was "on the clock" after my water had broke the night before.) It came down to a choice between the epidural and a c-section for "failure to progress,", so I chose the epidural after much discussion with my midwife, doula, and husband. The epidural did its job - I took a nap and progressed rapidly after that (waking up and saying "I think I have to push!")

However, having the epidural placed was a total nightmare. It took the anesthesiologist almost an hour because, unbeknownst to me, he was trying to give me a spinal rather than an epidural. With my Pit-induced pain, I had a really hard time staying in position, especially for such a long time. I had some side effects from that epidural, including intermittent back pain that lasted for 6 months. I would rather avoid that side effect again. The only reason I ended up with an epidural for my second delivery was because I was obviously heading for a c/s (Cord around neck, baby refused to descend).

Also, I know way too much about the other possible side effects from the epidural (and the IV fluid they give you ahead of time to try to keep your B/P from dropping) to want to have another epidural unless I have no other option. Another side effect of epidurals include maternal fever, which can lead to lumbar puncture and antibotics for the baby "just to be safe". This is something I wouldn't want to subject my newborn to.

Another reason is that I know its best for the baby. I want to make sure my baby is alert so we can bond and establish breastfeeding ASAP after delivery. All pain drugs, even the epidural, cross the placenta and affect the baby.

Third, I hate needles. I can give shots to other people, I just don't do well when the needle is pointed at me. I may require a saline lock for this delivery since I am a VBAC, but I will take that over having to push a damned IV pole around.

Next, I LOATHE the EFM. I hate being stuck in bed, I hate having to constantly adjust the belts, I hate dragging the cords along to the bathroom (no telemetry here), I hate having that noise in the background. Once you get an epidural, you will have the EFM and all its accompanying annoyances. It really breaks my concentration.

Finally, I hated how long it took for me to recover from my c-section. I was in so much pain and it made it terribly difficult to care for my older child as well as my newborn. I would take a few hours of pain during labor over no pain and ending up with weeks of pain from an avoidable repeat c/s.

Overall, I want to avoid drugs for this birth. This is my last child. I want this birth to go the way I wanted my first two to go. I plan on staying home for most of the labor so I can be somewhere I can relax and feel comfortable. I have a doula for this birth as I did in my first two, and they have wonderful tricks and methods to relieve pain (my last doula did a hip squeeze that was heavenly). Once I do end up at the hospital, I plan on making use of the labor tub and different positions to lessen the pain. I want this birth to be a wonderful, memorable experience.


----------



## mothragirl (Sep 10, 2005)

best for baby #1
helps to avoid complications
it made me feel like a warrior


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Reasons for baby - like others said, why avoid taking pain relief during pregnancy only to drug up at the end. I do think any drug strong enough to numb a 130 pound woman has GOT to be bad for an 8 lb infant.

Reasons for me - the thought of being numb while going through something as physically traumatic for my body as childbirth scares me much more than the pain does. It is pain with a purpose; it is good pain, productive pain. The idea of giving birth while being numb means that if your body is tearing somewhere you won't know it; if the baby is bumping up against something and needs to be turned, you most likely won't realize it; if you are not pushing effectively, you won't be able to feel the muscles that you need to engage in order to push more productively, etc.

Best for both of us - fast recovery time, fully present, no epi headache or other side-effects.

I had all 3 of my babies unmedicated (12 hour labors, all) and I wouldn't change a thing.


----------



## Christi (Nov 21, 2001)

Dee east
Since you have experienced it all what were the differences you noticed? Did you have a lot more power during your natural birth?

I wanted to have completely unmedicated births because I thought it was better for my babies.

they were both such powerful experiences. I have a good feeling that drugs would have dulled the whole thing.


----------



## Isaac'sMa (Mar 13, 2006)

It's a heck of a lot safer for mother and baby to let nature take her course. I'm a safety kind of gal! I wanted to do everything I coud to prevent a c-section and often that means just avoiding that first intervention (which leads to another and another...)

Quote:

It was uncomfortable and I was tired, but it was never so painful I felt like I couldn't stand it.
EXACTLY! Labor/Birth pain was tolerable because I knew it would be over soon (well, it lasted 17 hrs but I knew it wouldn't last forever!) and my baby would be alert and I would feel good afterward!


----------



## Herausgeber (Apr 29, 2006)

I don't think all drugs are necessarily bad, but I'm not willing to risk all the other baggage that goes along with a hospital birth in order to get them. I know I would struggle to relax in that environment, no matter how many drugs they pumped into me, and I couldn't stand the even further loss of control at an already vulnerable time. I don't want my baby taken away "for observation." I don't want to be told when I can or can't pee or walk down the hall. I don't want to be told I can't leave the hospital for 48 hours after my baby is born. I don't want to eat hospital food.

I suppose it's a question of what I fear more: the natural pain of childbirth or the "helpful" interventions I'd get from hospital staff.

I also think every pregnant woman should be prepared to have natural childbirth, because the truth is, epis aren't fool-proof.


----------



## oregonbound (Jun 9, 2006)

My main reason was that I wanted to avoid having to have a catheter and being stuck in bed, and I had a c-section with my first so I was afraid that having an epidural might increase the chances of another c-section. Anyhow, the thing that made it manageable for me was that between contractions I didn't feel any pain, so during each one I would just think it'll be over soon, I had a doula who would help rub my back, remind me to eat my ice chips (which were remarkably satisfying), and tell me how great I was doing, and at the moment when I thought I couldn't take it any longer, I was ready to push so it was almost over and I figured it was too late for pain meds anyway...

Although with this baby (due in February) I am tempted to get the epidural just to see what it's like, but I don't know....


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

The question really should be, IMO, why would anyone want to interfere with the process? The article Pam posted a link to is one of my favorites







I've had both medicated hospital (1) and unmedicated home waterbirths (2). My first homebirth was the most empowering and amazing experience of my life, while my hospital birth was the most disempowering, violating experience of my life (and that is saying a lot). I didn't realize until I gave birth "naturally" all that I had missed out on w/my medicated birth. I think the current birth culture in the US does a complete disservice to womanhood, families and babies and society. Works out great for the medical profession and drug industry though


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

In addition to avoiding drugs for the health of my baby I also did it because it felt good and I enjoyed feeling childbirth. If you prepare yourself ahead of time it isn't very painful. The way mainstream birth is set up in America causes the great majority of the pain. Learn to trust your body and ignore all of that mainstream bit and it really doesn't hurt that badly and the pain you do feel is part of the experience and is normal and good.


----------



## oregongirlie (Mar 14, 2006)

Epidurals prevent release of endorphins. It doesn't matter for the mom with an epidural because she is numb, but the infant is going through the birth process without the benefit of the mother's endorphins or the epidural. We don't know how that affects them. They may need the natural pain relief provided by the mom's endorphins. I think the mother and infant need to share the experience, so the infant doesn't go through it "alone".


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Numb---yes. That's exactly how I felt during and after my pit/epidural/stadol/etc birth. Physically and emotionally numbed by the entire process. And this, IMO, placed me and baby at a disadvantage as far the confidence in my ability and power to birth, breastfeed and mother. The attachment process was definitely hindered for me. I was holding him, but felt very disconnected from him which was the opposite of how I felt with my biologically normal births. I still grieve this lost opportunity for me and my oldest.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

I wanted to add one other one - I one of those gals who LOVES pushing. I would never want any kind of drug that would interfer with or numb that at all.

The only benefit I see to drugs is if I am struggling staying calm and relaxed. My body works best if I do not waste energy reacting to the sensations I'm feeling. I'm also sensitive to drugs - 1/2 a dose of Stadol was more than enough for the last 20 min of transition, and more would have been way too much. Being a very "mental" person, I benefit from mental relief - I've experienced the same relief with motherwort and lobelia at home (we were kicking ourselves that we didn't think to grab the tinctures when we were leaving for the hospital).


----------



## LeosMama (Sep 6, 2005)

I was going to say all of these things, but you ladies all beat me to it.

And I am starting to feel nervous about the upcoming birthing, so it was wonderful to read all of this and remind myself of my strength and ability to birth my own baby without 'help'.

Yup, it's going to hurt. It's going to be hard. It's going to be exhausting. But it's my job, it's my power, and it's my responsibility to protect my little one from danger. I consider narcotics dangerous. I am terrified of an epidural. Even if the baby weren't going to get some of the drugs from an epi, I wouldn't get one. I am terrified of them, of letting someone put a needle into my spine!!! NO WAY.

Dural headaches, fever, residual pain, not to mention actual complications (those are side effects, not complications)....NO WAY.


----------



## Marlet (Sep 9, 2004)

Why won't I? My DD was born sunny side up with an interthecal (similar to an epidural....just instant and in a different spot on your back...it also only lasts up to three hours) and you know what?

I was overdosed. I was passed out. I had to be woken up to push my baby out. I had to be woken up to be reminded to breath! I was out for the first three hours of my childs life. I was so out of it I don't remember them taking a thumb print for a stupid certificate they give you. I don't remember seeing my baby for the first time.

I won't do it again because it impaired my ability to simply be with my baby. To experience it all...good and awkward.

Plus I won't take the risk of being overdosed again. She came out floppy. I was passed out. We both had breathing issues. She didn't want to nurse. It sucked.


----------



## courtenay_e (Sep 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyS*
Thank you to all who have posted with such honest answers...

I am pregnant with #1 right now, scared of labor (and not from lack of information--it's just a big unknown), and have been adamant about WANTING pain meds the entire time I've been pregnant. Of course, now, I'm wavering a little and thinking about natural childbirth.

We'll see what happens, but I appreciate the honesty and non-flaming of this thread.

Betsy, and OP...

Yes, labor is the great unknown. The article that Pamamidwife linked you to is a great one, and the one that I was getting ready to link you to. Labor and birth involve a lot of very sensitive hormones and hormone receptors, and once you start interfering with those hormones and receptors, you're likely to mess with the entire labor.

Narcotics...did you know that it takes about an hour and a half to start wearing off of the mom, but doesn't really even FULLY HIT the baby until the third hour...and can stay in the baby's system for six to eight WEEKS after birth? Their liver isn't ready to process drugs in adult sized doses, and that's what they're given through the placenta. Did you know that they keep a drug called NARCAN on hand in L&D rooms to give "sleepy" babies whose moms have been given narcotics? Did you know that this is the same drug that they give heroin addicts who have overdosed and end up in the emergency room? Did you know that babies who are given narcotics are much more likely (in a statistically significant way) to be addicts as adults? On top of the fact that it can interfere with the breastfeeding relationship, that's why not narcotics, in my book anyway.

Epidural...on top of all the significant hormonal effects (the drugs from the epidural attach to the hormone receptors, having an effect on the labor, on bonding, on breastfeeding) and ALL of the interventions needed/used when an epidural is in place, leading to a much higher incedence of cesarean section, the epidural: a) relaxes abdominal muscles, disallowing the muscles from doing their proper job of helping the baby to move down and turn during labor b)interferes with the neurological transfer of information up and down the spinal cord, so that the uterus doesn't get the proper "contract" messages, and the brain doesn't get the proper "I'm CONTRACTING!" messages, disallowing a properly synchonized contraction of the full muscle/muscle groups. c)keeps mom in bed, immoble, which is not only a comfort issue, it is very much, and very importantly an issue that keeps the baby from moving down and turning in the manner necessary for the proper progression of labor. d)doesn't always work...then mom is STILL confined to bed, and can not use the measures that a woman undergoing unmedicated birth would otherwise INSTINCTALLY use to help alleviate pain and move her baby down the birth canal. She's stuck in bed, in agony, not helping her child birth.

I highly recommend, even at this late date, that you seek out a natural childbirth instructor who is NOT affiliated with a hospital and do a crash course on relaxation and the natural progression of labor.

I also highly HIGHLY recommend that you get a doula. She'll help you use all the stuff you didn't yet have time to learn in that class you're going to take in the next two or three weeks! She also will encourage you to use the shower (worth 50 cc's of demerol without the drugs) and a bath (worth *500*cc's of demerol without the drugs), and the birth ball, and relaxation and walking, rocking, and a hundred other ways to work WITH your body to birth this baby that you were MADE to birth.

Also very importantly, the doula will encourage you, support you, and tell you how beautifully your strong and wise body is working to birth your baby. This is paramount to keep yourself focused on "the prize" and heartened to relax and work WITH the contractions all the way to the end.

Generally, by the way, it is almost ALWAYS in transition that a laboring mother feels that she can no longer get through the contractions without help...and in transition, she is really, genuinely, almost done. I highly advise you to ask your support to make sure you're checked both when you ASK for an epidural or narcotics and then when they are about to administer it (in transition things can change very quickly cervically, and you might have made significant change while waiting for the drugs!).

Really, the unknown is the hardest part about waiting for labor. But I always ask my clients to remember that labor is NOT like a period. It is NOT constant pain. There is a minute to a minute and a half of pain, then there is a significant amount of time to rest, relax, and recover until you feel the next contraction. And, with the proper support (emotional as well as physical), you will be MUCH less likely to NEED anything other than that support to get yourself through labor and birth.

At this point, if you can find a Bradley instructor who is willing to take you, I'd go that route. If not, practice yoga all the way through the "corpse pose" relaxation at the end, every day! Twice a day, if you can. Practice whole body relaxation on the birth ball, in the shower, standing and rocking against a counter or bed, in all the ways you can come up with that help a laboring woman to labor comfortably, and that HELP THE BABY TO MAKE THE CARDINAL MOVEMENTS OF LABOR and move down that birth canal.

Lastly, read Henci Goer's book, "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth." All the why not's you can think of are stated very clearly, in an easy to understand, well cited book. It's an easy, quick read, and is EXTREMELY informative.

Good luck. And, good for you for asking WHY NOT. It's a very, very good question to ask...and the possible beginning of an empowering journey.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

can't have them at home

epidurals carry too much risk for me, narcotics for the baby and I don't want to be mentally away drugged into subconsciousness


----------



## tinyshoes (Mar 6, 2002)

excellent thread

I also LOOOOVE the Hormonal Blueprint of Labor article.

I think there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a painmed-free birth because the mom didn't get a chance to get her painmeds, and an intentionally drug-free birth. In the first scenario, the woman is in pain and no one is helping (helping with meds, the way we like to do things in the USA) in contrast to a woman who may have a doula, chosen to labor at home, etc., drug-free.

courtenay_e, I loved when you said this:
It's a very, very good question to ask...and the possible beginning of an empowering journey.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Personally, I'm more freaked out by feeling numb or out of my body than I am by feeling pain. Especially pain that has a defined limit and purpose to it. The floaty, dissociated, hovering on the ceiling fan feeling was the worst part of my dental surgeries by far, for instance. The pain afterwards was a lot easier to deal with than that freaky feeling that I had no tongue and they could pretty much do anything in there and I wouldn't have a clue until I looked in the mirror. *shudder*

10x that on the freaky factor if we're talking about...below the belt.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

ds1 epidural and pit, ds2 natural. ds2's birth was awesome!!!!!!!!! ds1 was great, once the epi wore off, but doing it natural was awesome. i just got up and peed and showered and played with him. after ds1, i was supertired and couldn't move for awhile. the high of natural birth cannot be duplicated. it was totally awesome. (nak)


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

For me the issue is that in the past I have hexperienced dramaticly bad failures with "pain-killers" (I put the word "pain-killers" in quotes because a bad reaction to percodan was actually one of the most painful experiences I have ever had).

The very orst was one time when I was given drugs for dental surgery and I could feel everything but I was paralyzed. Talk about a nightmare! Other "pain-killers" make me nauseated or give me a terrible headache. As near as I can tell, the only one that even sort of works is Ibuprofin.

So when I had a baby I didn't even consider "pain-killers" because quite simply I didn't trust them to work, and I didn't want to deal with any added complications of "pain-killers" in failure mode.

--AmyB


----------



## arlecchina (Jul 25, 2006)

LOL? the other posters all give good reasons but I can add one for myself. the epidural I had before DIDNT EVEN WORK. so why bother, when I am birthing myself, I am quite sure it wont be anywhere near as bad as when it was induced, and even if it is, hey, I managed to live through it once


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Christi*
Dee east
Since you have experienced it all what were the differences you noticed? Did you have a lot more power during your natural birth?

I wanted to have completely unmedicated births because I thought it was better for my babies.

they were both such powerful experiences. I have a good feeling that drugs would have dulled the whole thing.

Thank you for asking. The differences in my 3 births....Hmmm. I am going to try to be absolutely honest here at the risk of flames, which at this point I really don't care about.









First of all I must preface all of this by saying that I don't have the distrust of the medical field like a lot of people here do. Two of my sisters are RNs. My oldest sister has been practicing since 1969 and the other since 1977. \

With my oldest DD, I had a more typical labor in that I had gradual contractions that I couldn't even feel. When we went to the hospital in the middle of the night, they were still very faint. At some point they got more strong and I found that the best position was on my hands and knees.

I had the option of an epidural with DD1 and I knew that I wanted it so I got it. It was fantastic. I had no problems BFing her. My mother was there, along with my sister. My mother had 7 children with no pain relief at all, and she was there for the epidural birth, where I felt nothing but pushed DD out perfectly. Her response was "THAT'S that way to have a baby!" It was a wonderful experience. I have nothing but good feelings about it.

With the twins, I don't have such good feelings. My water broke at 6:30 AM at 36 weeks (fairly normal for twins) and I called my doctor's answering service which told me to go to the hospital. I thought I had all the time in the world. : )

I had no contractions at all. DH asked if he could run to the office (this was a Wednesday) and he said if he talked to the chairman of his department, he could be off until Monday). I said "Sure!" and got into the shower, no contractions.

In the shower (come to find out that hot water brings on contractions), my body went from zero contractions to every other minute), and I was home alone with my two zero old.

DH got home quickly after my phone call and I was in so much pain that I couldn't even speak to him. On the way to the hospital (the entire 6 miles), I went through transition, the worst moments of my life, except for the foregoing moments at the hospital.

Then at the hospital, they were doing construction, so DH couldn't park in front of the hospital with DD. He had to park a ways away and then give me to a volunteer with a wheelchair. That poor man.....

The only position that was tolerable to me was on my hands and knees. But I had to get into the stupid wheelchair to get into the hospital. When I got to the delivery room, I was already 10 cms.. The nurse who was getting me undressed (while I was on my hands and knees) said "Does it feel better when you push?" and I tried pushing and said "Yes!"

So I was already 10 cms, and dilated. DH barely got there. The best description that I can give of my feelings at the time were despair. Not only was the pain completely killing me but I also knew that with twins, I had to do it again. I am a stoic person with pain, but not that day. I screamed for God, Jesus, anyone to help me.

The fact that the pain was so fast and so furious may explain my reaction and resulting feelings, but maybe not. All that I remember is how scared I was and how hellacious the pain was. I am educated in birthing. As I said, my sister used to be an OB nurse, and I educated myself. But this was so fast and so scary that it felt like my body was being exploded with pain.

Finally DD was pushed out. But there was no relief for me psychologically because I knew that DS had to be pushed out too. But he was breach. So they did an epidural. Try to sit still for an epidural when you are having 10 CM contractions. I defy anyone. It was a miracle, but at that point I was willing to do anything to reduce the pain.

Unlike with DD1, this epidural didn't take away the pain. I found out out later from the nurses that evidently it took away some pain because the doctor had his entire hand inside of me turning DS around. But I still felt the contractions.

So there came a time where they told me to push DS out. I pushed and his cord came out first: cord prolapse. A very deadly complication, but fairly common with twins. We only had moments to get me in to the OR to have an emergency C-section.

Honestly, I thought the C-section would be worse than it was, but that doesn't mean it wasn't painful. The staples were very painful. It was very difficult to move at all until they were removed. The pain from the C-section was enormous, but at least I had pain meds to help, while I was dealing with taking care of twin DD and my two year old at home, with DS in a hospital on a respirator 1.5 hours away.

The panic and pain of DD's birth have never left me. Some people say that you forget the pain of childbirth. I will never forget that pain and panic. It was in no way a spiritual or love-filled experience.

That's the truth.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Betsy...hey, I have a long-time close friend who recently retired as a Bradley instructor. She is famous for last-minute inspirational talks, if you'd be interested in some last-minute support. LMK We can all go out to lunch!


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Denise, wow...it sounds like the birth of your first twin, although med-free, was certainly not a *typical* birth. Wow, that must have been so scary for you. I really can relate to your pain and panic---I had that w/my first. No matter what your location, home or hospital, birth is going to go most smoothly when mama feels safe and supported







Precipitious labor can be really terrifying--you don't have time for the general build-up, but instead, it's Bam! Psychologically and physically, it's going to be inherently more intense---especially when you're having to leave home in a panic, worrying about your 2 yo, speeding through traffic _in transition_ in a car---for most of us, the shakiest, most help-I-can't-do-this times during labor, wheelchair transfer...etc. These are _major_ stressors. Your fight or flight mechanisms were probably working overtime







I've met a lot of mamas who do forget about the pain---unless the birth's been a traumatic event---which, in your case, it definitely sounds like it was







Whoa. No flames from me.


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
Denise, wow...it sounds like the birth of your first twin, although med-free, was certainly not a *typical* birth. Wow, that must have been so scary for you. I really can relate to your pain and panic---I had that w/my first. No matter what your location, home or hospital, birth is going to go most smoothly when mama feels safe and supported







Precipitious labor can be really terrifying--you don't have time for the general build-up, but instead, it's Bam! Psychologically and physically, it's going to be inherently more intense---especially when you're having to leave home in a panic, worrying about your 2 yo, speeding through traffic _in transition_ in a car---for most of us, the shakiest, most help-I-can't-do-this times during labor, wheelchair transfer...etc. These are _major_ stressors. Your fight or flight mechanisms were probably working overtime







I've met a lot of mamas who do forget about the pain---unless the birth's been a traumatic event---which, in your case, it definitely sounds like it was







Whoa. No flames from me.

Thank you so much for your understanding. Believe it or not, there was more. The nurse who took care of me in the recovery room looked familiar to my sister. She whispered to me (Who is that? She looks familiar!) and then she realized. The nurse was the maid of honor in my older sister's wedding in 1969!

But she was not a good nurse. At one point they brought my son into me for the first time for me to see him before he was life-flighted to a hospital 1.5 hours away, on a respirator, and then started to ask me questions about permissions "Can you agree to a spinal tap?" etc. I started to cry. My DH was there and said "Can't I sign those forms?" which of course he could. But they were asking me, on morphone at the time. ?

A few minutes after that they had taken my son on the helicopter and I had just awoken from the general anesthesia, I was crying and asking my sister (the nurse) for comfort. The hospital nurse (the maid of honor(!) looked at me and my sister and said (and I will NEVER forget this) "Are you on something at home? You just seem so.......nervous."


----------



## Jefinner (Jun 8, 2004)

With my first, I was an uninformed 19 year old kid. I trusted my doctor, and let them induce me since my baby was "getting too big". (I had doubts, but doctors know everything, right?) I also thought that women denying themselves epidurals were crazy. Why do that???

Well, I was induced, and I had my epidural, which wore off... They increased the pain meds, and still... Not working. I guess I have a high tolerance for them.

So, when I got pregnant with #2, I was seeing a midwife (because we didn't have insurance... Who thought that would be a blessing!







), and figured that if I could take pitocin contractions, these would be okay.

AND THEY WERE. But also, as I learned more (through my midwife and internet research), I also learned about how much better my body could handle labor without meds of any sort. Lots of people thought I was crazy. Ah well. LOL!

Even with #3, who was 11lb 7oz... Easy. Both of these were much better than the first.


----------



## emdeecee_sierra (Oct 16, 2005)

I know a woman who was paralysed from the neck down by an epidural. Enough said about those.


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sierratahoe*
I know a woman who was paralysed from the neck down by an epidural. Enough said about those.

I've known of women who died during "natural" childbirth. That argument makes about as much sense as the statement above.


----------



## Orion'smommy (Jan 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Patchfire*
Because I didn't want to expose my baby to high amounts of drugs after carefully watching everything I took in for the nine previous months. Because I didn't want to be confined to bed, unable to move. Because I didn't want to take a chance of developing a fever, which could then lead to a full septic workup being performed on my baby. Because I wanted to do everything I could to get breastfeeding off to a good start. Because I wanted to be able to listen to what my body was telling me, without 'noise' interferring with the 'signal.' Because I already have low blood pressure, and I didn't need to be lowered any further.









:


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
I've known of women who died during "natural" childbirth. That argument makes about as much sense as the statement above.

Not really. The epidural DOES have REAL risks that are often not explained to women in labor. I think that anyone choosing an epidural should have true informed consent and realize that women DO be come paralyzed and die from epidurals gone wrong. They CAN have lasting negative effects. We shouldn't sweep that under the rug.

-Angela


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
I've known of women who died during "natural" childbirth. That argument makes about as much sense as the statement above.

But in order to have a baby you have to go through childbirth, an epidural is an avoidable risk beyond paralization, others occur much more often.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

Maternal Risks
Hypotension (Drop in blood pressure)
Urinary Retention and Postpartum Bladder Dysfunction
Uncontrollable Shivering
Itching of the face, neck and throat
Nausea and Vomiting
Postpartum Backache
Maternal Fever
Spinal Headache
Uneven, incomplete or nonexistent pain relief
Feelings of Emotional detachment
Postpartum feelings of regret or loss of autonomy
Inability to move about freely on your own
Loss of perineal sensation and sexual function
Very Serious and rare risks
Convulsions

Respitory paralysis

Cardiac arrest

Allergic shock

Nerve injury

Epidural abscess

Maternal death

Labor Side Effects
Prolonged First Stage of Labor
Increase of malpresentation of baby's head
Increased need for Pitocin augmentation
Prolonged Second Stage of Labor
Decrease in the ability to push effectively
Increased liklihood of forceps or vacuum extraction delivery
Increased likelihood of needing an episiotomy
Increase in cesarean section

Baby Side Effects
Fetal distress; abnormal fetal heart rate
Drowsiness at birth; poor sucking reflex
Poor muscle strength and tone in the first hours.


----------



## Persephone (Apr 8, 2004)

Not looking at anyone else's responses yet, I'd say that I wanted no pain medication primarily to not interfere with bonding and breastfeeding. Why pump my baby full of drugs as her intro to this world? ALL my natural birth leanings are for her.

That being said, I planned a homebirth, and ended up with an emergency induction in the hospital, and a shot of nubain, which did nothing for the pain of ctx, but really helped me relax, and I dilated 4 cm in an hour, then pushed her out in 20 or so more mins. It was the perfect thing for me. (However, I could have done it at home without just fine, I'm sure.)


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

It never really occured to me when I was in labor to ask for any drugs. It would have disrupted what I was doing. I was too busy laboring to ask for anything.

If anyone had asked me if I wanted any I might not have understood the quesiton anyway. Somebody asked me when I was in labor if we wanted to have newborn pictures taken afterwords and the question really confused me.

I was in a different place when I was laboring. I was me, but my whole purpose in life was to labor. I was very surprized when a baby came out.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

I did have a sort of pain relief for back labor...sterile water injections. they don't work on everyone but they sure did on me! Merely dulled the pain somewhat so I could deal with the front pain better, they didn't take it all away. WHich was fine with me...I just wanted it dulled somewhat so my I didn't have as much pain with my face-up booger as much  Dealing with front pain and excruciating back pain made me feel like I was going crazy....if I had just had one or the other it would have been easier!

That being said....I feel pain relief has it's proper place....NOT the way mainstream medicine uses it these days.

There are so many reasons for no epidural....no drugs into the baby's body, the possibility of it not working, the possiblity of the person screwing up and not getting it to work properly, side effects for days possibly. I think Mothering magazine had a thing on epidurals some time ago and it showed where the needle goes....there is such a SMALL bit of room there, NO room for error! HECK NO, NOT ME!!! That needle into such a small space...there is no way that God (or whoever/whatever you believe in) made that area for a needle to go into.

Women need true informed consent before they go into labor...very detailed information besides the stupid so-called "Lamaze" classes that are offered now (which are not truely Lamaze but more a time to indoctrinate the rules into people and let them know when they can have the epi).


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Because...

...you couldn't pay me to go to a hospital to have a baby (emergencies are the exception of course)
...I don't like needles (except the kind with ink on them)
...drugs are bad for baby's health
...drugs are bad for the breastfeeding relationship
...I _want_ to feel what's going on in my body
...labor pain has a purpose, to me it is a sacred right of passage and I don't want anything to dull or dilute the experience
...I want full mobility
...I want to be clear of mind
...I don't even like to take tylenol for a headache


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

plus everything frontierpsych said


----------



## Seie (Jun 9, 2005)

I wanted med-free for my first birth - for much the same reasons that are already listed in this thread. I hung in there for 44 hours of labor but the pain in the end was unnatural, extreme and beyond anything I had ever imagined, so I got an epidural. It was a great relief - but - I got a fever. We needed antibiotics, I got numb in my legs and pushing was not quite the fun it should have been. But most important afterwards I felt like I had only been a spectator. Like I had taken a step back from the birth of my baby and not really been there the whole way.
That for me was the reason that when I got pg again I was SURE that I would not under any circumstances accept another epidural - nomatter the pain involved. My second birth turned out so much smoother than the first - and so much faster - and it never even got close to being as painful as the first time.

Not all births are equally painful so with the experiences I have had I dont at this point regret getting the epidural the first time. I would probably have ended up traumatized for life had I not accepted it (pain was that bad) - but I also agree with all the reasons already listed in this thread, and think it is common sence for all women to think about when and why they will accept painmeds - and to consider the risks involved when accepting them.
However I also know from experience that not all birth and laborpain is equal in strength and think that in some cases an epidural can be what eventually grants a women the strength and energy to go through with a birth that would otherwise have done her in mentally. I know this because I have been there and tried it..

All that being said then for me personally I think joy can only exist because there is sadness, light can only exist because there is also darkness. And the pain of birth is the part that reminds us exactly how important a turn our life is about to take, how precious a life we are giving birth to and I think it helps us to remember that thoughout our lifes. IMO birthpain is there for a very good reason and I personally try to treat it that way..


----------



## Hey Mama! (Dec 27, 2003)

I was told it could paralyze me. Besides that, my two totally natural births were the most awesome, empowering experiences ever. It makes me look back on my managed, intervention filled first birth experience with regret and disgust.


----------



## October16Mom (Jul 10, 2006)

I haven't birthed yet, but the thought of being hooked up to stuff sends me into a panic. I am an extremely active person, and I want to be as active as possible during labor, not lying on my side or hooked up to an IV.

Other reasons: (1) First movie they showed at hospital birthing class was a great natural birth with a doula and it was so beautiful I cried, (2) dh (who is a family doc) and my family doctor are wonderfully supportive and tell me over and over again that I can do it, that my body was meant to do this, (3) our hospital has a jacuzzi and I couldn't be in that if I was hooked up to stuff







, and (4) I want to be able to get up and walk around afterwards and truly feel like a part of the birth experience.

That being said, I have specific guidelines about specific circumstances in which I would accept meds. I believe there are situations where labor is abnormal where pain relief is really necessary. However, I have asked that if I have none of those conditions that they ask me to wait a while if I beg for anything and keep encouraging me that I can do it.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog*
Personally, I'm more freaked out by feeling numb or out of my body than I am by feeling pain. .

Uh, huh!! I've had three c-sections (and an occasional desire to shoot doctors), two with labour. I'd take my 20+ hours of back labour with ds1 over five minutes of the creepy numbness of a spinal - hands down, without thinking twice. I've been cut open while conscious twice - all I could feel was a bit of tugging. Knowing something _that_ drastic is being done to my body and I couldn't even feel it was just creepy...terrifying and freaky and just plain _wrong_. I've also had pain in my lower back ever since my last section (13 months) and I feel it has something to do with the spinal.

Plus...I can take IV's, blood donation needles, innoculations, etc. - no problem. They don't even begin to bother me. But, someone playing around with a big needle and my spine?? Not my idea of fun - in fact, something that used to be on my "Top 10 List of Things that will Only Happen Over My Dead Body".

Pain's just pain. Numbness sucks. Having people stick needles in my spine sucks even more!


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Yes, with my first, I had the whole Pitocin for hours and hours, and then begging to die, had an epidural. I thought it would be a blessed relief, as I had always "heard", except only one side of my body was numb. I found, to my surprise, that I would have much prefered the Pit. pain over the horrendous numbness and disconnectedness to the process.


----------



## FitMama (Jul 20, 2003)

The "cascade of interventions" scares me. I'd rather not get that whole process started. I love the whole raw experience of doing it on my own. I love the ecstatic feeling I get between the very worst contractions. It is delicious.

Pain can be a gift. It teaches, it enlightens, it guides, it reminds. There are times for medical pain relief, and there are times for the person in pain to find her own way through it. I believe that many moms are just lacking the information and support that would allow them to decline medical pain relief.


----------



## cheeseRjedi (Jun 5, 2005)

I figured that if I made sure not to take any drugs during pregnancy, why dope up right before my baby is about to come out - endangering both of us and endangering the natural process of birth.


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

I have the strong personal belief that sharp objects meeting the spinal column should not occur unless there is a seriously dire life threataning emergency requireing that part of the anatomy to be tampered with.

Routine every day normal childbirth is NOT one of those circumstances.

IV narcotics make people loopy and wierd and totally out of it.

Natural forms of pain management such as water, TENS, Hypnosis = A-OK in my book because they dont tamper with my body in such a way to cause a serious risk, nor do they tamper with the baby's body.

But NO big huge mother flippin needles will be going near MY spine...*shudder*


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

You are all talking about a minimal risk of complications as if it were a huge risk (from the epidural). It is entirely wrong to me that our culture has made pain relief such a "failure" for every mother. There are risks with "natural" delivery and the same with pain relief. If you choose to prescribe to propoganda from either side then you are not giving "informed consent" and believe me, the BS on this thread is not informed consent. Everyone here who keeps espousing against pain relief has an agenda, so get your own info, please, and don't feel like a failure because women like this want to make you feel like one.


----------



## Daisie125 (Oct 26, 2005)

Yep, all us natural birthers have an agenda.

Speaking of which, I haven't recieved my check this month for bringing in more natural births.

Sticking a needle anywhere near your spine is a huge risk, PERIOD.


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
You are all talking about a minimal risk of complications as if it were a huge risk (from the epidural). It is entirely wrong to me that our culture has made pain relief such a "failure" for every mother. There are risks with "natural" delivery and the same with pain relief. If you choose to prescribe to propoganda from either side then you are not giving "informed consent" and believe me, the BS on this thread is not informed consent. Everyone here who keeps espousing against pain relief has an agenda, so get your own info, please, and don't feel like a failure because women like this want to make you feel like one.

I dont need a list compiled by an MD listing off the risks vs Benefits of the epidural to realize that a sharp object going near my spine = bad mojo.

My spine + Sharp Object + Non life threataning situation = Aint happening.

I know the nerves in the spine/brain dont regenerate, don't grow back, dont fix themselves in the event of damage.

I dont feel like risking (No matter how small) any preventable damage to those nerves. and Epidural = Preventable damage.

And acctually, it's entirely the opposite IRT "Our Culture"

Our culture epouses, EMBRACES even, any form of pain relief, especially during childbirth.

"Why be a Martyr"
"Not like you'll get a medal for it"
"oh come on, the epidural is the BEST thing ever! You're f'n nuts for not getting it"

And what have you comes from Many MANY more momma's mouths than the "Natural is the way for me YAY Natural!"

Just head on over to any mainstream baby site and post a poll asking if women were happy with their epidurals. You'll see that a resounding %95 of them will holler YES YES!!

Now adays, NCB is NOT the norm, it is NOT part of mainstream culture...Mainstream birth culture = Hospital, Epidural, Episiotomy, litholomy, listening to the good ol Doc...

Trust me, NCB is no longer "mainstream culture"


----------



## Socks! (Dec 25, 2005)

I have to admit that I didn't read any other replies. Please forgive me, if I repeat anything.

Why no drugs?
Because drugs would rob you of the most amazing, empowering, yet gentle experience of your life. Plus, and believe me when I say this, the drugs your body naturally produces are wayyyyy better.
Your body will only give you as much as you can handle during childbirth, drugs are simply not needed.

I just wanted to clarify that I am talking about healthy women with healthy babies. Different circumstances might make for different measures.

Had to share

2JM


----------



## Socks! (Dec 25, 2005)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply for you to feel like a failure, or anybody else.
I'm sorry your birth experience wasn't positive and so straining. I do believe that you could have had a very positive experience. With more support, the right environment, the right preperations and the ability to simply trust your body.
My first birth had moments of pure terror and pain, because I couldn't belief in myself anymore.
My second birth was everything I wrote, because I was able to trust my body and my baby.

I'm curious though; don't you think that the pain made the outcome even better?
I know that I was actually disappointed in a way (hard to explain) that my second birth wasn't painfull and that I didn't get that completely exhausted, overwhelming feeling of love, love and more love. I did fall in love with DS2 right away too, just different and not as "strong" (I'm having a hard time describing it).








to you Mama, that you apparently didn't have that amazing birth experience (yet?)


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
Everyone here who keeps espousing against pain relief has an agenda, so get your own info, please, and don't feel like a failure because women like this want to make you feel like one.

What is my agenda?

-Angela


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2JungsMama*
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply for you to feel like a failure, or anybody else.
I'm sorry your birth experience wasn't positive and so straining. I do believe that you could have had a very positive experience. With more support, the right environment, the right preperations and the ability to simply trust your body.
My first birth had moments of pure terror and pain, because I couldn't belief in myself anymore.
My second birth was everything I wrote, because I was able to trust my body and my baby.

I'm curious though; don't you think that the pain made the outcome even better?
I know that I was actually disappointed in a way (hard to explain) that my second birth wasn't painfull and that I didn't get that completely exhausted, overwhelming feeling of love, love and more love. I did fall in love with DS2 right away too, just different and not as "strong" (I'm having a hard time describing it).








to you Mama, that you apparently didn't have that amazing birth experience (yet?)

I'm sorry that you think that something in me was lacking and is to blame for my painful birth experience. I disagree. And no, I don't think that the pain made the outcome better. Why would it????? The pain was indescribable and unbearable. I love my daughter, but I sure wish I had been able to birth her without that pain.


----------



## Socks! (Dec 25, 2005)

I guess I wasn't very clear. I didn't and don't think at all that something in you was lacking. I however still do think that under the right circumstances and with better support you could have had a less painfull birth or at least a birth with a more positive pain. Now I guess that makes me sound like a whacko, maybe you have to experience it to belief it possible.
I don't want you to feel like a failure. I don't think you did anything wrong during your birth or lacked of anything.
You asked why no drugs and I gave you an answer. If you need the ok to get pain relief, you can truly only get that from yourself.
Your kids are already here, so unless you are going to have more, it doesn't matter all that much anymore.
And actually I think you should be very proud of yourself, that despite the horribly painful birth you made it through it and love your daughter none the less.

I wish I could make you understand that I am not trying to make you feel bad in any way. I simply feel that in a way you were cheated out of a good birth experience, because you didn't have what you needed for it (different for everybody, but things like: hypbirth, doula, midwife, good birthing place, supportive people surrounding you, etc.).


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
I'm sorry that you think that something in me was lacking and is to blame for my painful birth experience. I disagree. And no, I don't think that the pain made the outcome better. Why would it????? The pain was indescribable and unbearable. I love my daughter, but I sure wish I had been able to birth her without that pain.

You are NOT to blame, and you are NOT lacking anything.








My first daughter was all natural as well, an at home waterbirth, you can read my birth story if you do a search in August '04, compare that to my very short (still in shock) birth story in July '05. Worst fifteen minutes of my life happened during birth #2.
I have attended in the hospital for friends and family members, and I have to admit - the epidural appeared the way to go over the pitocin induced all natural vaginal birth. That birth scarred me for life.
Every BODY is different, every BIRTH is different, and as I am on my way to looking forwards to baby #3, who knows? I am going to do an UC water birth, but if I am not feeling empowered in my situation at the time, I have no problem packing up and going to the hospital for an epidural/calling a mw friend, whatever. It's my body, my choice, my baby and I know what is best for me. If you feel that pain relief is the BEST decision for you during birth, I say shame on all the women that make you feel bad for it. I support all women's birth choices, even if I do not agree with them and feel entitled to shake my head at their lack of ______ whatever. My downfall as a human.

However, gently reminding you did come on to a board where the majority of women DO make empowering/informed birth choices (Whether it be c/s, hwb, uc, etc) and you asked the question. Obviously, if from personal experiance you won't agree to what is being said - you are not going to be receptive to new ideas/evidence based on YOUR experiances, hence it is not fair for you to state we all have an 'agenda' when..this is who we are









Not meant rudely at all, just my two cents.
Take care and Warm Wishes to you for the MOST EMPOWERING BIRTH EVER NO MATTER WHERE IT IS!!!

Katie

ETA: Both of my daughters were home waterbirths attended by a midwife. I didn't make that clear in the post.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Why do you ask why we choose or want no painkillers and then turn around and bash us for our decisions and choices? Why do you say that we're believing propaganda and we're uninformed when we mention real risks? Why do you say this

Quote:

post removed by moderator U/A violation.
when the mama was only mentioning how great her birth was? She wasn't bashing you or anyone else, and no one here is shaming or blaming women for previous decisions or saying that painkillers make a woman weak. All she did was give her birth experience and how great it was FOR HER and ONLY HER. How is her mentioning her great birth experience without drugs making people feel bad for their choices? You took her experience to try and make her feel bad for having experienced a great birth! You are the one saying that we are telling people that women are weak, yet no one here has actually said it. SO what is YOUR agenda for coming here??? To come and tell us that women aren't weak for wanting pain meds? We already have/had people telling us this--doctors, nurses, family, friends. We want/wanted something different. And that dosn't make US weak for wanting that.

Informed consent means you know the risks and benefits of each choice. Risks of epidurals are well documented in medical literature but many times are not disclosed to women before or during labor (especially during labor). All that are mentioned are the glorious benefits of the epi and that the risks are minimal. The risks aren't always minimal. We all know that our choices come with benefits and risks. Yes, there is pain in childbirth without drugs! Big surprise! If all the non-invasive ways don't work, or if the labor goes on too long and is exhausting, then a drug of some sort can easily be called for. That is a risk of laboring naturally. Painkillers DO have their place, most here would agree with that. If you accept naroctics or an epi, you need to full know in advance what could possibly happen.

Here's some great "propaganda" for you that you can find easily at your local medical society or hospital library.

British Journal of Anaesthesia 64, No 5, May 1990, pages 537-541 "Serious Non-Fatal Complications Associated with Extradural Block in Obstetrical Practice," D.B. Scott and B.M. Hibbard.

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 186, Supplement 5 (2002) S81-S93 "Epidural Analgesia Side Effects, Co-Interventions, and Care of Women During Childbirth: A Systematic Review" by L. J. Mayberry

Pediatrics 99, No. 3 (March 1997) Pages 415-419 "Epidural Analgesia, Intrapartum Fever, and Neonatal Sepis Evaluation," by E. Lieberman

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletin, Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists no. 36 Obstetrics and Gynecology 100 no. 1, July 2002 Pages 177-191 "Obstetric Analgesia and Anesthesia," by L.M. Goetzl

These articles are from mainstream medical journals---the very places where people on this site get their "propaganda."


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Wow, DeeEast, you need to calm down. If you come to a natural family living board and ask why people here don't like pain relief during labor, and then expect us to sing the praises of narcotic pain relief, you are cruisin' for a bruisin'. Just b/c we prefer a natural birth and enjoyed our births in no way invalidates your painful births. It is ridiculous to think that we all should see things the same way. You asked people why they preferred NCB and they answered. It doesn't mean that we said that women that did not do it this way were terrible people or losers. If you don't like the answers you got, if they didn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, I am sorry, but look at what you did. You're going against the grain of the board. You might as well go to the Case Against Circumcision forum and ask people to talk about how intact penises are gross. Also, your petulant tone of voice and sarcasm do nothing to help your cause - just a tip.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:

Please tell me why you think that having no pain relief is preferable.
This was your original question. I answered it honestly as you requested and did not imply that anyone else should do what I did. Even if I did how would that be sadistic in your opinion?

Some women may be reading here and not posting and they may not have any references in their family nor among their peers to know that a med free birth is a reality and a possibility for them - in the same way that some people may never have considered breastfeeding as a possibility or that leaving a newborn son intact is also a choice.

To me that is what this forum is for - to share our expereinces and by doing so open each other to new possibilities and choices.

If that doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy as Galatea says, I too am sorry.

Yikes


----------



## October16Mom (Jul 10, 2006)

Just to add my 2 cents, I am not what many would consider a crunchy person and do not have a deep-seated mistrust of the medical community (although I agree that there are a lot of docs out there who are rude and don't care). I believe there is a place for epidurals, especially when people are too tense to allow their labor to progress naturally.

No one I know personally has ever had a major issue with an epidural, but I believe there are some risks. I'm a doc's wife, okay, so I hear about these things all the time. I have not read anyone mention yet that something dh sees commonly. They increase the risk of a baby presenting posterior (because the muscles can be too relaxed). This is why he tries not to give epis before 4-5 cms. They also increase pushing time. He hasn't seen any fatal or serious epidural incidents yet, but these are more minor things that happen more frequently than most people are aware of.

I think women need to have choice in these matters. Most people would agree that there are certain situations in which an epidural is helpful and I can't judge whether or not your case is one of them. Might I add that I come on this board, not because I agree with what everyone says on here, but because I am trying to have positive thoughts about natural childbirth. I need to hear that my body was meant to do this and that I will get through it, and this board (along with support from my doctor and dh) has been a great way to bolster my attitude.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
quote removed by moderator UA Violation.

IF I was to be said to have an agenda, said agenda would be safe and healthy moms and babies. Isn't that we're all after? And fact of the matter is that no drugs IS safer and healthier for both mom and baby. You mention moms dying of natural childbirth. It is true. Women DO die in childbirth (natural or otherwise) BUT I have never heard of a single case where use of an epidural or other pain medications would have saved them. Please enlighten me if such cases exist (I'm quite the research junkie and would feel deficient if such information exists that I'm unaware of)

I am sorry that your unmedicated birth was traumatic







I really am.

-Angela


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

umm it's not propaganda.

There is a 1-5 chance that anyone going into the hospital at any given day can and will get a hospital aquired infection, most of which are antibiotic resistant. A woman died from getting such an infection in her epidural site.

Each time you open your skin up in the hospital you are allowing a new way in for these bugs...an unproteced way in, unlike your respiratory and digestive systems which are adapted and created to filter out pathogens, a cut, incision, or needle site is NOT.

you might think it's propaganda, but google "Epidural Deaths" And you'll see TONS of stories from MAINSTREAM news sources...not "fanatics" like us..

I'm not trying to make you feel like a failure. As I said, if you want it get it, it's not my body you're messing with.

You wanted to know why some of us dont want it, I'm telling you my reason.

Well the not-so-personal reasons, I have some deeply rooted personal issues as well..

1: Needle + Spinal column = over my dying body and only if it can save my life

2: Hospital aquired infections are nothing to sneeze at. They are way more common than you think. If one HAD to go to the hospital, make as few entrances for the little buggers as possible..

3: Is an intensely personal reason..


----------



## shellbell (Jun 18, 2006)

Wow... when I posted my answer, I thought the origianl poster had a serious question for us. DeeEast, it looks as though you read everyone's honest answers to your question about WHY we prefer drugless childbirth and then became offended because of your own negative and positive experiences.

Personally, I would never try to convince anyone who wasn't asking me a question that drugless childbirth is best. I believe that for my own body... and I will encourage and advocate it for people who lean towards the same ideas.

By the way... you are right... there are serious risks to giving birth drugless... just like there are risks to eating organic fruit and veggies (you could choke, even though it's the most natural way to eat it plus it's waaay more expensive)... just like there are risks to breastfeeding (you could get thrush or mastitis... and you might not if you don't breastfeed)... just like there are risks to holdning a baby instead of leaving them in a carrier (you could drop them and if you dropped them while in the carrier, they won't get hurt as badly)... just like there are risks to not watching tv (you could have a bad strorm in your area and not get the warning and not be prepared)... the list just goes on and on. You asked why this was what we prefer.

Just to clear something else up... there are many people here who don't judge others for not having a drugless birth. Rather, they would hope for more than an intervention laden birth for others. Both of my births were in the hospital, and I suspect that the homebirthers here when they read that wish for me that I could experience giving birth inside the haven of my own home. I don't take that as them judging me... just as them wishing I could experience the same great things they did at their births (that I could not experience at my hospital births).


----------



## ndakkitten (Jul 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
You are all talking about a minimal risk of complications as if it were a huge risk (from the epidural). It is entirely wrong to me that our culture has made pain relief such a "failure" for every mother. There are risks with "natural" delivery and the same with pain relief. If you choose to prescribe to propoganda from either side then you are not giving "informed consent" and believe me, the BS on this thread is not informed consent. Everyone here who keeps espousing against pain relief has an agenda, so get your own info, please, and don't feel like a failure because women like this want to make you feel like one.

I'm sorry you have such a negative view. However, you ASKED our opinions. We gave them. Everyone on this board has a right to their opinion without you coming back afterwards and slamming us for simply answering your question. This thread started out quite nicely, with a non-flaming tone. Then I read your post today, and all I can think is "Sheesh." If you had your mind all ready all made up, why bother to ask the question in the first place? And just what do you consider "informed consent" if not the facts presented? Just because the risks may be minimal, they still exist.

Personally, I am not against pain relief. What I am against (and I think most people on this board are as well) is the lack of information that women are given to be able to make informed choices. I know that I wasn't told any of the risks when I was offered my epidural. I only knew about the risks from the research I had done BEFORE I ever went into labor. I just believe that every woman should be informed of the risks. Consider this to be an agenda if you like.


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

I want to clarify my viewpoint, if I may. Having given birth to 3 children under 3 different circumstances, I feel that I do have something to offer women who are wondering what childbirth feels like.

I respect women who want to go "drug-free" with their deliveries. The fact that I do not agree, nor understand it, does not detract from the fact that I respect that opinion.

My only problem is the fact that, personally, I feel that women are pressured into a drug-free delivery and made to feel guilty if they ask for pain-relief. That offends me. When a woman is in that much pain then no one has the right to make anyone feel less of a woman for asking for pain relief.

That was my point, and perhaps it was lost, no fault due to others.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
My only problem is the fact that, personally, I feel that women are pressured into a drug-free delivery and made to feel guilty if they ask for pain-relief. That offends me. When a woman is in that much pain then no one has the right to make anyone feel less of a woman for asking for pain relief.

I do not think there is any good in making women feel guilty for choosing pain relief if they feel that it is needed. I DO feel that it is VERY important for all birthing women to realize that the SAFEST way to give birth is naturally, without drugs of any sort.

-Angela


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Big Ol' YEAH THAT to alegna


----------



## mothragirl (Sep 10, 2005)

one from me too. i don't think you can make someone feel guilty. if someone feels guilty about a choice they made, it is something that they create themselves.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Quote:

My only problem is the fact that, personally, I feel that women are pressured into a drug-free delivery and made to feel guilty if they ask for pain-relief. That offends me. When a woman is in that much pain then no one has the right to make anyone feel less of a woman for asking for pain relief.
Honestly...and honestly and truely, I feel it's usually the other way around. I lost count of how many people told me not to feel like a martyr and get drugs, how it was okay and everyone did it, how it's the best thing in the world to get, that you're crazy if you don't want drugs because it's sooo bad, etc etc. Same things happened to so many of my friends, with one friend having her nurses tell her all that stuff while in transition. Thankfully she listened to her body, felt she could handle it, and told the nurses to buzz off.

I'm know the situation you speak of has happened and does happen. It's truely sad. If a woman has something that is making her labor unbearable then it's her choice to if she wishes to use something, she should be supportive....no woman should feel she has to suffer.

So much more often though, I've found it's the other way around. Women aren't supported for wanting a natural birth, undermined in labor and not supported, allowed to change positions, or do anything else that could help. Drugs are offered and that's it. And I'm a big supporter of if women wants a natural birth, then they should be supported, encouraged, and helped to use other methods of coping with the pain first and foremost before taking more drastic steps and not undermined. If nothing works and/or the pain is unbearable, the labor is abnormally long, mom is exhausted, or whatever, then she should feel free to use whatever she likes and be supported for it. Birth, like life, can be unpredictable.

I actually rarely tell my birth story because people feel I'm bragging or that I'm making it up. One woman pretty much called me a liar and said she had an epidural and it didn't work and it was just horrid without it. Okay, I'm sorry to hear that, but why she felt she had to project that onto me instead of saying something supportive is beyond me. People are strange.


----------



## dove (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
I respect women who want to go "drug-free" with their deliveries. The fact that I do not agree, nor understand it, does not detract from the fact that I respect that opinion.

I'm not sure what the clarification is all about (another thread perhaps?) but if you don't agree with or understand womyn who labor and birth undrugged, then may I respectfully ask why you seem to think that you know that womyn who do so are doing so out of guilt?

How about because we just simply trust in and have faith in our bodies to birth noramlly and without drugs? How about because we have the strength and fortitude to ultimately go above the sensations our body is experiencing to do what we feel is best for our babies? Or that maybe, just maybe, birth can be pleasureable, empowering, sexual, fabulous, fun, funny, every and any sensation you ever imagined...and that we want to feel it all?

The logic of being offended on the behalf of another woman b/c they feel guilt at asking for pain relief is really very telling. To me it indicates that the norm is to expect to be relieved of normal sensation that we as a culture are shielded from (as a result of medicalized childbirth) and that it is ingrained in us that these experiences are inherently wrong somehow and are _deserving_ of anaesthesia to get through it or around it.

eta: just wanted to say that I didn't know there was another thread when I wrote this and only responded to post # 83 as the thread stands now. hth if my response is confusing.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

DeeEast,
I understand where you are coming from.

Those that advocate no-drugs often cite it being so much healthier for the baby, and their power to overcome or work through the pain. Those that advocate drugs often can not comprehend why someone would not want drugs, and are bilwildered or even unflexible.

I think it is a shame from both sides, when something so personal as childbirth gets judged by people on one side or the other. If you are in the USA and the majority get pressured and harrassed to take drugs, even when they do not want them, it is a terrible shame. However, it does not dismiss your experience, just because the opposite happened, and you are in the minority.


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
I want to clarify my viewpoint, if I may. Having given birth to 3 children under 3 different circumstances, I feel that I do have something to offer women who are wondering what childbirth feels like.

I respect women who want to go "drug-free" with their deliveries. The fact that I do not agree, nor understand it, does not detract from the fact that I respect that opinion.

My only problem is the fact that, personally, I feel that women are pressured into a drug-free delivery and made to feel guilty if they ask for pain-relief. That offends me. When a woman is in that much pain then no one has the right to make anyone feel less of a woman for asking for pain relief.

That was my point, and perhaps it was lost, no fault due to others.

I get what your saying. Sometimes we even do this to ourselves. I never dreamed I'd end up with a pitocin induction and an epidural. I remember sheepishly asking my midwife about the epidural and being so afraid she'd look down on me. Then I said, "but if I get one my husband will be so disappointed in me!" Well, of course my husband was supportive of whatever I choose and really had no opinion either way. I was projecting, pure and simple.

I really like what Penny Simken says about there being a difference between being in pain and suffering, and that no one should have to suffer.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Thread open


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I have removed posts that were in violation of the MDC User Agreement. As a member of MDC, each of us is expected to post with respect to ensure the comfort of the participants within each forum.

We are each responsible for avoiding:

Quote:

*Posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, namecalling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.*
Please see MDC's Web Statement of Purpose to better understand MDC's and Mothering Magazine's Natural Family Living philosophy.

It is expected that within a forum this large, there will be differences of opinion. That's totally fine. It is not fine, however, to be disrespectful of another poster (or group of posters) for voicing an opinion with which one doesn't agree. We can be passionate without being hurtful.

Please see this Mothering Magazine link for some excellent information about empowering birth choices and further information about birth options









I trust that this conversation can remain on track. Please PM me directly, rather than replying to my post, if you have any questions or concerns about this thread. Thanks


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
There are risks with "natural" delivery and the same with pain relief.

Scientifically speaking that is not true. They are not the same but others are added by pain relief.Totally agenda free.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea*
Just b/c we prefer a natural birth and enjoyed our births in no way invalidates your painful births. It is ridiculous to think that we all should see things the same way.

I didn't enjoy my hospital birth at all. If I had had the choice I would have taken anything to make it stop, honestly. But that doesn't mean I have to minimize the risks of pain relief and talk them down, they stay the same. I advice every woman to avoid anything that creates the need for pain relief( beyong labour itself) which in my opinion is enhanced if not even triggered simply by being in a hospital and the whole circumstances surrounding it .


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
There are risks with "natural" delivery and the same with pain relief.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
Scientifically speaking that is not true. They are not the same but others are added by pain relief.Totally agenda free.

I'm assuming she meant that there are risks with both natural delivery and with pain relief, not that they're the *same* risks. But yeah, important point. Giving birth is risky in itself (as is just about everything in life,) and every intervention you add is in _addition_ to that.


----------



## eco_mama (Feb 10, 2006)

Because it's only natural.


----------



## WNB (Apr 29, 2006)

I wanted to (and did) avoid pain meds b/c everything I've read says that such interventions can have effects which cascade into more interventions, and so on, making a caesarean section more likely. Recovery from a c-section is considerably more difficult and would make it more of a challenge to establish breastfeeding right from the start. That's why I opted out of pain meds. (My body ended up making it easy on me; 5 hours of labor with about 10 minutes of pushing and I had my wonderful, healthy daughter.)


----------



## arlecchina (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
My only problem is the fact that, personally, I feel that women are pressured into a drug-free delivery and made to feel guilty if they ask for pain-relief. That offends me. When a woman is in that much pain then no one has the right to make anyone feel less of a woman for asking for pain relief.


that is so completely contrary to all my experience that I dont even know how to respond. It's quite the opposite from all I've seen/read. Esp in the US, the US is such a big "OH GOD DRUG ME" society that when someone doesnt want drugs they are laughed at...at best.

as I said earlier I did end up with an epi after 12 hours of pitocin induced back labour laying flat on my back. I did NOT want drugs and I was not pleased I took them, esp in light of the fact that it didnt even take. but I was called plenty of bad things for thr 12 hours I resisted it. not to mention people laughing in my face for the 9 months leading up to it, as I never wanted medicated at all.

So obviously as I broke down and attempted medication, I dont disrespect anyone who ALSO broke down and couldnt take the pain. but I also very strongly feel that in most cases, better support and surroundings not to mention NO INDUCTION AND INTERVENTION would prevent the need for medication. since I am UC this time, which def. mean NO MEDS, I'll keep you posted, if I am wrong in my case, I'll let you know.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *arlecchina*
as I said earlier I did end up with an epi after 12 hours of pitocin induced back labour laying flat on my back. I did NOT want drugs and I was not pleased I took them, esp in light of the fact that it didnt even take.

After getting on my back when I was in labour with ds2, I don't know how anybody can labour in that position and _not_ get pain meds. OMG that hurt!! I laboured for about 8 hours with no problem - 5 minutes on my back, and I was ready to kill someone. I can't imagine labouring like that for hours at a time. (I don't recall it being that pronounced with ds1, but that was 13 years ago, and my memory could be foggy...or the pain may have been lost in the panic over the c-section.)


----------



## arlecchina (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
After getting on my back when I was in labour with ds2, I don't know how anybody can labour in that position and _not_ get pain meds. OMG that hurt!! I laboured for about 8 hours with no problem - 5 minutes on my back, and I was ready to kill someone. I can't imagine labouring like that for hours at a time. (I don't recall it being that pronounced with ds1, but that was 13 years ago, and my memory could be foggy...or the pain may have been lost in the panic over the c-section.)

sweetie I agree with you. I got yelled at by staff when I rolled over because I was "compromising the fetal stress machine" grrrr. I didnt know then what I know now or I swear I would have left and had the kid in the car :/


----------



## mandib50 (Oct 26, 2004)

if you are making an informed choice and consent to the use of drugs, then i'm not understanding why you would feel guilty about that choice regardless of what others say to you?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
My only problem is the fact that, personally, I feel that women are pressured into a drug-free delivery and made to feel guilty if they ask for pain-relief. That offends me. When a woman is in that much pain then no one has the right to make anyone feel less of a woman for asking for pain relief.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeEast
There are risks with "natural" delivery and the same with pain relief.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
Scientifically speaking that is not true. They are not the same but others are added by pain relief.Totally agenda free.

There is one particular risk that comes to mind that is ADDED to the normal risks of a natural (med-free) delivery as a DIRECT RESULT of choosing to go med-free.

That is, if a woman who opts for no meds during vaginal birth ends up needing a crash section, she often has to be put under a general anesthetic instead of the less risky epidural anesthetic that could likely have been used had it been in place when the emergency occurred.

Is this a reason to justify epidural placement 'just in case' an emergency arises? The answer to that question lies in what particular risk factors a woman has that might make it more likely than not that she'd need an emergency section to begin with.

But it IS something that can end up increasing mom's overall risk during delivery based on her initial choice to go drug free during labor.

Is it common? No, I'd guess not. However, serious anesthetic complications from epidural and/or spinal placement aren't common either. It's just another thing to consider.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
There is one particular risk that comes to mind that is ADDED to the normal risks of a natural (med-free) delivery as a DIRECT RESULT of choosing to go med-free.

That is, if a woman who opts for no meds during vaginal birth ends up needing a crash section, she often has to be put under a general anesthetic instead of the less risky epidural anesthetic that could likely have been used had it been in place when the emergency occurred.

Is this a reason to justify epidural placement 'just in case' an emergency arises? The answer to that question lies in what particular risk factors a woman has that might make it more likely than not that she'd need an emergency section to begin with.

But it IS something that can end up increasing mom's overall risk during delivery based on her initial choice to go drug free during labor.

Is it common? No, I'd guess not. However, serious anesthetic complications from epidural and/or spinal placement aren't common either. It's just another thing to consider.

The risks of general anesthetic, in my educated opinion, are MUCH lower than the risks of ADDING meds and epis to natural childbirth. So the "benefit" of an epi placement "just in case" are actually nullified by the risks of meds/epis that multiply the c/s rate.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Yeah, having an epi increases your chances of needing a c/s.


----------



## KnittingMama (Nov 30, 2005)

These are my reasons why:

1. I don't ever want my children to take drugs, why give them drugs now? A little pain on my part is well worth it for a beautiful drug free baby.

2. My baby doesn't have a choice, but I do. So I choose not to for my baby's sake.

3. Its healthier for both me and baby on many levels.

4. I'm not comfortable with the risks vs. potential benefits that might be gained.

5. Having had 2 natural unmedicated births, I can't ever see myself going to the other side.

6. I birth at a birth center, and pain medication isn't an option.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

That is, if a woman who opts for no meds during vaginal birth ends up needing a crash section, she often has to be put under a general anesthetic instead of the less risky epidural anesthetic that could likely have been used had it been in place when the emergency occurred.

Is this a reason to justify epidural placement 'just in case' an emergency arises? The answer to that question lies in what particular risk factors a woman has that might make it more likely than not that she'd need an emergency section to begin with.
No, especially when 20% of the time the epidural fails to work sufficiently for c-section so getting the epidural isn't full proof (by far).


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *erin_brycesmom*
No, especially when 20% of the time the epidural fails to work sufficiently for c-section so getting the epidural isn't full proof (by far).

Without an epidural in place already, there is a 100% chance of mom needing general anesthesia for a true crash c-section. The risks of general anesthesia are greater than that of an epidural, something that is clearly documented time and again, *especially* in a pregnant woman.

As I stated very clearly earlier, this is still not a reason to advocate routine epidural placement for 'just in case' purposes, unless mom is at a higher than average risk of needing a crash c-section to begin with. Even in those particular cases, I can see how mom might be willing to take the risk of needing a general anesthetic to avoid the associated risks of an epidural if she doesn't want the epidural.

I was merely responding to the assertation that NOT having an epidural NEVER presents increased risks to the woman who chooses to forego an epidural because that simply is not truein all circumstances.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Yeah, having an epi increases your chances of needing a c/s.

Recent research has shown this to be false. Even with epidural placement prior to 4cm (or 'active' labor), the c-section rates were found to be statistically no different than with placement at a later point in labor OR with no epidural at all.

I believe there *is* still some question among professionals as to whether or not it slows the average labor down if given too soon, but it has most assuredly been shown to NOT increase the c-section rate overall.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kidzaplenty*
The risks of general anesthetic, in my educated opinion, are MUCH lower than the risks of ADDING meds and epis to natural childbirth. So the "benefit" of an epi placement "just in case" are actually nullified by the risks of meds/epis that multiply the c/s rate.

Recent research has clearly shown that having an epi does NOT increase the c-section rate, HOWEVER, there *are* additional risks that are present with epidural placement that are *not* present in an unmedicated delivery.

So, I can see that perhaps the risk of needing a general anesthetic (which increases mom's risk of death to a much greater degree than epidural) would be low enough to 'negate' the risks associated with routine epidural placement (BP issues, maternal fever, etc).

Also, again, I never stated that placing epidurals 'just in case' was a good idea, only that by choosing NOT to have one in place, mom was then at a higher risk of needing a general anesthetic should an emergency arise, and it is something to be considered in the overall decision making process.

Here's an example that comes to mind:

Mom goes into labor, labors at home for hours with no real problems or issues. Membranes rupture and it is noted that there is severe meconium staining in the fluid. Warning bells are hopefully going off at this point, nothing to panic over for sure, but something to definitely be aware of.

Fast forward a few hours. Baby is now showing decels when heart rate is checked during/immediately after a contraction. At some point, decision is made to transport to hospital.

Off mom goes with meconium stained fluid and non-reassuring heart rate during contractions. Gets to hospital where things are still under control at this point, but going downhill with discussion of c-section if dilation/delivery doesn't occur very soon.

Baby continues to show more and more signs of distress, to the point of necessitating a section.

So, if it were *me*, and I was at the point of transfer from homebirth to hospital cause my baby was in that much trouble, I'd ask for an epidural when I got there *knowing* that I wouldn't have gone to the hospital in the first place without cause for serious concern.

Does that make sense? If it's bad enough to warrant ditching the homebirth plan, it's bad enough to warrant getting that epidural 'just in case', cause 'just in case' just became a whole lot more likely than not.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Recent research has clearly shown that having an epi does NOT increase the c-section rate, HOWEVER, there *are* additional risks that are present with epidural placement that are *not* present in an unmedicated delivery.

Do you have a link to that research? With an overall rate of almost 30%, I'm not sure that I find "recent" research on this subject very reassuring.

I've had general anesthesia once, and a spinal twice. Except for the fact that I wanted dh to be able to see his children being "born", I'd have opted for the general all three times (if they'd have allowed it) - risks and all. Recovering from a general sucks - it really, really, really sucks - but I'd rather go through that than the experience of having the spinal placed. I've had no complications (unless this persistent backache is related, but I'll never know one way or the other), but the experience alone was horrible.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Do you have a link to that research? With an overall rate of almost 30%, I'm not sure that I find "recent" research on this subject very reassuring.

I've had general anesthesia once, and a spinal twice. Except for the fact that I wanted dh to be able to see his children being "born", I'd have opted for the general all three times (if they'd have allowed it) - risks and all. Recovering from a general sucks - it really, really, really sucks - but I'd rather go through that than the experience of having the spinal placed. I've had no complications (unless this persistent backache is related, but I'll never know one way or the other), but the experience alone was horrible.

Sure, it'll be tonight before I can pull it up. I may also have to locate DH's password to get into the anesthesia journals online, but it's out there. DH has only been out of school for 3 years, so this whole topic was HOT HOT HOT when he was doing his research classes and such.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
I'd have opted for the general all three times (if they'd have allowed it) - risks and all. Recovering from a general sucks - it really, really, really sucks - but I'd rather go through that than the experience of having the spinal placed.

There is a very good reason they don't allow women as a general rule to choose general anesthesia instead of a spinal, assuming of course a spinal is possible.

Your risk of dying is truly that much greater compared to a spinal, so from the anesthesia provider's perspective, they'd much rather you dislike the process of getting a spinal and be alive at the end of the day vs. you preferring the process of being knocked out and dead at the end of the day.

The risks really ARE that much greater. I've never met an anesthetist that didn't HATE having to put a very pregnant mom under a general. It's just too risky if there is any other way.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

From a quick Google, then I really MUST go run some errands:

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/new/releases/epidural.cfm

From that particular study, here's what made the overall study design very unique and interesting:

Quote:

The researchers began by examining the labor records from the Tripler Army Medical Center. In late 1993, the U.S. Department of Defense required that epidural analgesia be made available to women in labor at military medical centers. As a result, the rate at which first time mothers received epidural analgesia at the medical center increased from 1 percent to 84 percent. During that time, there were no major staffing changes at the hospital and no change in delivery procedures.

"This unique natural experiment offers an ideal opportunity to study the impact of epidural analgesia on the course of labor and delivery," the researchers wrote.
The overall results:

Quote:

The researchers found that there was no difference in the rate of Cesarean section between the before and after groups. Nor was there a difference in the incidence of difficult vaginal births requiring forceps or vacuum instruments. On average, however, the women in the after group experienced an increase in labor duration of 25 minutes as compared to the before group. The increase in labor duration was confined to the second stage of labor, from the time when the woman's cervix is completely dilated until the baby is actively expelled from the birth canal. The length of the first stage of labor, during which the cervix dilates, did not differ between the two groups.
And one more:

http://www.asahq.org/news/asanews21605.htm


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
There is a very good reason they don't allow women as a general rule to choose general anesthesia instead of a spinal, assuming of course a spinal is possible.

Your risk of dying is truly that much greater compared to a spinal, so from the anesthesia provider's perspective, they'd much rather you dislike the process of getting a spinal and be alive at the end of the day vs. you preferring the process of being knocked out and dead at the end of the day.

The risks really ARE that much greater. I've never met an anesthetist that didn't HATE having to put a very pregnant mom under a general. It's just too risky if there is any other way.

I'm aware of the risks. I'd still have opted for a general anesthetic. At least that way, if I did survive, I wouldn't be plagued with nightmares. That's okay, though - the anesthetist has a clean conscience, and we all know that the mom's quality of life after the baby arrives doesn't even factor in.

And, caling it my "dislike" of a spinal is dismissive, inaccurate and somewhat condescending. It's not "dislike" - it's sheer, unmitigated terror. I find c-sections absolutely terrifying and the spinal is equally terrifying, if not more so. The fact that anesthetists call the shots in OR is just one more thing to hate about the whole process. (The last one managed to make it even worse by unexpectedly clamping an oxygen mask to my face.)

The thing is - I'm not concerned about whether the anesthetist hates to put me under...I'm concerned about whether _I_ hate being put under - or hate being punctured. (They also didn't seem too concerned with putting me under general because I was on the verge of delivering a frank breech...and screaming "no". Funny how much concern about general anesthesia and pregnant women was being shown that day.)


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

I'd really like to see these studies. It's not the epidural itself that increases c-section rates -- it's the related interventions. Epidurals tend to slow labor, and sometimes pitocin is used to speed it up, and EFM is used to monitor how the baby responds to this. Both are linked with higher c-section rates. I don't know how these military hospitals operate, but if they tend to use synthetic augmentation and EFM for everyone, logically that's going to help level the rates between the groups.

Quote:

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.
Why would this be?


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I have not read all the studies or info that was just posted. But I have to think that IF the c/s rate does not increase due to meds and epis then it has to be that they are overly inflated already. C/S should be only about 1 in 10, not the high percentages that are "standard" today in our "medically managed" births.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
I'm aware of the risks. I'd still have opted for a general anesthetic. At least that way, if I did survive, I wouldn't be plagued with nightmares. That's okay, though - the anesthetist has a clean conscience, and we all know that the mom's quality of life after the baby arrives doesn't even factor in.

And, caling it my "dislike" of a spinal is dismissive, inaccurate and somewhat condescending. It's not "dislike" - it's sheer, unmitigated terror. I find c-sections absolutely terrifying and the spinal is equally terrifying, if not more so. The fact that anesthetists call the shots in OR is just one more thing to hate about the whole process. (The last one managed to make it even worse by unexpectedly clamping an oxygen mask to my face.)

The thing is - I'm not concerned about whether the anesthetist hates to put me under...I'm concerned about whether _I_ hate being put under - or hate being punctured. (They also didn't seem too concerned with putting me under general because I was on the verge of delivering a frank breech...and screaming "no". Funny how much concern about general anesthesia and pregnant women was being shown that day.)

I see all the time how unethical it is for doctor's to agree to do medically unnecessary c-sections just because mom wants one for whatever reason. I see it said that this should be illegal, doctors who agree to do it should lose their license, etc etc etc. I see where medical decisions during childbirth should be strictly based on NEED, as in ONLY do a section when it is MEDICALLY NECESSARY, because it's what's best, safest, unnecessary procedures cost more money, etc etc etc. Do you agree with this sentiment? That a woman should NOT be allowed the luxury of 'choosing' a medically unnecessary c-section for whatever reasons she may have?

If you know anything about my beliefs surrounding childbirth, the bottom line for ME personally is that YOU, the mother, should be able to call the shots regarding which risks YOU feel most comfortable with. That belief doesn't go over so well here sometimes, and I'm ok with that.

If YOU are ok with the increased risk of death for yourself by *choosing* to have a medically *unnecessary* general anesthetic used instead of the safer alternative, AND you are willing to sign a consent form releasing whomever puts you to sleep of any and all responsibility for your choice, then I can see you choosing a general if it's that big of a deal to you.

You know the risks. You accept the risks. It really should be up to you if you feel like the increased risk of complications and death are 'worth it' for whatever reason you may have. I *do* believe the anesthesia provider in question should have some sort of protection from lawsuit should YOUR choice result in less than a positive outcome (of course they should still be responsible if they are incompetent, just not responsible if one of the known risks of GA actually affects you since it was your choice to begin with).

I also wonder if this would be one of those cases where people felt like you should be responsible for the additional costs associated with general anesthesia since it is clearly not medically necessary, it would be strictly for maternal preference. I see that argument for elective c-sections, you know....'fine, have a section if you want, but you can pay for it too' type thinking. I personally disagree with that sentiment, but it seems it would fit here as well.

Your argument sounds a lot like what I went through for a medically 'unnecessary' c-section with my first pg. We went round and round, with me insisting that I completely understood the risks associated with my choice, and while I certainly expected them to do a competent job during surgery, I also understood that sometimes things happen during a section that simply cannot be controlled (i.e. I could hemmorhage and need a hysterectomy).

Now, if they'd gone in there just hacking me to pieces and were clearly incompetent, you better believe I'd have sued them. But if I ended up with any of the myriad of complications that are KNOWN to be associated with c-section, well...that was my choice, and I accepted full responsibility for that choice.

If you felt the same way about the increased risk of GA with no real medical necessity, I would think ultimately it should be up to you to take on those risks.

I will say you'll have a hard time finding an anesthetist to agree with you, much like I found it *very* difficult to find an OB who agreed with me. And it sucked. I won in the end, but it was after a very long, very bitter, very distressing fight. A fight that was worth it, one that I'd fight again in a heartbeat, but distressing nonetheless.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
I don't know how these military hospitals operate, but if they tend to use synthetic augmentation and EFM for everyone, logically that's going to help level the rates between the groups.



Continuous EFM is standard of care at Tripler (where the first study took place). Pitocin is started as if it's candy, and it's *incredibly* unusual for a mother to labor and deliver *without* pitocin. I know this personally.

So, I'd say the use of EFM and Pit can be pretty much assumed for virtually all cases in both sets of women (the no-epi group and the epi group).

The c-section rates didn't significantly change between the two groups, which led to the conclusion that the use of epidural didn't increase the c-section rate. Seems like a logical conclusion to me given the parameters of the study.

Now, it IS quite likely that using pit, EFM, and especially using BOTH, could very well be upping the c-section rate overall. But when you introduce the epidural to the equation, the c-section rate did not change statistically speaking.

And the assertation earlier in this thread was that epidurals, not EFM and/or Pit use, increased the risk of c-section. THAT is what this particular study simply did not find a correlation for.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Yeah, so I'll get an epidural just in case I need a crash section?

Do you know how rare a CRASH c-section is? Seriously. Even in emergent and urgent c-sections, they almost always have time to place a spinal.

I've seen them have to use general TWICE in my life, and you know what one of the reasons was? Because the doctor placing her epidural placed it too high (very short woman) and with a bit too much of a loading dose and paralyzed her diaphragm. She needed the general because she couldn't breathe and was thrashing all over the OR table. They knocked her out and put a breathing tube down her throat. Score one for preventive therapy, huh?

Getting an epidural in case you'll need a stat section? What a warped and sad view of birth.









Please look into who funded those studies...

Off to post at Baby Center or Parenting or whatever those other boards are.....


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*

Quote:

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.

Why would this be?

That is an interesting difference. First, there was no significant difference in the number of babies that required instrumental delivery between the groups, only a difference in WHEN instrumental delivery was used during the delivery process.

One guess, although it is purely a guess, is that so-called 'mid-forceps' deliveries (which is what I'm assuming they mean when they say instruments were used when baby was higher in the birth canal) are generally frowned upon these days. Perhaps 15 years ago in the 'before/no-epi' group, mid-forceps deliveries were used more often overall?

I do know that by 2002 at Tripler, mid-forceps deliveries were truly a very last resort, ONLY used if crash c-section was not possible for whatever reason, simply based on research findings that say a crash section is safer overall when compared to a mid-forceps delivery. At what point this policy came into practice, however, I do not know.

Another thought is that an epi is going to naturally relax the pelvic floor in lots of women, so the baby might descend properly at first, but get 'stuck' closer to the end of delivery. Of course, this doesn't really explain why just as many babies were needing instrumental delivery in the no-epi group, only they were requiring assistance higher up in the birth canal.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Yeah, so I'll get an epidural just in case I need a crash section?

Do you know how rare a CRASH c-section is? Seriously. Even in emergent and urgent c-sections, they almost always have time to place a spinal.

I've seen them have to use general TWICE in my life, and you know what one of the reasons was? Because the doctor placing her epidural placed it too high (very short woman) and with a bit too much of a loading dose and paralyzed her diaphragm. She needed the general because she couldn't breathe and was thrashing all over the OR table. They knocked her out and put a breathing tube down her throat. Score one for preventive therapy, huh?

Getting an epidural in case you'll need a stat section? What a warped and sad view of birth.









Please look into who funded those studies...

Off to post at Baby Center or Parenting or whatever those other boards are.....

Please point out where I said it was a good idea to have a 'just in case' epidural placed. Or that it was something that SHOULD be done 'just in case' for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Oh, yeah, I didn't.









The example I *did* give was in regards to a baby that was already clearly in distress, quite a difference from just popping an epi in every women who comes through the door 'just in case'.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:

There is one particular risk that comes to mind that is ADDED to the normal risks of a natural (med-free) delivery as a DIRECT RESULT of choosing to go med-free.

That is, *if a woman who opts for no meds during vaginal birth ends up needing a crash section, she often has to be put under a general anesthetic instead of the less risky epidural anesthetic that could likely have been used had it been in place when the emergency occurred*.

Is this a reason to justify epidural placement 'just in case' an emergency arises? The answer to that question lies in what particular risk factors a woman has that might make it more likely than not that she'd need an emergency section to begin with.
You mentioned no problems here in the bolded part. You didn't say for a woman who already had compromised fetal wellbeing.

Define "often" (see underline). Like I said, I've seen it used once for a legitimate emergent c/s--twice if you include when the doctor almost killed the woman putting in the c/s.

And complications from epis aren't common? Have you ever worked post partum or labor and delivery? It's not uncommon either. LOTS of women have "windows" where the epidural doesn't cover a certain area of her abdomen and she has intense pain there. Many women have needed 2, 3, even 4 attempts at placing the epidural. I've seen a LOT of spinal headaches in post partum women (I've had one myself and it was HORRIBLE), excessive bruising and pain at the catheter site, etc. I've also seen some rare things like meningitis following the epidural placement, localized infection, partial temporary paralysis of the legs (lasting almost 2 weeks) and cardiac problems following incorrect placement.

Rare vs. not uncommon vs. no chance? Yeah, I'll go with the 'no chance' option, thanks. ::insert little eyeroll and winking face here::


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandib50*
if you are making an informed choice and consent to the use of drugs, then i'm not understanding why you would feel guilty about that choice regardless of what others say to you?

I didn't say that I personally felt guilty because I have no reason to. What offends me is women who try to make women who choose pain relief during labor feel guilty. Big difference.

Also, to the PP who said "a little pain on my part". Ummm, its not a LITTLE pain by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Oh and I did have one of those "crash" C-sections where I had to undergo general anesthesia. My DS had a prolapsed cord and he could have died without an immediate C-section. He almost did die as a matter of fact, even with it.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
Ummm, its not a LITTLE pain by any stretch of the imagination.

Not in everyones experience. Some women orgasm during labor.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
Oh and I did have one of those "crash" C-sections where I had to undergo general anesthesia. My DS had a prolapsed cord and he could have died without an immediate C-section. He almost did die as a matter of fact, even with it.

But I have to ask, did you have AROM?


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
Oh and I did have one of those "crash" C-sections where I had to undergo general anesthesia. My DS had a prolapsed cord and he could have died without an immediate C-section. He almost did die as a matter of fact, even with it.

I'm glad he's okay. But I'm not sure if you were trying to proove something?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
You didn't say for a woman who already had compromised fetal wellbeing.

Perhaps it would help if you continued reading after the portion you bolded where I discussed this very issue. Then perhaps it would be beneficial for you to read further, where I clearly clarified by giving an example of where it might make sense to go ahead with a 'just in case' epidural given the circumstances.

Just after the bolded portion, I state:

Quote:

Is this a reason to justify epidural placement 'just in case' an emergency arises? The answer to that question lies in what particular risk factors a woman has that might make it more likely than not that she'd need an emergency section to begin with.

Quote:

Define "often" (see underline). Like I said, I've seen it used once for a legitimate emergent c/s--twice if you include when the doctor almost killed the woman putting in the c/s.
In an *emergency* section, which is QUITE different than an *emergent* section, if an epidural is not already in place, a general anesthetic is going to be used. Period. Unless you've got an idiot for a doctor.

Emergency sections are ones where mom and/or baby are dying, therefore taking the time to place a spinal or epidural where there is not one already in place simply is not an option. I'm talking cases where the 'decision to incision' time is 5 minutes and baby is out in under 5 minutes from incision.

5 minutes is simply not enough time for even a spinal to work, much less an epidural. And if a hospital has a much greater 'decision to incision' time for true emergencies, I wouldn't set foot inside there.

Quote:

And complications from epis aren't common? Have you ever worked post partum or labor and delivery? It's not uncommon either. LOTS of women have "windows" where the epidural doesn't cover a certain area of her abdomen and she has intense pain there. Many women have needed 2, 3, even 4 attempts at placing the epidural. I've seen a LOT of spinal headaches in post partum women (I've had one myself and it was HORRIBLE), excessive bruising and pain at the catheter site, etc. I've also seen some rare things like meningitis following the epidural placement, localized infection, partial temporary paralysis of the legs (lasting almost 2 weeks) and cardiac problems following incorrect placement.
Life threatening complications are rare with epidurals and spinals. The end. I can't seem to find anywhere in what you quoted that you'd even get the idea that I was discussing complications from epidurals in any other context than the fact that epis are LESS risky than general anesthesia, which is simply fact. Sorry if you don't like it.

Quote:

Rare vs. not uncommon vs. no chance? Yeah, I'll go with the 'no chance' option, thanks. ::insert little eyeroll and winking face here::
Wow. Care to elaborate on what birth choices you make that carry NO RISK WHATSOEVER? Cause I'd love to take part in that kind of birth.

Oh, wait. No matter what choices you make, there is *some* degree of risk. There is no option for 'no chance' of risk during childbirth. You have to pick and choose which risks you feel most comfortable with, but there are most assuredly risks to ANY choice you make.

That seems like a given, something that people wouldn't honestly try to argue, but apparently not.







:


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
I've seen them have to use general TWICE in my life, and you know what one of the reasons was? Because the doctor placing her epidural placed it too high (very short woman) and with a bit too much of a loading dose and paralyzed her diaphragm. She needed the general because she couldn't breathe and was thrashing all over the OR table. They knocked her out and put a breathing tube down her throat. Score one for preventive therapy, huh?

A friend of mine recently was induced (pitocin) for being 5 days late







:, suffered the horrible pitocin-induced contractions and finally gave in to an epidural. She had that wonderful epidural window.







Then, after pushing for a couple hours, they said she was FTP, so they decided on a C-section. The epidural didn't work, so they tried a spinal. The spinal paralyzed her diaphragm and she couldn't breathe. They had to put her under a general.

Score two for preventative therapy!







And I don't work in a hospital... This was just a local friend of mine.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Not in everyones experience. Some women orgasm during labor.

Would you say that is typical? Common? Does it happen often? Or is it rare?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boscopup*
A friend of mine recently was induced (pitocin) for being 5 days late







:, suffered the horrible pitocin-induced contractions and finally gave in to an epidural. She had that wonderful epidural window.







Then, after pushing for a couple hours, they said she was FTP, so they decided on a C-section. The epidural didn't work, so they tried a spinal. The spinal paralyzed her diaphragm and she couldn't breathe. They had to put her under a general.

Score two for preventative therapy!







And I don't work in a hospital... This was just a local friend of mine.

Well shoot. Maybe they should have just kept cutting despite the fact that she could feel them doing so. Would that be better?

Good grief. Nobody said that having a 'just in case' epidural was the thing to do, the way to go, the best choice, the safest route, etc etc etc.

If mom already has an epidural in place, it is LIKELY that it can be used instead of a general. Not always. Not 100% of the time. But certainly more often than being able to use an epidural that isn't in place at all when a true emergency arises. Cause at that point, the chances of a non-existant epidural being used is 0%. There simply isn't time.

FTP isn't a life and death emergency, so once the decision to section is made, there is enough time to allow for epi or spinal placement. Is it going to ALWAYS work? Um, no. Who ever said it did?







:

If I found myself in a situation where an emergency situation seemed more likely than not, it would make sense to ME to have the epidural placed at that point instead of waiting until the situation became so critical that it was no longer a possibility due to time constraints. Of course, there isn't always adequate warning before things get to the point of a crash section anyway, which is where you see a general used for non-medicated mothers because there really is no other option at that point.


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Well shoot. Maybe they should have just kept cutting despite the fact that she could feel them doing so. Would that be better?

Good grief. Nobody said that having a 'just in case' epidural was the thing to do, the way to go, the best choice, the safest route, etc etc etc.

If mom already has an epidural in place, it is LIKELY that it can be used instead of a general. Not always. Not 100% of the time. But certainly more often than being able to use an epidural that isn't in place at all when a true emergency arises. Cause at that point, the chances of a non-existant epidural being used is 0%. There simply isn't time.

FTP isn't a life and death emergency, so once the decision to section is made, there is enough time to allow for epi or spinal placement. Is it going to ALWAYS work? Um, no. Who ever said it did?







:

I have Psychological reasons for needing GA for a section if I ever do need one.

It's pretty gruesome acctually.

I was raped. The Rohypnol Or GHB I'm not sure which, did NOT Render me unconcious. It acctually just paralized me from the armpits down.

Yeah...

So if I get an epidural/spinal block for ANYTHING I *will* go crazy and relive a PTSD Episode and have to be tossed under psychiatric observation for god knows how long till I come out of it.

My baby wouldn't have a mother for god knows how long...My children wouldn't have a mom...they'd have a raving lunatic they share DNA with.

My husband wouldn't have a wife. He'd divorce me and leave me in the assylum as I rave and go nutso...

So yeah...I KNOW I would be better off DEAD than a raving lunatic inside a psychiatric ward due to a severe PTSD flashback.

I think my husband would rather me be dead too than to have to deal with having POA over a lunatic ex wife for the rest of his days.


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Good grief. Nobody said that having a 'just in case' epidural was the thing to do, the way to go, the best choice, the safest route, etc etc etc.

Then why bother mentioning it?

Frankly, I'd be all for the GA... But I've been under GA before and had local anesthetic surgeries before, and the local anesthetic surgeries were MUCH more traumatic for me. I wouldn't have the reaction that Pandora mentions, but I honestly would probably rather have the GA for a C-section, even knowing the risks. I recovered SOOOO much better from my GA surgeries. Really, the biggest thing that scares me about a C-section is the being awake part, because of my previous non-GA surgeries.

Yes, I know FTP is not a crash C-section incidence. I never said it was. My point was that epidurals don't always work, spinals don't always work. Sometimes these items cause really bad stuff to happen (like not breathing). I'd rather take my chances that I won't need a C-section than to get an epidural "just in case" and face the possible complications of that. But again, my views are biased by my psychological problem with being awake during surgery and past experiences with such. My local anesthetic surgery was WAAAAAAY worse than drug-free vaginal birth... because I *remember* the pain of the local anesthetic going in and can feel it when I think about it. Not to mention all the friends I have that dealt with epidural after-effects from their normal births (headaches, backaches, etc.), and one friend who has a disabled child due to an epidural being placed too early (if you look up the risks, that is one of them, but I've only run into one person online that I know that happened to, so I know it's *incredibly* rare... and it's preventable by not getting epi too early).


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Would you say that is typical? Common? Does it happen often? Or is it rare?

I've read about it....don't know how common it is. While I wouldn't go around telling women this IS going to happen if you labor and birth naturally, it's certainly not impossible for some women. It wasn't that way for me but it's not impossible to imagine that it is how it feels for some women.


----------



## dove (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Another thought is that an epi is going to naturally relax the pelvic floor in lots of women, so the baby might descend properly at first, but get 'stuck' closer to the end of delivery. Of course, this doesn't really explain why just as many babies were needing instrumental delivery in the no-epi group, only they were requiring assistance higher up in the birth canal.

or, that the "standard of care" was for the laboring woman (without epi) to be subjected to EFM instead of intermittent fetal monitoring (which has time and again been proven to be just as safe as continuous monitoring) and was unable to position herself in an optimal way to birth her baby.

Why bring up this horrible scenario when it is so rare? What is the point/motivation to do so?

btw, ECSTATIC BIRTH HAPPENS!!!








(but it's not something usually ever seen in a hospital due to the unnatural setting and intervention. Spend a couple years in a homebirth or birth center setting and you will see it. Treating a laboring woman like the goddess she is does wonders. )


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Not in everyones experience. Some women orgasm during labor.

How ludicrous. Enough said. My pain was beyond excrutiating and so was every other woman's pain that I've ever personally spoken to, including my mother who had 7 children without pain relief. I just do not understand your mind-set nor do I want to.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
In an *emergency* section, which is QUITE different than an *emergent* section, if an epidural is not already in place, a general anesthetic is going to be used. Period. Unless you've got an idiot for a doctor.

Emergency sections are ones where mom and/or baby are dying, therefore taking the time to place a spinal or epidural where there is not one already in place simply is not an option. I'm talking cases where the 'decision to incision' time is 5 minutes and baby is out in under 5 minutes from incision.


1st of all, I am very well versed in the different classifications of c-sections, but I thank you for attempting to educate me. No, three is not a difference between an emergent c-section and emergency c-section. Just a similar term for the same level of severity. (There is a difference between urgent and emergent, yes).

Second, yes, I've seen c-sections termed emergent (or emergency) where there was enough time to place a spinal. GA isn't prefered because of the increased risks not only to mom, but to baby. If you have a baby who is compromised to begin with, you don't want to risk stopping the oxygen to the baby if mom can't be intubated immediately.

Third: Are you aware that a common side effect/adverse effect of epidural is low blood pressure? (which is why they bolus you with 500-1,500mL of fluid before/during) Do you know the consequence of low maternal BP? Decreased placental perfusion. Decreased PP=less blood through umbilical cord=less oxygen for baby=slowed fetal heart rate=deceleration=poor tracing=HUGE increase for "need" of c/s.

Fourth-

Quote:

Life threatening complications are rare with epidurals and spinals. The end.
I never said they weren't. But it is not the end. Like I've said, I've had a spinal headache, and being laid up flat on your back for days, with morphine hardly touching the pain is nothing to sniff at--I can't imagine what that would be like while trying to establish a nursing relationship, bonding, going home, etc. The risks are there. I'd never make a general statement like "Epidurals are unsafe. Period" I'm not an idiot. I've seen epidurals do very good. I've seen them save a mother from a c/section. I just think it's very unsafe, unwise and unethical to say what I quoted. And most women don't know the risks to epidurals, spinals, stadol, demerol, etc. in part because people consider them rare and uncommon enough to not mention it.

Re: Risk vs. No Risk: I made the choice not to have pain meds in labor, and there is no risk in not getting pain meds, so I'm not really sure I should need to elaborate more. What else qualifies me? I refused an induction. Didn't stay on my back. No directed or purple pushing. No continuous EFM. I ate and drank in labor. Obviously laboring itself poses inherent risks, but I chose not to add to that. Is that a good enough laundry list for you?

Kelly


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
How ludicrous. Enough said. My pain was beyond excrutiating and so was every other woman's pain that I've ever personally spoken to, including my mother who had 7 children without pain relief. I just do not understand your mind-set nor do I want to.

Excuse me, why is that ludicrous? It has happened. To some mamas here, and it's been published. Yes it's rare, but worth mentioning. I wanted to enlighten you that not every woman's labor experience was like yours, since you seem to have been (and continue to be) ignorant to that fact. And yes, it's a fact.

My labor was *NOT* beyond excruciating. it was painful, yes. But I'd never cal it excruciating--even during the labor I did not.

You don't want to understand me? Then put me on ignore or don't respond. Don't waste both of our times.







:

Kelly


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
I just do not understand your mind-set nor do I want to.

Wow. Why wouldn't you want to understand? I did not have an orgasmic birth (don't we all wish, huh?) BUT it was not unbearable. It was not intollerable. I never even WANTED meds.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact I birthed at home and was in my own element, but perhaps I was just lucky









-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
there is no risk in not getting pain meds

this is worth repeating.

-Angela


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Wow. Why wouldn't you want to understand? I did not have an orgasmic birth (don't we all wish, huh?) BUT it was not unbearable. It was not intollerable. I never even WANTED meds.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact I birthed at home and was in my own element, but perhaps I was just lucky









-Angela

Yes, in my opinion you were "lucky". Ah-hem. So you are saying that the fact that my birth was agonizing was my fault and because I did not birth at home? It had nothing to do with the fact of nature that birth is painful. No, it was not tolerable. It was scary, beyond agonizing, and horrifying. Yep, I wish I had been able to have pain relief. But, according to you, that's my own fault. If I had had the birth of my twins at home, maybe it would have been orgasmic. Of course my son would have died of his prolapsed cord, but hey, it would have been worth it to have a groovy birth experience?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I'm just posting my experience. I have no idea about the details of yours.

-Angela


----------



## dove (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
Yes, in my opinion you were "lucky". Ah-hem. So you are saying that the fact that my birth was agonizing was my fault and because I did not birth at home? It had nothing to do with the fact of nature that birth is painful. No, it was not tolerable. It was scary, beyond agonizing, and horrifying. Yep, I wish I had been able to have pain relief. But, according to you, that's my own fault. If I had had the birth of my twins at home, maybe it would have been orgasmic. Of course my son would have died of his prolapsed cord, but hey, it would have been worth it to have a groovy birth experience?

you pretty obviously don't want to understand are unintentionally (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) putting down womyn who believe in their bodies' abilities to birth normally and without pain management. There is such a thing as ecstatic birth. i have experienced it. Sometimes it involves actual orgasm, sometimes it doesn't. In womyn who are not micro-managed in their labor, believe in their bodies abilities to birth without intervention, and are treated with respect and kindness it is not such a rarity. I'm truly sorry that you feel the need to make snide remarks to discuss this here on this forum. No, of course no one wanted you to have a dead twin. There is a reason for medical management at times. Good thing it is there for the true emergencies. Otherwise, though - "groovy" births should be the norm and if we would just lay off of laboring womEn and quit this cascade of interventions toward c/s and pain management-land that is so prevalent today, you might just see more womYn who are empowered and respectful of natural birth.


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
I did not have an orgasmic birth (don't we all wish, huh?) BUT it was not unbearable. It was not intollerable. I never even WANTED meds.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact I birthed at home and was in my own element, but perhaps I was just lucky









-Angela

I birthed in a hospital four times and never had nor wanted meds. Yeah, it was painful - but not intolerable. I made a lot of noise and worked through it.


----------



## DeeEast (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dove*
you pretty obviously don't want to understand are unintentionally (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) putting down womyn who believe in their bodies' abilities to birth normally and without pain management. There is such a thing as ecstatic birth. i have experienced it. Sometimes it involves actual orgasm, sometimes it doesn't. In womyn who are not micro-managed in their labor, believe in their bodies abilities to birth without intervention, and are treated with respect and kindness it is not such a rarity. I'm truly sorry that you feel the need to make snide remarks to discuss this here on this forum. No, of course no one wanted you to have a dead twin. There is a reason for medical management at times. Good thing it is there for the true emergencies. Otherwise, though - "groovy" births should be the norm and if we would just lay off of laboring womEn and quit this cascade of interventions toward c/s and pain management-land that is so prevalent today, you might just see more womYn who are empowered and respectful of natural birth.

You don't know enough about me to guess as my intentions. I've been very clear. I resent anyone making women feel less "empowered" because they choose pain relief.

And no, I am not the one making snide remarks. I am merely responding to the myriad of snide comments made here. Remarkable that in such a "feel-good" forum, that snide remarks against a minority opinion are championed, but anything said in defense is attacked. Talk about small-minded.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
You don't know enough about me to guess as my intentions. I've been very clear. I resent anyone making women feel less "empowered" because they choose pain relief.

And no, I am not the one making snide remarks. I am merely responding to the myriad of snide comments made here. Remarkable that in such a "feel-good" forum, that snide remarks against a minority opinion are championed, but anything said in defense is attacked. Talk about small-minded.









: you are the one who called someones comments ludicrous.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
Yes, in my opinion you were "lucky". Ah-hem. *So you are saying that the fact that my birth was agonizing was my fault and because I did not birth at home?* It had nothing to do with the fact of nature that birth is painful. No, it was not tolerable. It was scary, beyond agonizing, and horrifying. Yep, I wish I had been able to have pain relief. *But, according to you, that's my own fault*. If I had had the birth of my twins at home, maybe it would have been orgasmic. Of course my son would have died of his prolapsed cord, but hey, it would have been worth it to have a groovy birth experience?

I bolded mine.

Dude, all she said was that she felt that HER birth experience was less painful for HER because she birthed at home. Where on earth you get off putting words in her mouth, making stuff up and then criticizing her for the bull you made up she said, I have no idea.

I'm reporting your post.


----------



## dove (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeeEast*
You don't know enough about me to guess as my intentions. I've been very clear. I resent anyone making women feel less "empowered" because they choose pain relief.

thank you for coming clean and being honest in your intention with this thread. You have stated your agenda quite clearly in this statement and it is definitely not what you titled your thread to be ( 'HONEST QUESTION... ' )

If you honestly wanted to know why some womyn don't use pain relief in labor you wouldn't be reacting in the way you are to the answers you are getting here. (calling an honestly expressed experience ludicrous, etc...)

I don't want to convert you to be a natural birth lover or anything, and gosh, I wouldn't even wish an ecstatic birth on you for fear that it would blow your perceptions of how birth should be. It would be nice if you were willing to listen to all sorts of experiences and keep an open mind, since you are the one doing the asking here on mdc.

bye. take care.


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

*cough* this thread is degenerating again....

As I said: Women who go pain med free are acctually in the minority. More often than not, those who announce they want to have a natural birth get scoffed, ridiculed, made fun of and put down for their choice.

They are made to doubt themselves more often than not.

Those who choose pain relief are treated as "OMG honey I am SOOO with you!"

You stumbled across a board filled with the minority DeeEast...the majority are out there.

Oh yeah. Another reason for intense pain during labour is fear. The fllight or fight response due to fear causes more lactic acid to build up in your muscles. Your uterus is a muscle. Lactic acid is what causes muscle cramps, like charley hourses. Lactic acid in the uterus makes things hurt a helluvalot more.

A relaxed mom = smooth labour. It doesn't matter if they need artificial management to relax (read Epi) Or natural relaxing (Hypnosis)

The more relaxed you are in the throes of things, the less painful it will be...

ETA: No I'm not a danged Granola Embassador. I just dont want to get this thread locked and removed again because it really has some valuable information in it to those who could be lurking IRT the risks of epidurals and whatnot.

This Thread can be a valuable resource, despite certain posts.

I would be sorta sad if it got taken away again....


----------



## magemom (Mar 5, 2002)

I have had 5 children, all in hospital, obs, midwives, family practice- someone handy in the hallway. I have had inductions and spontaneous births. Posterior and 11+ pounds. I physically recovered better with my drug free births. I am glad I had the epidural with my first because of my fear. I am glad with my 3rd because I had to wait and the urge to push was dulled. I am so happy with my 4th I didn't or it would have ended as a csection if my doc wasn't guarding my door. Atilla the nurse also helped. Others may not like her, but she was the attendant I needed. My 5th finally convinced DH that homebirth is an option (Argh!!)

My sister had an epidural with her twin birth and it helped with her delivery. However it also put her in the ICU after. After her second day of labor with her singleton she still had another epidural. Not my choice, but I respect hers.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Okay, sorry. The thread is now closed to further posts. I will point anyone who has questions as to why this thread is closed to post #92. I'm sad that a civil conversation cannot be held in this thread.

If anyone is interested in a _respectful_ conversation about why unmedicated birth is preferable, please feel free to start another thread _without_ mentioning or discussing this particular thread. All respectful opinions and comments are welcome. It is fine to have differing opinions, but it's not fine to denigrate those whose choices are different from yours.

Please remember that Mothering Magazine is an staunch advocate for natural birth and believes that birth is amazing and transformative in addition to being inherently safe.

Please PM me if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks


----------

