the British think...

so today I went for my first visit with an American OBGYN, it was time for
my annual exam (first in my life actually, they don't call you for smears in
my part of the UK until you are 25, so I'd never had one, but had agreed
with my GP in the UK that I'd get one before Christmas), as a result of the
exam, he feels I must have broken, or at the very least damaged and
triggered an imflamatory response, after the discussion we had, I don't
disbelieve him but one thing cropped up, which was that when I said, but I
gave birth lieing on my side, so there was no pressure on it, he said,
that's what the British think! My first thought was Todd's not British! Not
lieing on my back in child birth was intially gut instinct, lifelong
discussions with my mum, with her being angry about having to lie on her
back to give birth and saying she wanted to be upright, it just made sense
that lieing on your back was illogical, then reinforced by reading I did in
my first pregnancy, which as it was on the internet, must have been a good
mix or US and British, taught in antenatal class (by a teacher who had had
at least one of her children in the US) etc. so it hardly seems to me to be
a British thing or belief, it seems to me to be a minority belief, routed in
a hell of a lot of fact, though I accept it's not going to be protective
every single time.

Maybe in his age group of OB, it is a British thing, he's around 60ish and
in some discussion I've had recently about older British OBs, it seems many
are skilled in doing assisted deliveries in left lateral, or even hands and
knees, a skill they don't seem to have passed on to younger ones. But as you
go down the generations, it seems to be those that go with get off your back
are those who support natural childbirth, no matter where in the world you
are.

I seemed to have rambled, but if anyone has any hints on this kind of
problem I'd be most grateful, in someways it's good that I can't blame my
pelvic floor for discomfort I was suffering during intercourse, but in
otherways it was a shame, I was blaming my ongoing SPD on a less than
perfect pelvic floor, but that may now be less of an excuse than I thought.

Cheers

Anne

Anne Rogers wrote:
so today I went for my first visit with an American OBGYN, it was
time for my annual exam (first in my life actually, they don't call
you for smears in my part of the UK until you are 25, so I'd never
had one, but had agreed with my GP in the UK that I'd get one before
Christmas), as a result of the exam, he feels I must have broken, or
at the very least damaged and triggered an imflamatory response,
after the discussion we had, I don't disbelieve him but one thing
cropped up, which was that when I said, but I gave birth lieing on my
side, so there was no pressure on it, he said, that's what the
British think! My first thought was Todd's not British! Not lieing on
my back in child birth was intially gut instinct, lifelong
discussions with my mum, with her being angry about having to lie on
her back to give birth and saying she wanted to be upright, it just
made sense that lieing on your back was illogical, then reinforced by
reading I did in my first pregnancy, which as it was on the internet,
must have been a good mix or US and British, taught in antenatal
class (by a teacher who had had at least one of her children in the
US) etc. so it hardly seems to me to be a British thing or belief, it
seems to me to be a minority belief, routed in a hell of a lot of
fact, though I accept it's not going to be protective every single
time.
Maybe in his age group of OB, it is a British thing, he's around
60ish and in some discussion I've had recently about older British
OBs, it seems many are skilled in doing assisted deliveries in left
lateral, or even hands and knees, a skill they don't seem to have
passed on to younger ones. But as you go down the generations, it
seems to be those that go with get off your back are those who
support natural childbirth, no matter where in the world you are.

I seemed to have rambled, but if anyone has any hints on this kind of
problem I'd be most grateful, in someways it's good that I can't
blame my pelvic floor for discomfort I was suffering during
intercourse, but in otherways it was a shame, I was blaming my
ongoing SPD on a less than perfect pelvic floor, but that may now be
less of an excuse than I thought.
Cheers

Anne

Sorry Anne, but you lost me in all your ramblings. Broken your what?
Pelvis? Is he saying that he thinks instead of SPD you have a broken and
not correctly healed pelvis?
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03
Addison Grace, 9/30/04

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up
your own User ID and Password

Sorry Anne, but you lost me in all your ramblings. Broken your what?
Pelvis? Is he saying that he thinks instead of SPD you have a broken and
not correctly healed pelvis?

oh yes, I seem to have missed that exact bit out, he said I must have broken
my tailbone (but he then said sacrum, not coccyx, so I'm confused), but that
wasn't really what I was getting at, it was that he thought not being on
your back for childbirth was a British thing, which I have no evidence to
think it is.

I've also been googling and it seems broken is not really a good word
regarding the rear end as the bones round there are really several bones
with bits of cartilidge between them and it's the cartilidge that gets
damaged, no actual bone breaking.

So it's it's not that I don't have SPD or anything radical like that, it was
just that I've been having some symptoms that were clearly not SPD, but were
still related to childbirth, I'd though that they were issues with the back
wall of my vagina, a mild rectocele, but it seems that has healed up (I did
have that a year ago), so not being able to put it down to that, further
examination revealed it was related to the bony structures down there. It
seems like it can be a big issue for some women, maybe it would have been
for me if there hadn't been everything else going on as well, but it's
almost a non issue for me, I just wanted to know exactly what was going on
down there, as did my physical therapist.

Cheers

Anne

I would find a new GYNO he sounds like an old Fart.

A friend of mine broke her tailbone too during delivery (um... in
america on her back) Sorry that you have to go through that pain in the
you know what.

I agree with you as well, on your back is not the place that you want
to be, especially for the contractions to work correctly.

ohlala wrote:
I would find a new GYNO he sounds like an old Fart.

A friend of mine broke her tailbone too during delivery (um... in
america on her back) Sorry that you have to go through that pain in the
you know what.

I agree with you as well, on your back is not the place that you want
to be, especially for the contractions to work correctly.

I usually focus on the MECHANICAL aspect - on the fact that
radiographic evidence indicates that woman-on-her-back delivery
positions close the birth canal the "extra" up to 30%.

Ohlala may be alluding to possible NEUROLOGICAL inhibition of labor
caused by woman-on-her-back delivery; that is, with the woman on her
back/on her sacrum, the sacrum is being torqued exactly the opposite
direction it is supposed to go to let a baby through.

At 6 cm dilation, CRJA wrote:

"...this is why I know laboring on your back would SUCK. I had a
contraction while I was on my back and OMG! What pain!!!"
http://groups.google.com.ag/group/mi...7294ca1ff87670

Todd

At our antenatal classes the instructor demonstrated the difference between
lying on your back and being in a more upright position. The difference was
quite astounding and it was pretty easy to see that 30% extra space. At
least it looks like I won't have to fight to avoid giving birth on my back
here.

At our antenatal classes the instructor demonstrated the difference
between
lying on your back and being in a more upright position. The difference
was quite astounding and it was pretty easy to see that 30% extra space.
At least it looks like I won't have to fight to avoid giving birth on my
back here.

well exactly, I'm convinced that it's not just a british thing and also that
tail bone damage must be a lot less frequent in sidelying births.

Cheers

Anne

rangitotogirl wrote:
At our antenatal classes the instructor demonstrated the difference between
lying on your back and being in a more upright position. The difference was
quite astounding and it was pretty easy to see that 30% extra space. At
least it looks like I won't have to fight to avoid giving birth on my back
here.

Sounds good - but beware of MD-obstetricians deciding to put you
semisitting or dorsal to use forceps or vacuum if things aren't
progressing...

It's the worst possible time to close the birth canal the "extra" up to
30% - but they do it.

Todd

Anne Rogers wrote:
wasn't really what I was getting at, it was that he thought not being on
your back for childbirth was a British thing, which I have no evidence to
think it is.

Find a different OB/GYN. My mother went to a new one each year for her
yearly physical until she found one she liked, then she went back to
him every year until he retired.

It's NOT just a British thing, but it might be a an MD thing. I gave
birth laying on my side with a midwife. My friend who has had two
babies, gave birth on her back with an MD with her first kid, and on
hands and knees with her second, with a midwife attending.

My mother gave birth all three times on her back - the last time over
20 years ago, but she had easy births and small babies, and had no
trouble. First baby was me, and I was breech, and she had a vaginal
birth (37 years ago), and a HUGE episiotomy. Her second baby (1983)
was with the attending L&D nurse - birth happened before the doc could
get there - and she did perineal massage/support, but was still on her
back. No episiotomy. Last baby was with doctors attending, who mostly
left her alone, she was on her back. No episiotomy. I don't remember
if they did perineal mssage or support.

My Bradley method instructor gave birth *standing up*, (and in a
hospital). I don't know if she was attended by a doc or a midwife. She
herself was an L&D nurse.

If you don't want to give birth on your back, then find a doc (if
that's the route you want to take; many midwives also do well-woman
checks, too) that will support you in a different position. They *do*
exist.

Cathy Weeks

wasn't really what I was getting at, it was that he thought not being on
your back for childbirth was a British thing, which I have no evidence to
think it is.

Find a different OB/GYN. My mother went to a new one each year for her
yearly physical until she found one she liked, then she went back to
him every year until he retired.

I don't need to find a new one, I quite liked this chap, I was just
surprised at his comment, when I think what you say below is more accurate,
that it's a doctor thing, though actually, my experience with doctors has
been that the older they are, the more likely they are to encourage other
delivery positions, or at least be more open to them, whereas some younger
midwifes who've been trained in a very obstetric/medical model might be less
willing.

If you don't want to give birth on your back, then find a doc (if
that's the route you want to take; many midwives also do well-woman
checks, too) that will support you in a different position. They *do*
exist.

no doctor could ever stop me giving birth in whatever position I chose,
however I'm not pregnant, nor likely to be any time soon, and if we do have
another baby for various reasons, it will need to be doctor led and in all
but a very small number of circumstances it would be a surgical delivery.

Cheers

Anne