homebirth


Our thanks to Laura Shanley for catching Birth Love re-open on the web!

For many women, both birth advocates and just your every day mothers (not!), Birth Love was the top, up-to-date birth support site.  It has returned and we recommend you visit Birth Love for great info and great birth choices support.   

Since your tea is likely to get a little cool after spending time zoomng around Birth Love, why not warm it up and return to read some Positive Birth Stories next?

It’s that time of year where many of us look out the window, see snow and wildlife footprints (even the city has its “wild” life).  Some of us can stir the embers and place another split log on.  Others have the banging and clinking of radiator pipes to give us familiarity.  Still others watch the heating bill and wrap up in a blanket and a hot cup of tea.

What we all have is a winter project such as a book we’ve been meaning to read, are reading or wish for one.  The AAMI Reading Rooms on Yahoo are once again ready for a new year of books and their suggestions are wonderful.  The Childbirth Reading Room features “A Wise Birth: Bringing Together the Best of Natural Childbirth and Modern Medicine” by Penny Armstrong and Sheryl Feldman and is open to everyone!  The Unassisted Childbirth Reading Room features “Magical Beginnings: A Holistic Guide to Pregnancy by Deepak Chopra, also invites everyone!  The Midwifery Reading Room, intended for midwives and birth professionals, features Giving Birth: A Journey Into the World of Midwives and Mothers.

One book we’ve heard much about and some of our group members have LOVED is Lady’s Hands, Lion’s Heart, A Midwife’s Saga by Carol Leonard available from Bad Beaver Farm.  Let us know if you’ve read it!

I have chai, a crochet hook and a huge bowl of yarns next to my pile of books to read.  There are only so many hours in a day!

As a group whose every day bears witness to the entry into this world of many a newborn we enjoy hearing women’s descriptions of all things birth.  We tend to cringe hearing harsh language surrounding birth.  An irritable uterus?  What is that, a belly with angry eyes???

I remember Laura describing her daughter’s entry into the world as one where her cord was “creatively wrapped.”  What a difference it makes to view each birth with wonder, not as a risk.  I believe it is in the documentary by Patchwork Films called “Born In The USA” where Dr. Joanne Armstrong admits hospitals have low tolerance for viewing laboring women as anything but risk.

We spent a good portion of last year bringing awareness to the misleading presentations on technology in birth.  We will continue to do so as new “turf battles” with ACOG arise, but it’s time now to see the beauty of labor and birth as it really exists.  I know many believe “orgasmic birth an old midwive’s tale” or simply too extreme a description for what is otherwise only a reverential experience.  I have to smile to myself and just state the obvious: birth is personal and some take their personal view as the only view and are taken aback when their view isn’t just like someone else’s is.  Perhaps that’s why Ms. Moore fails to mention that Orgasmic Birth also contains the story of a mother who labored and labored and labored.  It wasn’t orgasmic in the sexual sense.  It was sexual as in liberating.  Had this woman labored in a hospital she would have been sectioned.  The only real point of discussion is that whether or not any of us feels she should have been sectioned is a matter of personal choice.  And that’s what we here at Independent Childbirth see as the reason why globally maternal care is so faulty: it does not have choice at the foundation.

Birth is.  Period.  That’s the true beautiful secret of birth.  Each birth is unique as well as being unique to the mother at that moment in time.  When she first birthed she was not the same woman that she is giving birth the following year or years later.  She is not the same woman giving birth two, three, four births later.  None of those babies are the same as the ones before.

When women fail to honor the different choices we each make we tear each other down.  Why else are the mommy wars the fodder of many a journalistic piece?  It makes for entertainment: judging each other for the decision to breastfeed even when it means dealing with people who cannot see breasts as anything other than sexual; judging each other for a mom who wants to both be a mother and have a successful career.

We need more appreciation for the turtle women.  Yes, turtle women.  There are turtle women specific to the birth world but I think turtle women abound in all aspects of our life.  They are the women who support, not criticize, our choices.  It does not mean they agree with every choice we make.  It does mean that they are wise enough to recognize the value of stirring every woman to think about her choices, why she made them and most importantly be confident in her own wisdom to adjust or make different choices because she has learned something new.

“Orgasmic Birth” is scheduled to be reviewed in a segment by ABC’s 20/20 tonight at long last.  Unfortunately it may be viewed as a part of a theme called “extreme mothering.”  Today’s journalism just isn’t journalism unless it’s sensationalist.  Sigh.

No matter.  Turtle women all the way down … enjoy!

“Home Birth Experience 1: Decision and Expectation” is a midwifery clinic teacher’s summary of her interviews with eight women who planned ahome birth in the recent decade.  Author Alison Andrews proposes that the birth experience leaves a very strong imprint on the woman’s mind, while the medicalization of birth has reduced the birth experience to terms relating to a consumer decision, i.e. “satisfaction” or “attitudes on intervention.”  It is the desire to experience birth as an organic experience leaving its memory on the mother’s whole self that is a strong basis for choosing home birth over medicalized birth.

Women will share their birth experience with great detail and acuity in the days immediately following the birth, be it a positive or a negative experience.  The quality of that experience is beginning to be recognized as having a lifetime impact in other areas of the mother’s life, including her marital relationship with whoever was her partner at the birth.  As birth moved into hospitals through historical industrial developments technology served to also separate mothers mentally and emotionally from the xperience, fewer and fewer natural birth experiences existed tobalance the case for home birth as a safe and healthy experience.

Birth “narratives” in fact, are an essential and typical skill for the midwife to have.  The medical profession would relay a birth only in terms of patient notes, regardless of whether the birth was organic birth or some interventions were introduced.  This is a detriment to improving maternal health care because a mother’s birth story is a valuable data source recording live testimony to maternal health care protocols enacted upon them.  Based upon this theorem, Ms. Andrews interviewed eight women from her home region of South Wales with backgrounds ranging from affluent to indigent, from rural to desolate.  Of these women, seven had previously birthed in a hospital and therefore provided that experience in relation to their choice to birth at home.

The results concluded n two themes, each with secondary threads for further discussion.  The two main topics that women related the strongest emotion to was the decision to have a home birth and the expectations they held for their home birth experience.  the reasons behind their decision to birth at home ranged from pragmatic – fewer worries about child care for the siblings of the new baby – to addressing the need for intimacy via familiarity of surroundings.  These mothers also considered the risks of home birth, and in some cases the risk carried less weight in their decision-making process.  One woman sought only to ensure her midwife had basic emergency care items, while another retorted that things go wrong in hospitals too.  All women undertook some form of birth education and preparation but the preparation was more about the physical location itself than about their own body’s preparation for the birth.  This is interesting to note in direct contrast to the often reported indicator for hospital birth being about women desiring to be near pain relief or help if their body cannot manage the labor.  In other words, labor is in the eye of the beholder and that’s another post in itself!  To continue, the women’s expectations themselves were not of as great a note as the importance of recognizing that women held expectations for their births both in terms of the birth itself and the care they would receive.

This last consideration, it was observed, led to both discussion about holding dialogue with their friends and families regarding their decision.  It also led to strife with hospital care providers, who viewed the decision to birth at home as a personal indictment of both their profession and their personal reputation, rather than an honest examination into the quality of care – which is the basis for many of these mothers’ decision to birth at home.  It is this sole perspective from proponents for hospital birth that casts light on the goal of the medical profession: to lobby strongly to keep births in hospitals, although there is little evidence that home birth is not safe for lowl-risk, otherwise healthy women.  If this trend continues, concludes Ms. Andrews,

… childbirth … (will no longer be) part of life in the community for most women and will remain so as long as birth remains centralized in the hospital setting.

She quotes the Welsh Assembly government paper, “Delivering the Future in Wales,”  which concludes the option of a home birth with a skilled midwife must be a protected option.  Further, Britain itself is pleding to strive fora goal of a ten percent (10%) home birth rate based on utilizing home birth as a safe option in maternal health care birth choices.  this humble goal is indicative of the  deft persuasion and patience that will be required to advance the view of home birth is a complementary option to medical obstetrics.

Are you listening ACOG?  Complementary.  Working together.  Is it really your goal to improve mother and infant birth outcomes in the spirit of care and concern for humanity?

For more on the home birth decision making thought processes at large look into the Nursing and Midwifery Council report of May 5, 2005.

Works Cited:  Andrews, Alison, “Home Birth Experience 1: Decision and Expecation”; August 2004, Brtish Journal of Midwifery, Volume 12, No 8

ACOG State Legislative Update Year In Review (August 2007)” begins by noting “troubling trends” in state legislation and sets the tone for the bias of this opinion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).  There are four trends ACOG finds troubling: right to home birth bills are on the rise, more midwives not recognized by medical associations are being licensed by states, midwives appear to have a public advantage and finally that ACOG considers itself on the defensive today.

The facts ACOG provides are clear and succinct in their first two cases, but are opinion laden in the latter.  More home birth bills are being introduced and those that have been in debate for years now are finally passing.  For example, Virginia recently passed legislation protecting women’s rights to birth at home and in 2007 Missouri granted midwives licensure.  It is also true that states are granting Certified Practicing Midwife (CPM) licensure, hands-on training including non-medical skills.  This is not the same training model as the medical path for midwifery recognized by ACOG and the American College of Nurse Midwives.  ACOG does not debate the safety of home birth but rather goes into examining why midwifery and home birth are gaining groundswell support.

 ACOG tells us that midwives have learned how to “work” the legislative system and are now using the same tactics ACOG has used themselves: lobbying and propaganda.  Midwives have been so successful that they have garnered endorsement from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) for a model to license Certified Practicing Midwives.  ALEC’s endorsement is powerful because it is conservative in nature and therefore, an endorsement renders the CPM licensure model credibility.  ACOG’s illogical stand is, without medical training, midwives are an unsafe choice.

However, ACOG pointedly leaves out the basis for recognizing midwifery: it is not the practice of medicine.  This is critical to understanding the process by which midwifery is recognized and can be protected as a viable option for birth care.  Connecticut is undergoing the struggle to create a definitive line on the issue of whether or not midwifery is practicing medicine.  Almost ten years ago midwife Donna Vedam found herself on trial for practicing medicine.  The courts determined she was, in fact, practicing midwifery and midwifery is not medicine.  Then in 2006 the state’s Medical Examining Board (MEB) found another case to try, midwives who made the right decision, transferring a mother whose birth was not an emergency but should have the medical care her evolving situation might call for available.  The educated decision these midwives, Joan Mershon and Mary Ellen Albini, made in transferring the mother is argued by the MEB as practicing medicine.  There is an irony as midwives finding themselves hounded for providing midwifery care are also persecuted for transferring the mother into appropriate medical care.  The outcome of the birth was a fine healthy baby and mother.  Both mother and father refuse to testify against the midwives.

 ACOG states that midwives have the public advantage of winning support through the use of the buzz words “safety” and “choice.”  Their case – that this advantage is an unfair one – is not fact based.  They argue that home birth is safe in the Netherlands only because everyone lives near a hospital.  There is no evidence in that statement at all.  It only implies that home birth is safe only when it takes place near a hospital.  Their statement is not a case and it is clear they cannot even make the effort to understand what home birth care is.  It is evident that they fear what they do not understand, what is different.  

Further, ACOG also argues that comparisons of home birth and hospital birth cannot be compared because the studies are not scientifically rigorous.  This also ignores the basis for home birth care: birth occurs naturally and organic without active management.  Therefore as each mother-baby pair is unique, they cannot be controlled.

ACOG’s final cited troubling trends is, interestingly, presented last.  It should have been first as it clearly state’s the article’s bias: ACOG is on the defensive.  ACOG is clearly feeling not only outmaneuvered, but also recognizing that they placed themselves in this position.  For example, it is ACOG who made it difficult for hospitals to provide care for women who want birth vaginally after having had a surgical delivery (cesarean) also known as a VBAC (Wagner).  Yet, their position in this paper is that women are seeking out alternatives, home birth with midwives, since their care providers cannot provide VBAC as a birth care option.

ACOG closes the article stating that their position is that legislative support for midwives is not won on merit but rather a sympathetic public and press.  Additionally, ACOG says, it finds itself in a situation where showing up in large numbers when they can give testimony makes them appear to be engaging in a “turf battle” rather than a credible alliance.  This is the plea that they make to find or create alliances with other organizations.  Make no mistake, this is not a light objective to note as some pediatric and newborn service providers have jumped onto ACOG’s wagon.  

This written public statement is clearly an opinion piece reporting facts that are driving ACOG to explore options for defeating midwifery and home birth as a legally protected option for women.  It fails to cite any merits for this position and in fact the “uninformed public” they lament could also be the informed reader’s lament for the uninformed public may not understand that denying American women access to home birth is a clear violation of every American citizen’s right to privacy and right to choose what care or actions are taken upon their bodies.

What did 2008 bring us at Independent Childbirth?  Many, many, natural, spontaneous unmedicated labor and birth over an intact perineum taking places in homes, birth centers and a few hospitals under the expert care and guidance of independent midwives and enlightened midwifery/ob practices.

America is pretty unique in the type of childbirth prep our society recognizes.  Did you know in many countries, many cultures our way of birth prep is quite odd: all gather and sit in a hospital provided room or have a workbook and sit in a classroom style?  

Watch our birth link video again.  We are changing birth prep today!  We are centered on YOU.  You are the real woman, real options, real birth link!  Tell us about your birth link and take our survey!

Click Here to take survey


More women turn back to the idea of homebirth:  Our own Candace McCollett and a local midwife were interviewed for Monday morning’s (September 8, 2008) health episode on Fox21 News in Colorado.

A nicely done piece and we thank the journalists who support presenting a balanced view on women’s choices.

If you would like to consider homebirth and midwifery care, learn more about both from a balanced perspective please visit Midwifery Today for items such as The Heart and Science of Homebirth.  (see comments below for MT’s update on this publication).  The more you know ….

The appeal to the September 7, 2007 Cease & Desist decision (see our earlier post this blog) will be heard in New Britain Superior Court on Monday, September 17, 2008 at 2:00 p.m..

In this environment we are again denied public input.  That is why mothers, daughters, nieces, friends, we must continue to affect public opinion through the legislative sessions and, hopefully, a court who will base its decision on precedent and case law, not bias.  The nation was riveted to the case of a 16-year old boy fighting for the right to choose his own cancer care but considers a woman’s right to give birth in a setting proven safer than a setting where interventions are routine “controversial.”

Support your right to give birth where you feel you are physically, mentally and emotionally safe for our own health and for that of our soon to be born babies.  That right includes the option to give birth in a hospital.  Supporting the right for full access in order to make your own choice means allowing for both medically managed and whole health birth.

The proponents for hospital birth are pushing to restrict your federally protected right (as noted in the article referenced above) to choose your health care by persuading the public that homebirth is dangerous.  They are protecting their industry by striking your achilles heel: the safety of your baby.

Even if you don’t understand homebirth right now you can understand the right to educate yourself and make your own choice.  

Please tell the courts the Medical Examining Board is biased in their action and please help us remind them it has already been decided in the state of Connecticut that midwifery is not the practice of medicine.  Tell the MEB to stop their witch hunt.

Please support the right of birthing families to make educated choices about the births of their children.
*September 17, 2008 @ 2:00 PM*
* New Britain Superior Court*
* 20 Franklin Square*
* New Britain, CT 06501*

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.