Sad story

In ,
Jenny D wrote:

*I would never risk loosing my baby... no matted how traumatized I was. My
*baby comes first before anything. If a doctor told me that I would have to
*give birth upside down while jabbing a fork in my eye so that my baby can be
*safe... I would do it.

You wouldn't even give the first thought to the obvious fact that your
doctor clearly wasn't in his right mind if he was giving out that kind of
bizarre advice?

*She killed her child; she's a murderer.

Or she felt her doctor was incorrect. Not everyone says "baaa, sir" in
response to a physician attempting to shepherd her into a particular
course of action.

It's a terrible story, of course.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

Well, you may be right about the general rules of plonking, but I believe
that setting a poster to one's "ignore" list is a matter of personal
decision. Obviously, your opinion and some of your posts were very offending
to some people, who decided they did not want to read what you have to say,
on that topic and on other as well. It's their prerogative, and there are no
written rules about "plonking". No one asked you be removed from the
newsgroup: these people only decided to not read you anymore.

Why can't they just "not read" it? It's not as if my posts pop up on their
monitors like those annoying, fluorescent "get rich fast" adds. Offending
would be if I called another poster a "******" or a "****ing bitch", or if a
called one of YOU a murderer, which I did not. Then again, someone might
get offended if I write "I killed a spider this morning". Ya never know.

In my mind, it tells me you are quick to judge.

Geez, you sound like my mom "now Jenny, don't be so quick to judge". There
are far worse things in the world than quick judgers. (is that a word??)

Your past experiences do not give you any licence to condemn people the
way you did. Some people would however call you murderer for your abortion.
Would you feel they are justified, when they don't know your story? Maybe
you'd just shrug it off, thinking they are just opiniated and don't know
what they're talking about. That's what your plonkers eventually did, if I
may risk an interpretation. And please, I do not want to get into the
abortion debate. I only used your statement to show how accusing someone of
murder is a grave thing.

No, it does not give me a licence but it does let people know that I am not
just trowing opinions from the side lines but rather, that I have gone
through many of the same bad experinces as others on this board have. I had
coffee with my girlfriend last night and I showed her the OP and she said
"what a horrible woman... she killed her baby" so my views are shared by
namy people. May I also remind you that I
have not condemned anybody on this board.

Again, it's not your condemnation per se that appears to have bothered
others: it's mostly the fact that from the start you have been totally
unwilling to budge and/or even acknowledge that there might be some reasons
for that woman to behave the way she did, and make the decision she did.

Well, I would think that it was my condemnation that peeved them off
because, my unwillingness to budge is a tytical behavior for someone who
believes
strongly about something.

Again, it took quite a while for you to get plonked, and it was not
solely due to your condemnation of that woman. And again, no one asked you
be removed from the newsgroup. They only decided to ignore you in the
future.

As per my statement above, why can't they just "not read" it? I guess it
takes a lot of will power; the temptation of a bold thread is irrisistable
to some.

Well, I am sorry, but I am one who does not conform to the norms of
society. I have dropped out a very lucrative job to go back to school in
history, I drive a big motorcycle, I use coarse language in French - even
appeared on TV for that, I plan a birth without medical assistance and I
will be using cotton diapers!

Going back to school and driving a motocycle, or swearing won't hurt
anybody, let-a-less kill a baby. Of course, society can be very rigid with
its fashion statements and other superficial things but ignoring society
when it comes to giving birth to a breach baby at home, we'll, we're not
talking about The Gap and Old Navy anymore... this is a matter of life and
death.

You'll tell me I must put things into perspective. On matters of
principles, I cannot. Once you start judging people, without giving them the
slightest chance of redemption, I still believe you are the one who's
doomed.

Like I said... everyone that I know whom I have spoken to agreed with me.
Maybe it's a Montreal thing but everyone said to me "she's a horrible
person" without me saying anything. It's a normal reaction; instinctive. I
am certainly not doomed. As a matter of fact, everyone turns to me for
advice. I am the most understanding pesron and I'm the most sensitive one
of all my friends. I'm also extremely passionate (which a knife that cuts
both ways) but I am not a little symapthetic person who will hold one's hand
if that person is wrong. I'm not afraid to say "suck it up and go on with
you life!" My entire life, I have never met anyobdy that knew me who did not
like me so I'm must be doing something right eh.

You see, I am on the opposite: if I ever learn that that woman really made
a well-thought, enlightened choice about a birth that she was assured would
kill her baby and that that was her intention, then I'll call her a
murderer. Til then, I grieve for her.

What is the first reaction of your friends and relatives about the OP:word
for word (without any of your inflence of course)? I can't help but wonder
if my opinion is a regional thing.

Like I said... everyone that I know whom I have spoken to agreed with me.
Maybe it's a Montreal thing but everyone said to me "she's a horrible
person" without me saying anything. It's a normal reaction; instinctive.
I

I can't help but wonder
if my opinion is a regional thing.


No, your opinion is not a regional thing: I am from Montreal too, and do not
hold it, nor do any of the people I've spoken to.

The people I told this story to reacted in different ways. Most of them were
appalled, and thought it was extremely sad. Some of them said that woman was
silly (my mom certainly did - she thinks *I* am a complete idiot for wanting
a birth in a birthing house). Others speculated about what could have made
her take that decision. None of them, however, called her a murderer.

Like I said... everyone that I know whom I have spoken to agreed with me.
Maybe it's a Montreal thing but everyone said to me "she's a horrible
person" without me saying anything. It's a normal reaction; instinctive.
I

I can't help but wonder
if my opinion is a regional thing.


No, your opinion is not a regional thing: I am from Montreal too, and do not
hold it, nor do any of the people I've spoken to.

The people I told this story to reacted in different ways. Most of them were
appalled, and thought it was extremely sad. Some of them said that woman was
silly (my mom certainly did - she thinks *I* am a complete idiot for wanting
a birth in a birthing house). Others speculated about what could have made
her take that decision. None of them, however, called her a murderer.

"Donna" wrote in message
...

If a drug is proven *as* effective (instead of more
effective) than a competitor's, but has a better QOL outcome, it makes for
a
better product, in a way.

Does that make sense?


Well, I actually think QOL is important. For example... if I take Advair, I
have few asthma attacks. If I take Singulair, I have few asthma attacks. My
quality of life is *much* better with Singulair, because it is a pill and I
only have to take it once a day, vs. inhalant twice per day. Singulair also
happens to deal with some other allergy issues as well, but the asthma thing
is why I take it, primarily. And that's all about QOL. Benedryl is as or
more effective than Zyrtec at fighting allergies, but at every 4-6 hour
dosing and the sleepy side effects, the QOL is much lower.

I think QOL is vitally important when you look at birth. I'll take a bit
more risk when the chance for a much better QOL is so high. My hospital
birth left me with 18 months of PPD, a poorly healed butt wound, and a
decade of anger. I'll take a *lot* of risk to avoid that happening again--I
basically lost my daughter's babyhood to a ****ty hospital. And nothing they
did made my birth safer.

An excellent resource for studies on homebirth is the book The Heart and
Science of Homebirth, available from Midwifery Today. It brings together
articles from a wide variety of sources and contains over 90 citations to
books, research, etc. on the safety of homebirth.

But when it comes right down to it, all the studies in the world won't give
you an accurate picture of local situations.

Homebirth is most safe when effective hospital backup exists. But in those
same areas where transport is difficult and potentially traumatic (and
therefore avoided longer than ideal), the hospitals are often backward and
not practicing evidence-based medicine anyway. You just have to look at the
whole cytotec debacle and the current "Induce by 41 weeks" and "No VBAC"
trends to see where the whole idea of "scientifically supported medicine"
goes out the window where obstetrics is concerned. Do I trust a hospital to
offer me quality, evidence-based care?

Hell no.

Take my recent emergency room experience, which was not as horrible as
things get, but does show you how truly hospitals do NOT base care on even
common sense, let alone science.

At 7 weeks, 2 days, I go in with abdominal pain and bleeding. I have a
friable cervix, normally, and an irritable uterus, normally, and vag exams
are just a bad idea under most circumstances, but ESPECIALLY pregnant and
already cramping. SO they offer an ultrasound and pelvic exam. The
ultrasound is why I'm there... I need to rule out an ectopic. I ask, "What
will a pelvic exam tell you that the ultrasound can't?"

He can't come up with an answer, so we don't do the pelvic. Then he says,
"The nurse will be in to start your catheter."

Um, WHAT? Start a catheter on a women threatening a miscarriage, so you can
do an ultrasound? Instead of just letting her drink water? I declined. He
said, "Well, we'll let them decide." I said, "Trust me, I can fill my
bladder."

Catheters increase risk of bladder infection. Bladder infections can *cause*
miscarriages and problems in pregnancy. And they want to do one just so they
can see what's going on?

It's crazy. As he was leaving, I said, "That doesn't even make sense." He
said, "What makes sense and what is department policy isn't always the
same."

I answered, "And that's why I'll never plan a hospital birth."

It is, too. I have a clotting condition. You'd think, that with clots the #1
cause of death from c-section, they'd want to do everything possible to
avoid a c-section. You know, like not inducing. Or allowing a woman full
mobility in labor (which also helps prevent clots vs. staying in bed). But
no, they want to induce people with clotting disorders at 39 weeks because
they're afraid of pregnancy, and would rather do a c-section (with all the
attendant risks for clots) than risk another week of pregnancy. Trust me,
for me, homebirth is safer than that attitude.

We all have to make those kinds of calls for ourselves. For me, the risks of
the interventions are far greater than the risks of staying at home unless
there's an obvious problem.

Jenrose

"Donna" wrote in message
...

What I am against is misinformation and spin
instead of accurate, unbiased research.


Wow...and you actually cited the Washington State study as evidence against
homebirth?

Did you know that in that study they were using birth certificates to
determine whether a homebirth was "planned, assisted" or not? Even though
there's actually no field on the birth certificate which *says* "planned,
assisted, homebirth."

What that study showed, primarily, is that homebirth midwives are more
thorough than hospitals about filling out details of complications on birth
certificates. Because there was such a paucity of data in some fields as to
demand question.... I talked to Henci Goer shortly after this came out and
she basically said, "Oh, they cooked the books on that. NO state is going to
have "zero" respiratory distress in the hospital..."

Try this article...see how you feel about the major medical journals and the
AMA then....
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articl...nformation.asp

Or about VBAC
http://www.parentsplace.com/expert/b...440547,00.html

And yes, this is a midwifery advocacy group, but still worth looking at:
http://www.cfmidwifery.org/resources/

Here's a breakdown on the Washington State study:
http://www.cfmidwifery.org/resources/cfm/item.asp?ID=37

Jenrose

"Sue" wrote in message
...
Marie" wrote in message
I would do it again (except that I won't be having more babies).
Marie the unwise

I'm sorry if my opinion offends you. Having an unassisted birth is a risk
that *I* would not be willing to take. That goes for not having any
prenatal
care either. If you were comfortable taking the risk of not having any
care
and giving birth unassisted, then that is the risk you were willing to
take.
I do wonder though how you would have felt if something would have
happened
and it could have been prevented, but since your outcome was a good one,
we
will never know. I do know that I wouldn't have wanted to go through labor
and have to worry about if the baby was doing okay. I'm not advocating
lots
of interventions, but certainly a licensed midwife can assess the
situation
and take precautions. Not having a trained person there would totally
distract me from giving birth.

Being constantly assessed can be very distracting. I know that with my labor
with my daughter, she moved *constantly*. I didn't need heart tones done to
know she was fine--she was moving very normally. If I had a "slow" baby in
there, sure, I'd probably have someone come take a listen. With my daughter,
I flew through the last part of labor and pushed her out quickly even though
I was in *the worst* position to do so. I consider the chances that I'd get
"stuck" with a second baby pretty slight, especially since I'll be doing a
lot of work towards OFP, making "stuck" a whole lot less likely. If things
slowed down strangely and it was out of my comfort zone, yeah, I'd probably
call the midwife to come over. I don't get anemic, I don't get issues with
blood pressure, my risk factors are all tightly controlled (making me better
off than somoene who would be consider low risk but simply wouldn't know
about the risk factors--I know about them because I am active in seeking
answers and doing what I can to be as healthy as possible.)

You know what's interesting? I've got a "Good luck with your homebirth" from
my OB's office (I don't do prenatal care there--they're not responsible, but
will see me if I have complications.) And my homebirth midwife is very
comfortable with me listening to my gut and calling her only if and when I
feel it's necessary. She said she actually kind of expects me to call her
with a baby in arms and say, "Hey, can I borrow your scale?"

I thought about how I'd feel if something "preventable" went wrong... pretty
****ty. But the chances of that happening are actually lower than the
*likelihood* of a crappy hospital birth for me. Every time my midwife came
over to check me with my daughter, labor stopped. I don't want to be
checked. We finally went in (planned hosp. birth) without me letting her
check me. So I plan on letting my body do its thing with minimal
interference from me.

Jenrose

"Sue" wrote in message
...
"Marie" wrote in message
Did you never worry in the hospital if the baby would be ok? To be honest
I
worried more during labour with my hospital births than I did at home.

Nope. I trusted the facility that I was in and trusted my doctors. I don't
hold the same opinion as you on doctors and hospitals to be honest.


I trusted doctors when I had my daughter. They'd saved my life less than two
years prior. Her birth changed that.

Jenrose

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
news
Tori M. wrote:

I agree.. while I think it is great that people can have a homebirth I
think
it is irresponcable to do so where I live. The closest hospital is 30
minutes away by car so if you figure you need an ambulance right away
you
are looking at atleast a 45 minute time frame between when you call and
when
you get to the hospital.

Have you asked your hospital what their "decision to
incision" time is for c-sections? Many hospitals can't
guarantee meeting the 15 minute gold standard, or even 30 minutes.
Many people have false assumptions about what can be done
in their hospital...

I'd say 45 is pretty common... but even "emergencies" are usually not that
emergent.

Jenrose

I felt just that when I was in the hospital to deliver my baby. I had gone
in to be induced 2 weeks early.... I don't know why I went for induction,
I
hadn't planned on it originally, but near the end I just felt the time had
to be *now*. Call it a premonition.

See, I'm planning to leave room for that kind of instinct. You had a little
voice that said, "do it now"... your choice was not made out of scientific
rigor or medical advice or what have you, you just had an instinct.

THAT is important. I maintain that birth becomes truly unsafe when people do
not listen to the mother's instinct. Period.

Jenrose