Many of your comments, ie; rushing to get to a golf course, are condescending.
The choices made together will strengthen a relationship and no one has questioned that.
I saw no links to any 'number of perinatal psychologists', only one to a list of violence stats that had nothing to do with the OP.
Episiotomies are sometimes a nasty necessity, specially for petite women. For example, my friend, not more than 5'2", full term 7 lb baby began to tear-I believe it was called a '4th degree' rip and required an episiotomy, not to hasten anything but to prevent further injury. An article in Glamour magazine of February, 2005 covered a malady most common to third world women, primarily certain countries in Africa that was causing a great deal of human rights concerns. These women, in giving birth, many times would endure perforated uteruses and tears in the area between the rectum and vagina. These tears in turn caused bowel and urinary leakage through the uterus and vagina. Because they were thusly 'deformed', husbands would abandon them, communities would ostracize and they were openly outcast.
Blanketly stating that everything offered up is due only to line pockets and get doctors out to social engagements faster is bigoted at best. Perhaps you had some unscrupulous medical personnel, but not everyone does.
Also, not everyone can make the decision to birth at home, a fact you are choosing to ignore. And, while we are attempting a give and take as it pertains to the discussion, your posts thus far have only been personal testimonials and not answering the questions or concerns anyone has put forth. Perhaps I'll begin:
1) Is it your contention, based on what you've stated that children such as my own (twins,C-section) will not fare well? That they will not contribute or have peaceful existence based on their arrivals?
2) Is it your belief that it is primarily the freebirth technique that boosts a child's future positive development?
3) Do you think relying on the medical community for a healthy outcome is misguided? Why? What is the alternative?
4) Just as there are positives to an alternative choice(in this case, freebirth), what are the negatives?

From your Dr. Odent link, I contacted my midwife friend in Iceland to inquire what she knows of this history. I cannot find any documentation to support Guonason's assertations, but to cite personal correspondence that doesn't have any historical data to corroborate it is to espouse hearsay.

abaya, can you shed any light on this historical fact as true or untrue?

I tried earnestly to read all the posts before I gave my answer, but my fear of forgetting my point overrode my patience.

I don't agree with the free-birthing concept for two reasons.

One - As many have argued, women gave birth at home since we've been giving birth. However, in times gone past, women often assisted with other births of neighbors and family members, and they learned from these experiences what spelled trouble, and what the experience is like. These days, the first live birth a woman will attend will be her own. They have no idea what and can go wrong, and what the warning factors are.

Two - Women gave birth unassisted in the past because they had no other choice. They didn't have treatment for cancer then either, but that doesn't mean someone with cancer today should forego treatment just because that is what was done in the past. If anything happened to my child to cause physical or mental impairment that could have been avoided by timely medical intervention I would never forgive myself. You can call 911 all you want, but if your baby is without oxygen for more than a few minutes, brain damage begins. I wouldn't bet on an ambulance getting there in time and able to prevent death.


I'm also going to add that I would have lost my daughter if I wasn't in the hospital, and had my labor induced. Waiting for mother nature meant fetal distress and possible oxygen deprivation.
I myself would have died from blood loss when I lost my child halfway through my third pregnancy, if I hadn't been able to access a hospital.

If I had been a pioneer woman, my child and I would have hand-dug graves in the back acre. If I had to choose, I'd choose the scenario in which both my children and I are alive and healthy. Enough goes wrong in life without pushing the envelope. There's enough sorrow without looking for it.

From what I have observed watching the births I attended in the hospital as a professional labor support, doctors tend to rush second stage pushing with episiotomy, breaking the water, forceps, and vacumn extraction. If it means I am condescending to point out the fact that doctors do rush the birth to the detriment of the mother, then I guess I am condescending.

As for the four points:

1) I believe your twins will be just fine

2) I believe freebirth sets up the child for a positive view of life. But I believe prenatal nutrition and attachment parenting are more important than the actual birth in terms of how the child develops long term

3) I believe relying on the medical profession for anything related to health is naive. Legal, properly prescribed, and eaten drugs murder 300,000 americans every year. Some experts think that number is far too low and may even be as high as 600,000 people.

I believe drugs and surgery can be helpful about 10% of the time during birth.

But the fact that our c-section rate has gone up 10% in just the past few years (it is 30%) with no end in sight convinces me that we are going in the wrong direction. I check the CDC web site every once in a while and never before in american history have so many women had prenatal care, it is in the high nineties percentage wise. So the equation better prenatal care equals better outcome should be playing out in terms of our statistics for surgery, prematurity, and low birth weight.

Yet, the indicators are all going in the wrong direction. Prematurity is up, low birth weight is up and the section rate may top out at 40% by the end of the decade.

Why? Because in allopathic birth the doctors are practicing cover your butt medicine and I am not very interested in my body or my childs body being traumetized with drugs and procedures just because the doc is afraid of a lawsuit.

I believe we are fast approaching the day when you either schedual a section or give birth unassisted. I know several women who have had this scenario play out simply because the docs are refusing to do VBAC's in the hospital. Most states have outlawed VBACS for lay midwives at home, and so for these women the choice is either a section or a freebirth. Many are choosing freebirth.

4) The biggest negative for me has been the 13 year fight I have had with my husband Paul. He was a very mainstream, sports nut, computer wizard, sort of guy, and he has evolved, but the fights over birth early in our marriage almost ruined everything we had worked for as a couple.

After my third hospital birth I told him I just could not do it again. And then I gave him an ultimatum saying that I would never give birth in a hospital again and that if he wanted any more kids with me we were doing it at home and alone.

He has never felt comfortable with this choice and although he did deliver our two sons in 1996 and 2002, the pure, raw, emotion this has brought up for us has been very difficult to work through. But we are still together and I love him with all of my heart and he understands why I don't feel comfortable being in the hospital to give birth.

The other negative for us is that some people think we are nuts. But we really don't make important choices based on what other people think of us. So that is not as big of a deal as it might be for other families.

Jenny Hatch

Considering you say "properly prescribed", I question your use of the extreme hyperbole of "murdered" to describe people who lose their lives due to medicines they're taking. To be frank, it's crass and asinine.

The simple truth is, in healthcare today, many people simply do not take any personal accountability for their own medical care. They don't ask any questions that really matter, and are largely in the dark about what they take. When asked if someone has any medical history, a person with a severe heart condition will most often answer, "not really". When I finally get the right info from them, and ask them about medications they take, they generally respond "something for my heart". They don't know if their heart runs too fast, too slow, etc.

Secondary to that is the fact that people see a variety of doctors for their medical care- primary doctors, and specialists- who all prescribe medicines and may have absolutely no idea about the other medicines the person takes. So you have the primary doctor giving some viagra and the cardiologist giving a nitro spray. The combination of the two in any 24 hour period is a recipe for death.

I do give credit to the elderly, though. It seems that the older the patient is, the more "with it" they are with regard to their medical care. They are more often able to state the names of their medications, and know approximately what sort of effects they're used to achieve. In other words, they may tell me they take drug X for high blood pressure, whereas a person younger than them is much more inclined to say "I dunno, I think it's for my heart. Don't know the name of it." I got that guy just a few shifts ago. It turned out to be a blood thinner that doesn't act on his heart, but is used to keep blood in his heart from clotting due to a heart condition he has. So you see, it would be very easy for someone to think, "oh, he has high blood pressure on my monitor, and says he takes something for his heart, I better give him something to slow it down." And then he'd be fucked. Giving him something to slow down his heart with the heart condition he has would nearly (if not actually) kill him.

Know your meds, and know basically what they do. It's not hard to do, and anything short of that is laziness or assuming every medical professional you run into will magically know everything you're on from every single doctor you see. We don't. If people educated themselves a little, most of this issue would be resolved.

I assume you are referring to these statistics Table 26, Table 7 and Table 8

Again, correlation does not imply causation. Those are your reasons and rationale.

Is it possible that other factors like personal choice drive this and NOT the medical industry? More women are taking elective primary cesarean delivery. I leap in that direction because people now want a definitive everything today. They want to know exactly when something is going to happen via an appointment. The woman that I replaced at work scheduled her c-section because she wanted to "control" the date (said as she exactly told me.) Also, is it possible that some women are afraid of the pain of vaginal birth, opting for "less" pain via c-section? Or that some women believe that they would rather manage scar tissue rather than pain?

Also, your response to #4 is your experience, are there any other negatives that are broader? People thinking you are nuts is a negative yes, but that's opinion. I think that vegans are nuts, but that has no impact on anything. Your husband working through is your husband's issue, does that happen to all freebirthing husbands? What are the medical downsides. Again you've cited the pro's but what are the negative implications?

analog, exactly.

Many people don't bother. Elderly do I believe because the younger caretakers tend to drill it into their heads that it is important, yet two things happen here. First, they don't listen to their own advice, and second, that medical information isn't passed onto the rest of the family. Thus if something happens to the primary caretaker of the elderly, the other siblings may not know what history the elder has.

As far as I'm concerned I was trained from a young age to say emphatically whenever I was getting any medical care that I am allergic to penicillin and all it's derivatives, and to let them know all presciptions currently being taken. Now all this practice for years, did not prepare me for what I discovered later after two bouts with pancreatitis, that I had neglected to tell the doctor that prior to getting to the ER both times, that I had taken 400mg of ibuprofen because I had a severe headache. I had not thought of any interaction, nor need to tell the doctor of an over the counter medication.

Well, if the "Hastrup, 1992" cited is in fact Kirsten Hastrup, then that's a legit sources... she's a well-known anthropologist/historian of Iceland.

However, I don't really see how the breastfeeding bit is connected to the freebirthing thing... women choose to breastfeed or not breastfeed for all kinds of different reasons, and many of them don't even have a choice (my aunt had to use a pump to feed her son, because it wasn't working otherwise). I don't see the connection.

It may be offensive to you as a health care worker, but if people were dropping like flies eating vitamin C, you can bet the FDA would be all over it, banning this important nutrient as if it were rat poison.

The pattern of the pharma companies is they ride a new drug out as long as they can until the lawsuits start piling up and public outcry gets to be so bad they can't stifle it any longer, and then they pull the drug.

Remember, it was Eli Lily that gave us LSD and PCP. It took an act of congress to get those drugs (Which had been hailed as cures for alcoholism, mental illness and were being given to birthing women all over america - during their births) pulled from the marketplace.

The CDC calls it accidental death, I call it murder.

Have you heard of the drug cytotec? It is being used all over the world to induce labor in pregnant women, yet the FDA has not approved this ulcer drug for use on pregnant women. The docs use it because it is cheap and it produces these overwhelming contractions. The nurses call it Cytoblast because of the effect it has on labor.

This drug has been the cause of uterine ruptures in mothers who have not even had a c-section because it is so powerful. Mothers and babies are dying because of its use. WHO is going to stop the use of it, if the doctors feel free to use any drug they want without it even being approved? This is one of the main reasons I give birth at home. Some doctors will come in and put some of it on a womans cervix without even telling her what it is. No informed consent, the only thing she knows is that her labor just became so painful she wants to die.

Jenny

So rather than strengthen the FDA drug approval process you would toss the baby with the bathwater and ban all drugs?

I just want to be clear because that's what it sounds like you are suggesting.

Your approach to medical assisted childbirth is very much a baby and the bathwater sort of thing. Instead of recognizing the good that can and does come from what we have learned you would rather retreat to the dark ages and higher death rates during childbirth.

As with most things... it's never a black and white story.

I don't think the FDA will approvefor that usage based on the FDA's own warnings:

In today's world of lawyers, I cannot see any doctor in the United States freely giving this without any thought or consent. I'm having a hard time understanding your ulcer claim since:

Quite a broad definition of murder. Definitely an emotional response to garner attention since it isn't under any definition I understand. I may understand if you followed your blog doctors and called it manslaughter. Murder needs to have intent. Drug companies are not in the business of intentionally killing their customers.

I agree that the FDA approval process needs to be strengthened. The phamacueticals have lobbied for less stringent processes since it is an extremely competitive marketplace.

DINGDINGDINGDING!!!! Quoted for truth.

I can't disagree that many doctors rush the childbirth process for the convenience of the staff. What this would argue for is greater patient education and advocacy, and reform of medical obstetrical practices, not going it alone in your own home with no support and no medical recourse in case of catastrophic complications. If you want to give birth at home for spiritual and empowering reasons, there's no compelling argument against having a trained midwife or doula present, and having a backup plan involving a rapid trip to the hospital if complications should arise.

Also, if you do choose a hospital birth, go in educated and prepared to advocate for your wishes. People are too quick to accede to doctors' advice without comment or argument - they work for you! If you are concerned about the high rates of episiotomies, induction, etc., do your homework and be insistent! Make your wishes known adamantly to the doctor and medical staff ahead of time, and repeat them frequently during the birthing process, and make sure anybody who's with you knows your wishes and is prepared to defend them. But there comes a time when doctors may, in fact, know best.

Since it is not clear that the comments made stipulate the location of that practice, I would make the assumption that it rare in the US, if done at all.
As a former denizen of a Debating forum, this is common practice by many who want to browbeat their views into those who attempt to oppose them. It's simply a fundamentalist's MO. By using emotionally provocative wording, they think they'll get their point across and change the mindset of their adversaries. It's a cheap shot, quite frankly and a total turn-off to those of us who actually want to learn through discussion.
Billions of dollars are at stake for both the altruistics of curing and helping and the potential to make lots of profits. Of course, no one goes into the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals with the thought that they'll do more harm than good. I am of the thought the FDA is between a rock and a hard place and probably needs some overhauling to remain purely objective and still be able to function with expedience.


In citing the stats for the increase of C-sections, etc., it should be pointed out that corellating with those increases are the increases in births to mothers over 35 and in multiples.
Source
Of course, there is also the rise of women with careers that not only put off having children later in life but, because of their high-powered positions, opt to have the surgery for various(to me, vain) reasons. Ironically, though, natural childbirth allows for much faster and healthier healing after childbirth and, with good medical care, makes for very little, if any, risk, as opposed to C-sections, which carry many risks.

You should've opened with this. It might've helped you convince other people with similar beliefs why you feel the process is necessary - so you can still have babies after the second Coming of the Lord.

"Leaps of logic" such as your correlation between assisted birth and violence are more easily accepted by those willing to suspend logic and/or have leaps of "faith."

And opening with that line would have assisted those of us who are rigorously scientific (many in this thread) in recognizing that you'd be providing more rhetoric and appeals to emotion than scientific evidence.

Appeal to the correct audience, if your goal is truly to recruit soldiers for your campaign of truth.

I'm not saying it is a black and white story.

What I would like to see happen is for all drugs to be legalized (Including street drugs), the insane steps that the pharma companies have to go through to get their dope on the market should be opened completely up to allow the smaller companies to compete, and all government money should be pulled out of the process.

The FDA is in the pockets of the big pharma companies anyway and is completely ineffective as a regulatory agency.
If people want drugs, let them have at it in whatever form they desire. They are doing it anyway, even with all of the regulations and rules we have in place as a society.

THEN, educate our young women on the linkage between drugged births and drug addiction later in life and teach them how to give birth without drugs.

Then completely privatize the medical profession, take away all government money, private insurance, and let people pay out of pocket for the medical services they want to use.

If you have not noticed yet, I am a capitalist. I believe market forces will regulate the industry far more effectively and with greater efficiency than any other sort of system.


Do I believe that will happen in my lifetime? Nope, not in a million years would any politician have the courage to start talking about privatizing health care. But it will happen anyway when the sustem starts to crash as it is in the UK, and as it always done through out history when socialized medicine is put in place.

Those of us promoting feebirth do not consider it a step back, we see it as a leap forward....leading to millennial stuff like lions laying down with lambs, babies living to the age of a tree, and "there shall no more thence be an infant of days" to quote Isaiah the prophet.

We envision every mother and father so empowered with information about how to create a healthy child, that the only time they would ever even consider going into a hospital to give birth by c-section would be if the mother had an accident that produced a crushed pelvis or some other scenario where the surgery would indeed save both the mother and the babe.

The world health organization says that no country should have a section rate of more than 10%. And absolutely nothing is being done to change course.

Recently I met up with a fellow bradley teacher at a girls track meet for our daughters and asked her what is changing in birth. She continued to teach the past ten years, while I dropped out to promote Freebirth full time on the internet.

First and foremost, she said the parents are afraid. And the moms don't want to even try to have a natural birth. She had to stop teaching her independent class, (Even though we live in Boulder county in colorado) cause few people wanted to learn how to give birth without drugs. Because she is a nurse, she was hired by the local hospital to teach childbirth classes.

I asked her about the section rate increase and she said the labor nurses are really excited. They want it to go even higher because it makes things so much easier for them. Instead of having to sit up all night with a mom attempting a natural birth, they get to prep a woman for surgery and an hour later the child is "safely" out, and then they can focus on helping mom recover from the surgery and keep the babe for a couple days and it's cha ching $$$ cha ching for the hospital, and they largely don't have to deal with the law suit issue because they have already performed the most interventionist, heroic effort possible.

I don't want to give birth in that environment, where all paths lead to the surgery. Medical people are HOSTILE to natural childbirth mommas. I endured that hostility for three births. No more.

Jenny

Are you kidding me? This drug is being used all over the country to induce labor. It has become standard of care in obstetrics. Google cytotec and read the stuff at midwifery today on it. Here are a couple of quotes. And yes, they are using it without informed consent. What mother in her right mind would agree to something that would give her child a one in four chance of survival after a rupture? Want to know why the infant mortality rate is going up up up? Cytotec.

Marsden Wagner:

"Without adequate testing of Cytotec (misoprostol) for labor induction, obstetricians simply began to use it on their birthing women. They were taking advantage of a huge loophole in our drug regulatory system. Once a drug is approved by the FDA for a specific medical indication and put on the market, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any doctor from using that drug for any indication, in any dose, for any patient he or she chooses. Since the label of the drug contains the indications approved by the FDA, this is called "off-label" use of a drug.

When obstetricians using Cytotec induction are confronted about their willingness to use a drug "off-label," they inevitably answer: "We use drugs off-label all the time." There are several serious problems with this answer. First, in reality, using Cytotec for induction is not "off-label" at all—it is "on-label contraindicated." On the Cytotec label it is explicitly written that this drug is contraindicated for use on pregnant women. Contraindication would not be on the label unless data exist suggesting possible serious risks from such use. "On-label contraindicated" is a whole different level of risk-taking than a use that is not mentioned one way or the other on the label.

A second reason to be concerned with the offhand answer of some obstetricians is that all off-label use is lumped together as though there were equal risks involved. During a case I was involved in, I asked the obstetrician about the off-label use of Cytotec for labor induction. He replied with the same answer that I have heard from so many clinicians: "We use Cytotec off-label for induction just like we use other drugs off-label all the time."

Compare this to someone involved in a fatal car accident who is asked why he did not follow traffic laws and drove 100 miles an hour in a 25 mile an hour zone. The driver answers: "Traffic laws are disobeyed all the time. Why just last week there were dozens of parking tickets given out in this city." You can't compare the risks of excessive speeding with the risks of illegal parking.

And you can't compare the risks of Cytotec induction with the risk involved in giving other drugs to pregnant women off-label. A survey of 731 pregnant women revealed they had been given 10 drugs while pregnant (1). But of the 10 drugs given off-label, the use of nine of them on pregnant women carried very little risk while the use of the tenth drug, the prostaglandins (including Cytotec), have proven serious risks including uterine rupture, following which one in four babies die."

Please keep reading about cytotec...especially if you are pregnant. When ACOG decides to ban its use during labor, I may consider the idea that American Obstetrics is actually about the health of the mother and child.

Read stuff by Ina May Gaskin, Marsden Wagner, and puruse all of the lawyer sites offering to help families disabled by cytotec. It is being used in America TODAY!!! and

It is one of the main reasons I chose to give birth at home alone.

Jenny

I will not join the greater argument on the merits of free-birth, as I feel my views are already being adequately represented. However, I felt obligated to clarify this, as I think this would be a bad topic for someone to get the wrong impression about.

Superglue is not one substance; it is a category of substances known as cyanoacrylates. Cynthetiq is right to note that it was at one point tested for wound treatment, but the formulas used in over-the-counter hardware store superglue didn't get FDA approval. The reason for that is that these chemicals undergo a reaction when applied to living tissue; as an exothermic reaction it will cause skin irritation and in extreme cases, burns. Further to that, they break down into toxic substances (cyanoacetate and formaldehyde), which can further cause inflammation, granulation and even tissue necrosis. The reaction is also aqueous (water-dependent) and will react more severely when applied to tissue with a lot of moisture. All of this adds up to mean that putting superglue on warm, moist, permeable tissue like that found in and around your vagina is a very, very bad idea. If you are going to do this, make sure to use a surgical glue; you can get them now as liquid band-aid and the like right over the counter and they are a much milder formula.

supporting linky

Have to call bullshit here. Where is any data showing that? Drugged Births and drug addiction???

I don't have access to my ob/gyn friend at the moment, so I cannot comment on if and how widespread "off-label" usage is.

I will however slot my beliefs of this as more hysterical than imperical. You have shown very little data in any of the websites you've cited that show any correlation to corroborate your claims.

Completely deregulate the drug industry?

Let me get this straight. You would suggest that consumers should let the market decide which drugs are good and which ones are bad. So when a drug company puts a drug on the market and claims it does "x" the drug will only become accepted by the mainstream consumer when many others purchase it too.

But in the case of drugs this is not as simple as it works or doesn't work. In the case of drugs you get things like Thalidomide or other weird side-effects. A capitalist system wouldn't necessarily check for side-effects before rushing to market. But of course the early users can week out the bad drugs right?

You can still be a capitalist and recognize that regulation of the marketplace is essential. The key is working to make regulations stronger and less vulnerable to corruption.

The insanity of the US healthcare system is not going to be solved by less government intervention. It just isn't going to happen. The real answer is in some form of Universal health care.

Corruption is the key word in this whole drug scam. I don't think you give the Average Consumer enough credit. The whole system is set up to reward bad behavior. Bad behavior at the FDA, Bad Behavior by the drug companies and individual people not feeling any need to take personal responsibility for health care costs because Uncle Sam is going to pick up the bill.

By privatizing health care, every bit and particle of it, a very quick sifting would take place in terms of what procedures and drugs are truly helping people, costs for surgeries would regulate down to a manageable level, and the scam artists on all fronts (Insurance fraud, billing fraud, legal fraud) would be better exposed if consumers had to directly pay individual doctors for individual care.

Why hasn't Lasik eye surgery gone the way of all the rest of American Surgery and priced out of the range of the average consumer. Because no insurance company will pay for it. Does that mean no one in America gets lasik? Nope, my own sister in law who works as a massage therapist and is always on the verge of poverty was able to cough up the $2,000.00 to get this great surgery. Why? Because it was important to her.

I feel the same way about Elective C-Sections. If women want them, fine. Let them pay for them like they would any other elective surgery.

You watch, as we get closer to getting socialized in america the docs will all of a sudden raise the prices on EVERYTHING to set in stone the money that we the people will have to fork out to pay for that nationalized health care.

Childbirth costs have soared for years, but I predict them soaring out of sight before this next election, so that when a congress is put in place that will actually vote it into being, as it is heralded as the best thing since sliced bread, the taxpayers will get fully soaked for the abomination of the allopathic birth machine being funded as is for the duration.

Freebirthers are a threat in the way that homeschoolers are a threat to the education establishment. Homeschoolers pay out of pocket what a nationalized education does for ten grand a kid per year. They do it cheaper, often better, and with the second generation of homeschooling families now coming along it has hit the mainstream.

Freebirth is where homeschool was in the early 70's.

I don't think it will take as long for us to go mainstream, especially since America has a death wish with this rush to nationalized health care. Assumption being that allopathy is the absolute best choice for health. Leaving out of the equation all of the amazing things that can be offered to consumers in the form of chiropractic, homeopathic, and a variety of other healing modalities.

I just want to make certain that we are not legislated out of the picture. Families who are ready to birth a child will increasingly need a safe place to land as things contort out of control over the next few decades.

Freebirth fits the bill to a T.

Jenny

Here in NJ, you pay property taxes that cover primary education. Homeschooling is no cheaper; you're going to pay for school whether you want to or not. I realize it's not like that in every state, but close enough that homeschooling in general is not a cost saver. You pay taxes that cover schooling no matter how those taxes come about. They don't ask you how many kids you have, then charge you for school use as far as I know.
If your theory about health costs held water, a face lift would be cheaper than it is. Fact of the matter is that medical costs rise not only to 'line pockets', but to pay for the exorbitant malparactice insurance, pay back the exorbitant college costs, etc. Today's word is 'inflationary'. True, insurance companies are reaping huge profits, but, being a 'capitalist', that should be acceptable.
If consumers were the drug controllers, we'd have hopped up grannies and kids whose parents fed them antibiotics for every sniffle, to the point where a dirty dollar would make them bedridden for days. Never underestimate the power of group stupidity. ;)
Uncle Sam doesn't pay any of my medical bills...sure wish he would, they'll drive me to ruin between what we pay out for insurance and what insurance doesn't pay. Fact is, many working families can't or don't have medical insurance for a variety of reasons, so don't blame it all on 'personal responsibility'. And, as insurance is such big business, we won't see national socialized medicine. Congressional liberals, et al, can speak of it all they want, but it ain't gonna happen. It'd change the financial infrastructure too much. Insurance companies comprise a huge section of the stock market and banking community, have powerful lobbies and very influential CEO's.
I find it odd that you're so adamantly against the medical and pharmaceutical establishments as a whole. If there's a few bad truckers, do we stop shipping goods? Some incompetent teachers, so let's shut the schools?
How on earth would freebirth fit any bill other than personal choice? I usually applaud those that were able to have their kids smoothly and through their own choosing, but your posts so far resemble a sort of tantrum against 'the establishment'. If it weren't for that establishment you have such disdain for, one or both of my kids would not be here, literally from start to finish.

The drug generation in America came One Generation after widespread drug use in birth. An experiment that had never before played out in our worlds history. Ever wonder why so many kids of the 60's and 70's were drawn to drugs?

Momma was drugged with what they then called "twilight sleep", a combination of general anesthetics that made it so the woman was completely out and the docs used forceps to yank the baby out. One generation after this type of birth of the 40's and 50's we all of a sudden had all these teens and young adults drawn to drugs.

Childbirth activists have been talking about it for years. As for compelling double blind scientific studies, despite various people calling for those huge expensive studies for the past 40 years, the drug companies have played deaf, blind, and dumb and just pretend nothing is wrong and there is no connectivity.

A few small studies have been done in Europe and Asia, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. Go find em. They are out there.

The newest linkage going on is between kids who spend months in NICU care feeling drawn to Raves, cutting, and Tatooing. They generally start to feel like getting into this behavior when they are fifteen.

Not too many studies on that either, why kill the cash cow of newborn NICU's, again mostly funded by the taxpayers, as families who get those million dollar bills often go on medicare and government picks up the tab.

My cynacism towards the birth machine, or the BS, as you call it, is only further fueled by the lack of understanding on the part of obstetricians and NICU pediatricians of the role that prenatal nutrition plays in the prevention of Toxemia and Prematurity. They know NOTHING and they have been taught nothing about it in medical school.

Google Tom Brewer MD, he was a doctor in the truest sense of the word. Consumate researcher, practitioner, writer, scholar, and Passionate activist working to normalize and standardize prenatal nutrition as the foremost key to a healthy baby.

Did anyone on this board have a doctor ask them what they were eating while pregnant? I never did, not once during the three pregnancies that I went to them for prenatals. Yet it is in fact the key to a healthy pregnancy, great birth, and abundant breastmilk supply.

Jenny Hatch

Not only asked, but told what I should be eating, drinking, etc.; what I should gain and look for as I gain; tested for diabetes and high BP.

I don't know where you are coming up with these ideas, but as a child of the 50's and 60's and the oldest of 4, the last born in 1963, not one of us was a druggy, cutter, but my sister and I have tattoos. So?
I was given Demoral-my 15 year olds are sickeningly normal. How do you explain the drugs of the 30's? 40's? 50's?
One of the outcomes of the 'hippie' movement was the increase of natural chidlbirth, yet drug use hasn't gone down in kind.
Methinks you are grasping at straws in an effort to use any reason to promote your agenda, one that goes far beyond a simple choice to do it at home.
"Small studies" are just that and totally inconclusive when one takes in the bigger picture. Take 100 drug users and find out what their mothers were given, if anything, and dollars to donuts, there'd be an overwhelming ratio showing a false correlation. That's like saying those in prison had bad childhoods, then declaring all bad childhoods result in people going to prison.
Part of debate, in order to make a valid point, is 'doing the homework for you'. If you are going to make claims, show why the claim is made. Otherwise, it's simply your opinion.

That's a load of horseshit. You are asserting your belief here. I'm challenging you to it, and the best you can come up with is, "I'm not going to do your homework for you?" If you've obviously found this, then cite your sources. The internet is a wide net to cast around.

Again, bullshit. There's no empirical evidence to show any link. But there is evidence to show that teenagers are filled with angst and trends show that they do things that are different from societal norms. There is evidence showing that.

Again, you don't address what has been challenged. You use emotional triggers and buttons to try to subterfuge and strawman tactics to diffuse the question so that it doesn't get answered.

There was a saying that I recall from an iron tshirt, "If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit." Mrs. Jenny, you are just trying to baffle and confuse the issue.

Again, where is the evidence that shows a correlation to babies in hospitals with mothers that received birthing drugs and then went on to be drug addicts?

You are the one floating the idea, I'm saying prove it.

Jenny:

You make wild claims with no evidence.
You make crazy assertions with no data.
You make emotional appeals out of statements which should be intellectual processes.

And you'd think this thread was farmland for the amount of strawmen I'm tripping over.

Your rhetoric, on the whole, is reminiscent of old-time horse-and-buggy street-corner tonic salesmen. "Cures what ails you. Why? It says so right here on the bottle, that's why!"

I say all this because I'm at a loss as to how I can have a discussion here. It definitely seems as though you want us to swallow whole all that you'd desire to feed us, and skip the intellectual processes altogether. That, unfortunately, doesn't really work for me.

Moderator Jazz, would you please open up my ability to add links to my posts. Research coming!

Jenny Hatch


I agree that much of the FreeBirth movement is built on emotion and mothers intuition that we are not being well served by the allopathic birth machine. We don't have any financial backers, and very few professionals support our choice for birth. We have had no scientific studies to back up our claims, and we are one of the least funded grassroots movements probably ever to exist. But we are growing, at an Alarming rate, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians in the UK. And the Canadian Docs And the Aussie Docs

The ACOG docs are probably all out playing golf, and that is why they have not jumped on the Anti Freebirth wagon train.


I completely funded our second conference in 2001, which was attended by about 30 families and the children outnumbered the adults two to one. We didn't have some big pharmacuetical company waiting in the wings, sending money hand over fist to support us.

You asked for a study on the linkage between drugs used during labor and later drug addiction?

Here is one compelling study: Opiate addiction in adult offspring through possible imprinting after obstetric treatment.


The selected references for said study out of scandinavia are here:

This list contains those references that cite another article in PMC or have a citation in PubMed. It may not include all the original references for this article.

Horn G. Neural mechanisms of learning: an analysis of imprinting in the domestic chick. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1981 Oct 14;213(1191):101–137.


Salzen EA. Imprinting in birds and primates. Behaviour. 1967;28(3):232–254.



Salk L. Thoughts on the concept of imprinting and its place in early human development. Can Psychiatr Assoc J. 1966;11(Suppl)(Suppl Suppl):295–305.



Jacobson B, Eklund G, Hamberger L, Linnarsson D, Sedvall G, Valverius M. Perinatal origin of adult self-destructive behavior. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1987 Oct;76(4):364–371.



Jacobson B, Nyberg K, Eklund G, Bygdeman M, Rydberg U. Obstetric pain medication and eventual adult amphetamine addiction in offspring. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67(8):677–682.



Hynes MD, Berkowitz BA. Catecholamine mechanisms in the stimulation of mouse locomotor activity by nitrous oxide and morphine. Eur J Pharmacol. 1983 May 20;90(1):109–114.



KOVACH JK. EFFECTS OF AUTONOMIC DRUGS ON IMPRINTING. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1964 Apr;57:183–187. [PubMed]
Brazelton TB. Effect of prenatal drugs on the behavior of the neonate. Am J Psychiatry. 1970 Mar;126(9):1261–1266.


Please note this study was published in the British Medical Journal:


Quotes from the study:


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Administration of opiates, barbiturates, and nitrous oxide (for greater than 1 h) to mothers of all subjects during labour within 10 hours before birth as a risk factor for adult opiate addiction.



RESULTS--In subjects who had subsequently become addicts a significant proportion of mothers had received opiates or barbiturates, or both, compared with unmatched siblings (25% v 16%, chi 2 = 5.83, df = 1, p = 0.02), and these mothers had received nitrous oxide for longer and more often.

After controlling for hospital of birth, order of birth, duration of labour, presentation other than vertex, surgical intervention, asphyxia, meconium stained amniotic fluid, and birth weight the relative risk for offspring subsequently becoming an adult opiate addict increased with the number of administrations of any of the three drugs.



When the addicts were matched with their own siblings the estimated relative risk was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 12.4, p for trend = 0.002) for three administrations compared with when no drug was given.


CONCLUSIONS--The results are compatible with the imprinting hypothesis. Therefore, for obstetric pain relief methods are preferable that do not permit substantial passage of drugs through the placenta.




I don't have the gumption to do the work to link to any more, and frankly there is not a whole lot out there. Mostly just a handful of news stories and a couple of articles referencing this study.


But the study you have asked for is indeed being done in our society. We are right now sowing the wind with our children and grandchildren, and we are going to reap the whirlwind in another generation or two. I think it will probably be fifty years before we all collectively stand back and realize what we have done to our posterity with the drugs and violent birth. I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything, but you asked for evidence, and this is the best I can offer at this time.

The big pharma companies run the world right now and they are not going to give up that power and money without a tremendous fight. One of the ways they have fought hardest is by not doing the long term studies on what their "dope hath wrought" in the delivery rooms.

Reminds me of a statement by The Famous Chiropractor Bernard Jensen, who said in his book Empty Harvest...."if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."


I am attempting to ask the right questions as a mother. My children only have me and my husband to protect them from the money making schemes of conspiring men. And if we don't do it, nobody else will. I'm willing to live with the long term consequences of my life choices.

Are you?

Jenny

I'm going to play Cynthetiq for a moment....

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!!!

The experimentation that happened in the 60s and 70s was the result of a complex matrix of social forces that led youth culture to rebel against the strictures of a conformist and repressed/ive culture. If your argument held any water at all, the 98% rate of use of epidurals in childbirth should equal a 98% drug addiction rate. The best researchers on drug addiction have identified a number of factors that lead to addiction, including genetic miswiring of the dopamine system in the brain. I'm not going to go digging for a few studies so I can see if they're bunk or not; you're the one espousing off-the-wall theories, so the burden of proof is upon you. If you don't care to produce your evidence, I'm not going to be swayed by some hypothetical "studies" that you claim back up your position, and that you're not willing to produce to be evaluated as to their validity and credibility. Are they in peer-reviewed journals? What was their methodology? Are they epidemiological studies?

Fuck health care, what we need in this country is a massive campaign for scientific literacy so people can tell their asses from their elbows when it comes to "evidence." Just because someone with letters behind their name says something doesn't make it a fact.

*hemhem*

You might also want to look into the following cognitive phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go bang my head against a wall, as it will do just about as much good as trying to bring logic to this argument.

All of the studies you cited are nearly 20+ years old (most recent one was 1988). Do you have anything more recent? Particularly something from the Journal of the American Medical Association or another well-known journal, say in the last 2-5 years? Just to prove that it wasn't a fad (as things go with academic publishing).

Also, from the following... ... I see no n whatsoever. Also, who decided that the p=0.002 for this "trend?" I'd like to know if this is a common p value and why, because in similar fields of research a p of lower than 0.05 cannot hold water.

So babies who have been free birthed or have had no demerol are not more likely to cry when handled on days seven, 21, and 42???? WTF is that???

Babies cry. That's how they communicate since they have no other method of alerting the mother of hunger or issue.
Nyberg and Jacobsen both worked on this study together, the implication that theres is alot of research is faulty. The write up was published in 1990 and again in 1993 is from the same study.

I would also challenge that the sample of 200 is quite small in comparison to the total amount of births on record that do not result in drug addicted adults. If their findings are correct, then as lurkette suggested, you'd have a much higher drug addict rate here.

Okay, you yourself admit that it is an emotional response and mother's intution. And then further state tha you have no scientific studies to back up our claims. Why then espouse all these studies? Why pretend that there is evidence to support your claims. Either there is evidence or there isn't. You just finally came around and said that there isn't any evidence. Why the charade?

Again, we've stated before the community is about respect for people and their lifestyle decisions. But to put out blatant misrepresentation of information, someone is going to call you on it. It doesn't change the fact that we do or don't agree with your position and lifestyle choices. It also should not hinder the fact as to how we perceive you within the community, your own actions provide that.

You mentioned that it was faith that moved you to this movement. That is wonderful and your choice. If you poke around our community you'll find that there are a number of people who have monotheistic, polytheistic, athiest, and agnostic beliefs.

Great for you. That is a benevolent endeavor. What does that have to do pharmacuetical company sponsorship? What does that have to do with any kind of sponsorship whatsoever? There are many community events that are done without any kind of coporate sponsoship. This site is a good example of one. It is entirely donor driven. Again, there are many events that are done across America that don't get any kind of sponsorship whatsoever.

But let me get to the crucial part of the last sentence, why would any pharmacuetical company want to give you any money or support you? I don't understand why you specifically state that. Again, I'll say that you are manipulating the conversation to create an emotional reponse from the reader to lead them to support you.

Again, why this comment? What does it add to supporting your statements?

A Statistical Aside
 

In a given statistical test, the p value is the probability that an observed difference between groups is due to chance, rather than real differences between the two groups. Some fields adopt more stringent cutoffs than .05.

abaya, independent of the studies cited by Jenny, it's generally the other way around. The p value of the test must be lower than .05 "to hold water".

You're right in both cases; I work in the social sciences, so .05 is often the standard for us. I was curious what was standard in the studies she was looking at, if that was known.

On the second part, yep you got me there, I was flipping it in my head (thank you, last summer's statistics course) :p

so then p for trend = 0.002 means it "holds water"?

I shared the studies because people asked for scientific information.



In reading over the thread, I was told in no uncertain terms that:

A. NO information whatsoever exists to link violent birth to violence later in life.

I shared some links and quotes and they were dismissed.

B. NO doctors would use Cytotec for induction of labor because it is contra indicated in birth.

I shared links and quotes and they were again either ignored or dismissed

C. Birth drugs DO NOT lead to drug addiction later in life

I shared a study and a couple of links and you feel the need to completely dismiss what I have shared as not quite scientific enough for your own personal scientific standards.


I heckle and make fun of the American Obstetric trade union (ACOG) because they suffer from an alarming lack of curiosity and scientific inquiry and have no interest in doing long term studies about the way they deliver babies, and you say this is not part of the equation as to why women are choosing freebirth?

It is exactly the reason families are choosing freebirth.

And it is in fact the most educated women (knowledgeable about birth) who are choosing to give birth at home alone.

Have you read Henci Goers Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities?

I think it would satisfy your scientific mind to consider her words:

Dr. Wagner has written a new book, Born in the USA




I said I did not have any scientific studies on Freebirth, because none have been done, but some studies that have shown linkage between drugged birth and later drug addiction have been conducted and when various people were throwing out ugly epithets towards me about how I was so full of it, I just wanted to share the little bit of research that has been done. I think we need a couple dozen more, paid for by Big Pharma.

The American People should demand it.


As for unscientific studies, Judy Rall over at Unhindered living has been collecting statistics for a couple of years on UC Birth.


And I conducted an online survery for my book Elijah Birth in 1999 and included the stats in the book. Judys very small study shows we have a remarkably low C-section rate of 2 per 201 and a remarkably high rate of success with .99% failed UC attempts.


But I am not a researcher, a scientist, or a doctor. I have two years of musical theatre training at the university level.

Almost all, 99% of our information on the internet, in our books, newsletters, conferences, movies is anecdotal.


I know the information is easy to dismiss if you are a scientist.

But sometimes the best things in life come when you step out of the realm of what "seems" normal and take a quantum faith leap into something completely different.

I would have to define Freebirth as one of the best choices I have ever made in my life.

Joy, pure unadulterated JOY when I give birth.


Jenny Hatch

Oh thank God, now I don't have to read the rest of that post. Thank you for putting that first.

+1, with slight alteration. I was skimming the whole thread before going back to dive into Jenny's intimidatingly dense posts and try to understand them. This saved me the trouble.

Never before in the history of TFP have I seen so many respected members, weighing in on both sides of an arguement, attempt so many times to wrangle intelligent debate out of someone clearly set out spewing large volumes of VERY thinly disguised propoganda.

It speaks volumes about the maturity of the forum that we keep trying to bring this back to ingelligent discourse, but, good grief...unless we've decided to sit back and enjoy the carnage, isn't it time to throw in the locking towel?

Again...wow. :eek:

As the thread starter, I'm amazed anyone has the energy left to argue with Ms. Hatch.

It's like arguing for democracy and apple pie to bin Laden or trying to convince the Pope that the Baptists have got it right.

She obviously holds deep rooted, faith driven beliefs that are incompatible with scientific evidence.

Personal attacks?

I have not attacked any of you personally. Yet you three who just posted, didn't even bother to answer my claims, links, quotes, etc...

Why Not?



The onus is on all of you to PROVE to me that Medicated Birth is better than Freebirth.

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

Go ahead, you are the ones with all the science on your side.

Prove it.

Jenny Hatch

Jenny, perhaps you should reread both of my posts with the story of my nephew's birth. Both mother and child would have died without immediate medical intervention. As it was, my nephew was deprived of oxygen for a number of minutes, which could have been complete avoided had my sister-in-law had a trained professional on hand or, better yet, been in a hospital.

There's the quote you were looking for. One example of absolute proof that, in at least that case, you're absolutely wrong. You've ignored it up to now. Care to do it again?

As for the comments about personal attacks, please don't try to goad people into flaming you. Not only does it detract from your argument, but it makes you look both insincere and desperate for attention. We call people that do that "attention whores" or "trolls". Don't be either. The three members you've singled out are all highly thought of here, and they don't deserve your disrespect.

An ex of mine once pointed out, after a lengthy discussion, that I would probably argue/debate until I passed out, rather than give up.

I talk in my sleep... I like to think that if I ever debated until I passed out, I'd continue to debate while sleeping. ;) lol

Fact #2(in the same vein as The_Jazz-personal testimony)
Twins conceived with medical science, in this case, GIFT. 31st week, premature labor, hospitalized in what I referred to as the "Not Ready for Primetime Motherhood" ward, administered magnesium drip and checked several times a day for bleeding. Sent home with 4 week supply of Brethine(sp?) to stall onset of labor.
Sonograms every 4 weeks to chart progress.
40th week, no sign of beginnings of labor. Doctor decides to induce due to overextension of uterus coupled with no dilation. Baby A had been shown effaced, baby B breech. Doctor says he will birth A, turn B.
After 24 hours of Pitocin drip with no progress, Dr. breaks water-labor begins. Epidural administered at 7 centimeters.
While seeking to place fontel monitor on Baby A, assisting intern can't find her head. Sonogram ordered. Baby A had gone back up, pushing Baby B, still breech into birth canal. Subsequent labor pushes Baby B dangerously downward, cord around neck. Caesarian section is imminent. Baby B successfully born by C-section, 6.5lbs, 20.5 inches. Baby A, also breech, follows, 6.0 lbs, 19.75 inches. Both healthy. Mother had passed out from exhaustion during birth of Baby A.
*****
Looking up mortality rates is child's play, really, but let's have a look:
Taking NJ figures for 1900 and comparing to 2000:
Deaths by age, 1900. Under 1 month, 2252, rate 7.2%.
Deaths by age, 2000. Under 1 month, 499, rate .07%.
Of the 6,979 total infant deaths in 1900, 2,252 or 32% were neonatal. Total infant mortality rate-216.3 per 1,000 or over 1/5 before the first birthday.
Of the 723 total infant deaths in 2000, 499 or 69% were neonatal. Total infant mortality rate, though, was 6.3 per 1,000.
The drop of infant mortality rates from 1900-2000, 20% to .63%(less than 1%).

Some things that contributed to this large drop: Prenatal care. Vaccinations.
Surgical procedure improvements. Antibiotics. Improved pediatric and neonatal care and diagnoses techniques.
While argumentatively, one could look at the above figures and say "well, neonatal percentages went UP", one must look at how many in fact died in the two comparative years and deduce that the neonatal numbers went down 75%. Advancements in neonatal care can not be ignored or dismissed.

I am not a troll or a whore in any way shape or form.

I am someone whose lifestyle is being threatened by doctors who are calling for me to be prosecuted for manslaughter should something happen during my Freebirth.

I am not goading anyone about anything. Lots of poo has been flung in my direction the past two days.

I am asking for evidence that medical birth is better. Not personal anecdotes.

Infant mortality rates that are thrown around to disprove homebirth are usually from the height of the Industrial Revolution and compiled at some teaching hospital in a big city, where women were notoriously undernourished and overworked. The fact that they also gave birth in a hospital during that time of no hand washing and no infrastructure in hospital for proper hygiene, also makes the stats suspect. London during the industrial revolution was a very dangerous place to birth a child, yet those stats are often used to compare and contrast the "progress" of medicine the past hundred years.

A powerful personal study is to go look at your own geneological records. Go back two hundred years and just look at your own family. Baby after baby after baby being born. Mothers made it through birth number one and on to birth number sixteen, over and over again. No doctors in sight.

Doctors have been in control of birth in America, especially on the east coast for TWO HUNDRED years, not a hundred, as many people think. To get true stats for birth go look at the geneological records from the families who lived in America during the revolution. During that time it felt like every patriot came from an unusually large family, or went on to father one. What did they know with the lack of doctors, modern hospitals, and no anti-biotics or chemical vaccines in sight that allowed them to give birth to those huge babies. I've read the midwives diaries...those women were consistently birthing eleven pound babies, the midwives tended to be amazed at a thirteen or fourteen pounder, but eleven pounds seemed to be the norm.

When mothers are well nourished, rested, and armed with some good birthing information, they are fully capable of giving birth all by themselves. Most of them, most of the time.

I also asked about economics, emotional, spiritual, and hormonal proof that hospital birth is better.

All you have to do to know that women are not being served in birth is look at the post partum depression rates. Traumatic birth is a huge trigger for depression and anxiety.

Jenny

ONE doctor. Drama is not discussion.

But why are yours ok? Fact is, personal anecdotes ARE evidence, good or bad. No one has flung anything but queries. Each gets a defensive comeback and obscure 'studies' done by individuals.
EVERY place 100 to 200 years ago was a dangerous place to give birth!!!
Doctors now wash their hands....among other things.
Well, if you must know, I don't have any, personally, as they were all lost during the Holocaust. However, I do know my great-grandmother had 8 kids, including two sets of twins, but only 3 girls made it past the age of 5, one being my grandmother.
Post partum depression rates are not increasing, just the reporting and treatment of them. And why? Uh....improved medical practices. The same improvements that found that, unlike the medical belief of the Civil War that all that puss in wounds was actually beneficial, it meant disaster loomed....
Again, you have not proven anything you'd noted. Anecdotal evidence is evidence until proven otherwise; no less than 3 here have stated unequivocably that it was medical intervention that saved their newborns' lives. I'd go so far as to say that medical interference(as you would believe it to be) did NOT harm anyone's life in your own case, just left whatever sour taste you got from it and, in fact, allowed you to spend MORE time with the one child you had by C-section. Just saying....

Would you expect everyone to be fine with it if one of your children fell ill, and you simply decided that medical intervention was "too corporate" or somesuch other personal opinion, resulting in their death? That would be child neglect.

It seems like it's a terrible neglect to have the means to seek proper medical prenatal care/prevention and actively deny it. Wanting to have birth naturally is one thing, and very doable, but insisting that you not see any doctors for prenatal care, and then give birth without any medical supervision on standby, is just careless.

Hypothetical...

A child falls ill... a "doctors are corporate bullshit" opinion kills the child because the mother doesn't seek any medical attention for the child. That mother is guilty of child neglect.

An unborn child receives no prenatal care by a medical professional, and is not monitored for complications of development. That child dies at birth due to factors that normal medical care would have foreseen and been able to correct...

...and that's NOT neglectful?

You deny medical care to your unborn child, and that child dies due to medically foreseeable and correctable complications... and you think it's NOT your fault?

And not for nothing, but if I was the husband of such a woman, and that woman killed MY baby because SHE had some insane vendetta against doctors, and the child died because it was given no proper medical attention, that woman would no longer be my wife. You will have killed the child for no reason. None whatsoever.

You'd look really silly burying that tiny body and telling people at the funeral that the kid is dead because of your extreme anti-doctor stance.

More tu quoque? Again, you are the one asserting your beliefs here, and people challenged you to it. You easily could have stated up fron that it was your emotional and religious beliefs that bring you to where you are today. It would have stood as it is. But to insinuate flawed statistics as supportive of your choices, many of us will double check that. Many of us will do the due diligence to understand.

But I'll take the challenge because it keeps me honed on finding research and doublechecking someone else's facts. It also is a good way for me to verify my own beliefs with facts as opposed to taking that leap of faith that someone else who was credible to pass on their belief to me instead of me finding my own evidence.

I'll start with entries from wikipedia and work my way out:

Now one would think that the freebirthing movement would be exactly what the poorer countries are doing naturally right? There is no presence of big hospitals? People being able to birth at home. Angola? Ethiopia? Bangladesh? High infant mortality.

Iceland with hospitals and midwives, very low infant mortality.

Excuse me but that is ... insane.

I have charted my own family tree for between 6 to 10 generations, depending on the branch. My family comes from rural areas of Cheshire and Wales in the UK, and from the city of Liverpool (the tough parts).

The genealogical record is littered with dead babies, still births, and dead mothers - it's the same for most people.

When I walk down to the pioneer cemetary here in town in Ontario, countless examples of gravestones with a mother and child who died at the same time. I guarantee there weren't many doctors about the town. And these women - my own family in the UK and the pioneers here in Ontario - they all would have had support from other women more experienced in childbirth than yourself or most any modern woman.

This is something that is easy for most anyone here to checkout at their local cemetary.

Or go to:

http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/

Or a similar site and check out the dead mothers and children.

You are way off base with you assertation.

Well, I'm still waiting to hear what Jenny says is the standard p value in the field she's quoting. In anthropology, below 0.05 might be fine, but it varies for each field. That's the problem with statistics... you can prove that almost anything "holds water," if you want to.

You dont even want to get this genealogist started with your comments. I have been tracing families for over 25 years, I know just how many of the "16" children families I have researched had children even reach the age of 1.

Your trying to disclaim infant mortality before 1900 just because ngdawg picked the state she lived in is ludacris. The big problem is that most states didnt start doing death certificates until around 1913ish so there is no "government" proof of why these babies died.

All you have to do is look at a census report.

I added up on a 1910 census for a rural county in GA (this census shows how many births a woman had and how many of those children were living

in 1910 out of 307 women they had 1555 births....961 of those children lived, thats a little of 60% which means an average of a 38% mortality rate, in just ONE county. Granted some of these deaths were from accident/illness etc, still not one woman in that county that had 15+ children had more than 7 live

so dont come telling me that medical intervention in births isnt a plus

My understanding is that medicine has stricter standards than the social sciences. Even then, p=0.002 is a fairly strict standard. That said, p< whatever doesn't automatically make something "hold water". There are a variety of other factors to consider when evaluating a study independent of the field: effect size, experimental design, composition of the sample, etc.

Also, I disagree that you can prove that almost anything "holds water" with statistics (and that it's a problem with statistics):

1) You can't prove anything anywhere in science with or without statistics.

2)The strength of statistics (and peer-reviewed journal articles) is that everything is there on the page. You can read how statistics were used to evaluate a given study. You can come to the conclusion that they used the wrong analysis or that some other aspect of the study was lacking.

3) The explicit nature of the study and the accompanying description of the statistical analysis used is a recipe of sorts for others to use to replicate the study. Perhaps the authors hypotheses were supported in this study, but will not be supported in subsequent replication attempts.


In regard to the study being discussed, there are a variety of other factors to consider other than the p value:
1) How big was the effect size? From the study, it appears that barbituate usage during the birthing process increases the likelihood of later barbituate addiction 1-7x. But what is the base likelihood? A 1-7x increase in likelihood might not be that much.

2) Has the study been replicated?

3) Have similar studies been done using samples taken from populations other than Swedes?

4) Are opiate addicts and their siblings a representative sample?

5) Are there other factors that account for greater amounts of the variance in barbituate usage in adulthood?

6) Have other studies shown contradictory effects? At least one of the links provided by Jenny led to a study by the same authors suggesting that barbituate usage during delivery leads to a lower risk of suicide later in life.

7) What are the consequences of not administering drugs when medically necessary? Are those consequences worse than an increase in likelihood of barbituate use later in life?

8) What percentage of births actually involve barbituate administration? And to the degree necessary to produce the effect described in the study? In order to achieve the 7x increase in likelihood, three doses of barbituates must be administered.

9) Barbituate during delivery is only a very small part of the larger issue of free-birthing. I have clearly become sidetracked in this thread by this issue.

My last comment on the study: The authors conclude that obstetric pain relief methods are preferable that do not permit substantial passage of drugs through the placenta. I can agree with that.

Cynthetiq, thanks for the infant mortality data. It was informative.

Your county stats match the NJ ones. I'd be willing to bet any other county or state stats from c1900-1915 would show a similar mortality rate of 32%-38%, an alarming amount when you think about it, but not unrealisitic under the (then) circumstances. Taking into consideration the however modest improvements of living conditions and medical advancement from, say, c1850-1900, one might conclude that those rates probably were closer to 50% in those decades. I'll have to Google some more ;)
Cyn: you rock! Great charts:thumbsup:

Ok, I Googled more and found this very comprehensive PDF: http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/may-jun-04/ar050404.pdf

It states in part, that: In 1963, 31.1 out of every 1,000 babies born alive in NC died before their 1st birthday. There was no neonatal intensive care, no ventilators designed for preemies, no simple way to measure blood gases, and 'the role of continuous positive airway pressure and surfactant was not understood'. This was less than 50 years ago!!!!
The article goes on to address the advances in both medical and social services to pregnant women and their newborns.
I have to thank Ms. Hatch. We've all become much more educated on the impact of medical science and its role in keeping infant and mother mortality rates down as their overall health and longevity rates increase.

All points taken, and I've learned a lot from what you've said. My only point was that statistics is part math/science, part art... and the art (interpretation) part is where I get suspicious. You're right that in a peer-reviewing journal, at least it's all out there to be examined... but your average layperson is not going to know how to examine it. They are just going to say, "Look at this study, it says that this is true!" Hell, even though I've taken a few grad-level stats classes, clearly I'm still clueless about a lot of it! :)

Statistics aside, I was just reading about the small community in the Westman Islands of Iceland, where there was 80% infant mortality until the 1840s. They sent a woman abroad to be trained as a midwife, and infant mortality went down significantly after that point. 80%!! Yay for freebirthing. :p

A great article, thanks ng.

This paragraph has alot going on there, but I do want to state that to Jenny's point, what I bolded is something as I understand her position. I just disagree in the response and methodology of how to address it via the standards and practices of the freebirth movement. The data shows that infant mortality is higher in places where hospitals and doctor access is less. I cannot add midwives into the mix since I have yet to see facts about midwifery in Angola, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, but as I understand the freebirth movement those are limited as well.

This is quite important. It is what we all want right? We all want healthy happy babies who then eventually become healthy happy adults. None of us know definitively what or how that happens. There are just too many factors to count.

I didn't specifically address this quote with my infant mortality post. But I have to point out again, that you are injecting your emotional response into the findings. I will admit that your statement "makes the stats suspect" is an important thing. One should ALWAYS be suspect of statistics because as a couple other posters sapiens and abaya have discussed the challenges of interpreting those statistics.

Somehow this morning as I was walking into the living room, I had a revelation as to how your position is framed. While I respect you are a woman of faith, and I mean no disrespect in my presenting and equating this point.

During teen years those that are ill informed to pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases come up with some hair brained reasons and schemes. They don't have any data or knowledge of data to back up their claims, but they believe them vigorously. It does not take into account actual biology and how it works alot of the time. So their points of view can be supported by some anecdotal evidence of friends and friends of friends. Even small samples of statistics can even prove their point. We can even interject faith and emotion into the mix with "She won't get pregnant because I pull out," and "condoms aren't natural", "it feels so much better" and "we feel so much closer without using condoms."

But what remains is the possibility of pregnancy or catching some disease being greater than zero, and that is what I believe is the crux of this discussion so far.

Infants can and will die during and just after childbirth. The infant mortality rates support that. What we all are responsible for is our decisions. How we bring or not bring a child into this world.

I think that Tecoyah, a respected community member here put it very simply in the beginning:

Please note that the article above is decribing events in Canada.
In Canada using a hospital for birth is free.


While I am sure that the study was objective and alot of those are good points the description (or summary) of the study is misleading in some areas.
- There was four times more infection among the newborn - this is misleading becuase if the mother is determined to have a certain type of common infection (I can't remember the name - *Remembered and came back to edit: Group B streptococcus) that can be passed to the baby during childbirth then her doctor suggests birht in a hospital becuase she will need to take antibiotics intraveneously during the delivery. In such cases the infection can still be passed on to the child. Becuase women's doctors will suggest hospital deliver in these cases for the reasons I described, this increases the number of women in these types of situation that are using the hopspital therby increasing the number of possible newborn infections. Does this account for the difference, probably not, but I am just trying to point out that it is a little misleading.
- The infant death rate of the study was low in both cases and essentially the same - in this case the sample size is too small to determine this. As mentioned above (first page) if birth death (oxymoron?) rate is 1 in 10,000 nowadays you can really judge with 1000 births in each sample. Maybe bot sample had 1 death. That again is a little misleading.

But yes, the rest is a little disturbing.

But as it says in the summary, there were trained attendants at the homebirths. The article at the begining of this therad is talking about births without any trained attendants.

In the United States, if a woman shows up in labor to a public hospital, and is unable to pay, Medicaid covers the costs. But the woman has to have broken water for the hospital to admit her under Medicaid's rules.

One of the things that has bothered me about some of Jenny's arguments were the associations with drug use during labor and drug use later in life.

The fact is, drug use is a much more complicated issue than all of that. Genetics and socio-economic status play key roles in determining whether or not someone will be a drug user. The addictive personality is known to be a heritable trait. A lot of the psychological issues Jenny attributed to medical births have been shown to be heritable traits. How we are born has little to do with how we'll turn out to be. It's honestly more important to make it safe for the baby and pleasant for the mother than to make it "less traumatizing."

This comment used with regards to other things as well drives me nuts.

It is not correct as a greater number of ppeople were not making it this far previously as opposed to in our generation.
Nobody ever said that unassisted births always resulted in a death.
Nobody even said that it results in death 50% of the time.

I have heard similar comments with regards to
- Seatbelts
- Eating Habits
- Putting a baby down in their crib one way or the other
- A few other things that I am not remembering

First
Use average life expectancy numbers to see
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf

More people are living longer now becuase of, among many other things, increase in assisted births. Life expectancy at birth is much greater now than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

Second
Why take the chance?
I can understand people take chances with their own lives everyday. They shouldn't, but they do and that is their decision.
What I don't get is why people take chances with their children's lives.
Go to the hospital to give birth or have trained people around. Why would anyone take a chance with their childs life by doing this unassited.

Do you put your kids in carseats in the car? Most do. I don't understand parents that don't.
Do you make your kids wear a helmet when they ride a bike? Most do. I don't undestand parents who don't.
Do you leave your young children alone in the car while your run into the store to buy a few things. Most parents don't. I don't understand parents who do.

Do you leave your baby at home alone in their crib while you go out for the day? No? But what is the likely hood of something bad happening. probably close to nothing. But you don't do it.

The likelyhood of something happening during an unassited birth is low, however, it is still possible and more likely then in an assited birth - so why take the chance with your child's life.


Another thing:
Many people advocating assited births are suggesting that in addition to all the other jobs they perform, that the trained assistant is there in case anything goes wrong. This is not accurate and it can be argued that an untrained assitant can call an ambulance, drive a car or what-have-you in those circumstances as well.
What a trined assistant is there for, in addition to all the jobs they perform, is not to be there in case of a problem but to RECOGNIZE when there is a problem.
RECOGNIZING when there is a problem and KNOWING when more experienced help or medical technology is needed is the differentiating factor between a trained and untrained assistant.

The comparison group used in the study cited by Jenny is composed of siblings of the drug addicts. This likely controls for SES (removes the variance in later drug use due to SES). The use of siblings as a comparison group also allows for some tentative conclusions independent of genetics. (Monozygotic twins would be ideal, but siblings as a comparison group is a better control for genetics than most studies I have seen). The study also controlled for "hospital of birth, order of birth, duration of labour, presentation other than vertex, surgical intervention, asphyxia, meconium stained amniotic fluid, and birth weight." I have seen heritability estimates for drug dependence ranging from .35 to .50. This leaves a lot of room for environmental factors (including gestation and delivery) to influence later drug use.

That said, the study that Jenny cited does not preclude the role of SES or genetics in later drug use. (And as I mentioned earlier, there may be other problems with the study cited).

I think that freebirthing is very risky, far more risky than a hospital birth. However, it's inaccurate to state as fact that how we are born has little to do with how we'll turn out. How the birth process impacts "how we'll turn out to be" is an empirical question.


I see similar conclusions drawn from studies all the time (from family, students, media outlets, etc.) Most laypeople seem to have little knowledge of basic statistics and experimental design. The biggest error I often notice was cited earlier: "Correlation does not necessarily equal causation".

WOW! I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my request that you prove that hospital birth is safer than Freebirth.

Now, just to clariy, I was asking that you use the current birthing statistics, from say 2002 on, to prove that Hospital birth is better for the mother and the child than freebirth. I'm well aware of the worlds infant mortality rates, but they don't have a whole heck of a lot to do with birth.

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.


Infant mortality is just one very small portion of the birth scene. And because most babies die long after the birth is over (if I remember right it is up to a year after birth) many, many factors can contribute to a countrys infant mortality above and beyond birth practices - the most important being proper nutrition.

Current Maternal mortality statistics in America are also a bogus argument because only mothers who die on the table during an actual birth are included in those stats. The moms who died from childbirth complications the next day, week, month are not included in the maternal rates.


When was the last time you heard or read about an accidental freebirth? You know, those babes born in the taxi or at home but with an unplanned situation. The media response to those births is almost consistenly the same...."mother and baby are doing fine" Anyone here recently hear a story of an unplanned out of hospital birth where the reporter breathlessly exclaimed, The baby died from the cord being around its neck and the mother bled out her blood volumne all over the taxi and both are stone cold DEAD!


I know it is difficult to accept my premise that too much medicine and surgery is murdering and maiming more women and children than it is helping. And that many of those babes who were born in hospital and died from too many drugs or whatever, would have done just fine at home.

I am asking for evidence, scientific if possible, that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby than Freebirth. The only person who even attempted was sticky who shared some of the results from the Mehl homebirth study.

Let's assume that Judy Ralls statistics are somewhat indicative of what is happening on the freebirth scene.

One C-section out of a hundred. No maternal deaths. No infant deaths.

And just for giggles we will double that c-section rate, Two out of a hundred. A 2 % chance of having a section sounds pretty good to me. Actually doctors like Robert Bradley who actively taught couples how to give birth without drugs had a section rate of 3%. His drugged birth rate was 10% and after 17,000 births he never lost a mother. And he claimed that these amazing stats were because of his natural childbirth method, which was defined by NO INDUCTIONS and NO EPIDURALS.


If I as a birthing woman in labor walk into an American hospital my chance of having a section is one in three. Twenty Nine women out of a hundred in America give birth using major surgery.

2 out of a hundred? Or 29 out of a hundred? Hmmmmm I really have to think about that one.

Now, if you accept the fact that surgical delivery carries a much higher risk of death for mother and baby. And many compelling studies indeed make that case, Why would any sane woman walk into a hospital to give birth knowing that the odds, just the simple odds, were so stacked against her? Sounds a little like russian roulette.


Again, I know what the infant mortality rates around the world are. But please, using the hospitals own numbers, make the case for WHY I should go into the hospital to give birth. I would really like to know.

And, for the record, I am not anti-medicine. We have taken our children to the hospital for a variety of issues, mostly tied to sports injuries, and have gratefully used the services of these professionals for help with different things.

I choose to believe that birth is not a medical disaster waiting to happen. And that choice is based on much much more than just my spiritual beliefs or emotion.

I have intensively studied birth for 19 years.


Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse.

When professionals started interfering in birth with ethers and forceps (yes while still birthing at home in America), mommas were at higher risk for birth complications, one because they were not awake, and two because any intervention with a surgical instrument at a home birth increases the risk of bleeding out.

Please someone convince me, beyond all the hype and knee jerk emotional reacting that has gone on here, WHY I should give birth to my child in an american hospital in 2007.

And no, stats about women and children dying in the third world or at the height of the industrial revolution are not going to convince me. I need to know why, right now today, I should put myself and my child at risk for potential death and almost certain drugging and maiming during birth in a US Hospital.


Jenny Hatch

As others have suggested above, the null hypothesis (the generally accepted truth) is that hospital/midwife births is wiser than freebirthing. I would argue as others have that the onus is on you to demonstrate that a birth without the help of obstetricians, nurses, midwives or doulas is better "economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally" than hospital birth.

1) Is there any evidence that living in large, filthy cities and being on the move are primariliy responsible for babies and mothers dying during birth?
2) If you go back two hundred years, you will likely see the use of doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, etc. - not freebirthing.

Didn't Shani and I already point out our own genealogical research going back beyond this random 200 year barrier you set up and the huge numbers of dead mothers and babies? Going back beyond your 2x great grandmother. I'm onto my 6x greats in some cases in rural England and Wales. Shani has gone just as far or further.

For every instance of someone in your family having a number of successful births, there are dozens which had no such happy outcomes.

I know, this won't convince you. The facts and figures others have offered won't convince you. I simply hope they will, however, serve to inform others contemplating having a child and will convince them of the benefits of modern medecine if they were thinking of "free-birthing".

Again, you are weakening your arugment by appealing to emotions. As I look at this thread there aren't any knee jerk emotional reactions except the ones that you post, and I have been calling you on them. They detract from your arguments, they don't add anything to the discussion. They debase what little ground you are standing on.

You may not see it in YOUR Colorado newspaper, but I see it all the time in my newspapers.

You are free to make your own choices based on the evidence provided, that is what makes free countries great. We are free to make decisions and choices. We may have to pay for those choices and decisions in some fashion depending on the outcome, but all in all we are free to choose.

Infant mortality rates are a great indicator, especially comparing Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and More Developed Countries (MDCs) where access to medical care is a factor. Again, it is YOU who is ignoring the facts placed before you. I believe that I have and others have refuted the ones you've presented, even just wildly claimed anecdotal evidence.

If you'd like I'll post what I have found on still births and their causes, those alone are good reasons to be near medical attention. But those you've dismissed out of hand, since those births like The Jazz and ngdawg explained.

Safer is considered by the fact that the child is not dead. If the child is dead it doesn't matter what safety precautions are/were taken since it it already too late.

You want to not include infant mortality rates which is the standard by which this is measured by all organizations including WHO. In my opinion it is like you are covering your ears and saying "la la la la, I don't see that."

You're joking, right? What DO they have to do with then? Luck?
Well, they don't die as often. There's a start.....the stats have been given already and it'd serve you well to actually read them all.

No, but you most definitely put both at risk when you deny any and ALL prenatal care, be it doctors or midwives.
Those mothers who give birth in taxies make news because they ARE news, ie; not common. By and large, 'mother and child are fine', would occur anyway because of odds. You obviously like gambling since you rejected all medical and midwivery knowledge in favor of 'going it alone'. You lucked out.
As Cyn said, it's been made abundantly clear what part medical advances have played in the last 100 years to infant health and mortality rates of both infants and mothers, but, like some kid on a playground in need of attention, you try and change the game to suit yourself. That's not debate, that's not even discussion.
No one has said you must or should have your kid in a hospital, but freebirth is not about only dismissing hospital births, it's about dismissing professional assistance.
"Knee-jerk reactions"? You've been accessed to some intense information that we've posted and yet still refer to it all as 'emotional'. Yea, ok. And, as I said, my great grandmother gave birth to 8, only 3 of whom survived to adulthood.
You stated you did not want anecdotal evidence, yet toss in Grandma?
WTF?

In 2005, the rate of caesarean birth was 30.2% in the US (Preliminary Births for 2005: Infant and Maternal Health. National Center for Health Statistics). That does not mean that for every woman, her chance is 1 in 3 for having a c-section. That's not how statistics work. That means that for all births, c-sections account for 30.2%.

There are a variety of factors that either contribute to, or detract from, your personal likelihood of needing a caesarean birth. For some women, their chance of caesarean is extremely high, almost definite, and for some it's nearly zero.

Elective c-sections are on the rise, and medical malpractice for obstetrics is astronomical.

However... if you go into a medical facility of any kind and have a baby, you can request that they not go c-section unless the fetus is in immediate danger. Then, you should be fine and dandy, barring complications. You act as though it's not your choice. It is, up until the life of the fetus is at stake.

Yes, any invasive surgery has its risks.
Like I said, though... if you tell the doc you will not allow a c-section unless the life of the fetus is in direct peril, you will not have a c-section.

You are essentially complaining about "all these c-sections" which account for c-sections that are planned by the mother, and in cases where it was not necessary and the mother didn't tell the doc "vaginal only unless the fetus is in direct peril".

You're complaining that c-sections get performed when many women elect to have them done, or don't spell out their wishes to the doctor. You're blaming the institution for the elective choice or ignorance of the mothers.

In that case, you should be complaining that mothers aren't educating themselves on preventing unnecessary c-sections.

So far this is what I have found
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/stor...075395,00.html
From an anecdote from the same article:
The woman had a sucessful first freebirthing experience (including a weak moment where she called a midwife in temporarily)
Holy F$*#. She did not even know she was having twins. That could have been a huge disaster.

We did not even consider multiple birth scenarios.

I found the following on a blog written by a neonatologist from the U.S. who does not identify him/herself.
The blog post includes an anecdote of an unsucessful frebirthing experience but I am only going to quote the part that stuck out to me.
http://neonataldoc.blogspot.com/2006/04/home.html
My thoughts exactly.
This is all about selfishness.

Note: By the way I feel the same way about elective c-sections.

It is somewhat crazy to think that women who are part of our very educated and proactive group of mothers would ever be compared to mothers in the poorest sections of the country, befuddled by poverty and illiteracy, and then that so called PROOF thrust in our faces as to why we should go to a hospital to give birth.

Talk about appealing to emotions.

As I said before, many of the women, and I am one of them, who choose freebirth, do it simply because we do not want to have another section.

The debate comes down to this:

Is birth INHERENTLY dangerous?

Based on my research, when a mother is well nourished, has some good information on birth, and even better, is in good shape physically....birth is safe most of the time, for most women.

Why should I, as a healthy woman, subject myself to the insanity of American Birth when I know it can be done a thousand times better in my own bedroom?

Infant mortality is just that, infant mortality of children under a year of age. It is NOT birth mortality. That is not me putting my hands over my ears and yelling "NO, a thousand times no, I will NOT listen".

It is a fact.


In using the straw man argument of infant mortality to dismiss freebirth, so many other factors are left out of the equation.

Economics.

Impact of traumatic birth in hospital on a marriage.

Inability to give birth to more children because of permanent damage during surgical birth, (which is increasing in America).

Liver Toxicity in the baby from too many drugs.

Brain damage in the baby from too many drugs.

Lack of ability to breastfeed, I already shared Dr. Odents studies outlining why surgical birth has such a horrifying impact on milk production.

Lack of immediate post partum bonding, cause baby is in the NICU and momma is getting stitched up.

And the less intangible but equally alarming:

Permanent scarring from episiotomy which can have a horrifying effect on a womans ability to enjoy sex.

As an aside, would you as a mother prefer to have a fourth degree episiotomy with tearing down to the rectum, or would you like to enjoy the mother of all orgasms (as many freebirthers are describing experiencing during couple births) surrounded by candles and soft music and only your lover in the room? Click on this link to watch an amazing birth.

Here is a link to a YouTUBE clip from our childbirth video, A Clear Road to Birth.


I appreciate the time it must have taken you to post all of those tables and links about infant mortality....but this movement is about so much more than the fear of dead babies.

Once again I will ask, Can anyone convince me WHY I should go into a hospital to give birth in 2007?


I am not here to try to convince any of you to have a freebirth. I've done my homework and at this time in our nations history it is the safest, most prudent form of birth I can think of to accomplish the goal of creating a healthy family.

Please convince me how I am wrong in this analysis.

Jenny Hatch

Regarding that last line about having babies in hospital with midwives, I don't see why midwives can't deliver at home or birth centers providing there was prenatal care and everyone determined to be healthy.
I know I didn't care much for the hospital such as it was, but I also know there was no way these kids were going to be born at home-too many things went wrong during the pregnancy to risk it. I had complete trust in my physician, bottom line, and, while it didn't go as planned and as smoothly as we'd hoped, the real result of having two healthy babies certainly outweighed sticking to any dream we may have had. Stitches heal, but 15 years later, I still start to cry when I think about how I almost lost them.

Midwives are increasingly under fire in America, even those who provide excellent prenatal care, and deliver according to doctors rules (we call them medwives).


I referred to orgasmic childbirth, here are a couple of testimonials. Compiled by Laura Shanley

My introduction to the concept that birth could be orgasmic came via my college roommate Kim. We were discussing painless birth (I had just read Childbirth without Fear) when Kim casually said, "You know, some women actually have orgasms as they're giving birth. My mom had one with me."

What?! Even as open minded as I thought I was, the concept was almost embarrassing. I imagined this "mother" lying in a hospital bed, having an orgasm in front of a bunch of strangers - and doctors, no less. Yet I was definitely intrigued. If conception feels good, why not childbirth?

In the years to come, I would read about this phenomenon again and again, and although in my own births I was never able to achieve it, I think that in time, it will become more commonplace. Little by little, our culture is ridding itself of the fear, shame, and guilt that keep many of us from experiencing sex - let alone birth - as orgasmic. Perhaps someday, if we can fully accept our sexual natures, more of us will be able to know the joy that the following women have known.


* * * * * * * * * *


"I had been told to expect a 'dogging pain,' but was unprepared for the sensation of sexual ecstasy, the voluptuous feeling of penetration....Crouched on my knees on the little afghan, I caught the infant who rushed from my vagina into the small world between my legs, in the midst of an extraordinary orgasm from the inside out."-From They Don't Call it a Peak Experience for Nothing, by Ruth Claire(Mothering, Fall 1989)

"I feel the baby come down. The sensation is ecstatic. I had prepared somewhat for this being as painful as my last delivery had been. Yet this time the pulse of birth feels wonderful! I am building up to the birth climax after nine months of pleasurable foreplay. With one push the babe is in the canal. THE NEXT PUSH BRINGS HIM DOWN, DOWN INTO THAT SPACE JUST BEFORE ORGASM WHEN WE WOMEN KNOW HOW GOD MUST HAVE FELT CREATING THIS PLANET....HE COMES, AS DO I."
-From Prenatal Yoga and Natural Birth, by Jeannine Parvati Baker

"I had the most sought-after midwife in France - my competent and funny aunt Marie-Therese, whose radical idea it was that childbirth above all should feel sexy. I listened to nothing but gospel music during my pregnancy, a music quite new to me, and to France, and "It's a High Way to Heaven" ("...nothing can walk up there, but the pure in heart...") was playing on the stereo during the birth; the warmth of the singers' voices a perfect accompaniment to the lively fire in the fireplace. My vulva oiled and massaged to keep my hips open and my vagina fluid, I was orgasmic at the end. Petit Pierre practically slid into the world at the height of my amazement, smiling serenely even before he opened his eyes."
-From Possessing the Secret of Joy, a novel by Alice Walker

"Many mothers experience a burning or splitting sensation as the largest diameter of the baby's head passes through the birth outlet. Some actually experience orgasm."-From Mind Over Labor, by Carl Jones, C.C.E.

"In 1968, I gave birth to Robert Kirkpatrick. I was prepared, conscious, and in charge. After 4 hours from the onset of labour, I experienced an orgasm when my baby emerged from my body."-From "Ecstatic Birth: The conscious evolution of a possibility to a present reality," by Binnie A. Dansby; Paper delivered at Congress of the International Society for Pre- and Peri- Natal Psychology and Medicine, Jerusalem, 1989

"I happen to think that having babies is very sexy. The actual birth is so sensuous, very erotic. The feelings we've both had at the birth of each of our babies were so primal."
-Kate Capshaw Spielberg (a.k.a. Mrs. Steven Spielberg), McCall's, May 1999

"I started pushing while Michael supported me as I squatted. Immediately, after one vigorous push I felt Damian coming down. A tremendous excitement filled the kitchen and Michael and I seemed to merge as our eyes met. It was as if we had become one again as we did in a genital embrace. Yes, we were one. It was not just I who was having the baby. Michael was as well. The moment had become ecstatic. Sensations of every kind and color coursed through me. I was one, one with everything....And with that I shouted in sheer delight as I felt Damian coming....out he shot, into the safety of Michael's confident hands."
-From Happy Birth Days, by Marilyn Moran

"Biologically, you are designed to receive great pleasure from your body not only during lovemaking and intercourse, but in birth and breastfeeding, too....Birth offers sexual pleasure on a continuum from pleasant sensations (felt while your uterus rhythmically contracts in early labor if you're relaxed and feeling secure) to an intense birth climax (yes, just like an orgasm) as your baby slithers into the world of your waiting arms."
-From A Good Birth, A Safe Birth, by Diana Korte and Roberta Scaer

"This birth was not only painless, but very pleasurable. We had never read about this aspect, and it took us by surprise. As the baby crowned, I knew from Jean's look and sounds that she was having an explosive orgasm, which rolled on and on. What a long way from the pain and agony of conventional myth! Years later we asked a sympathetic doctor about this. 'Yes,' he said, 'I've seen it a few times. It may even be that many women have orgasms during birth, but interpret them as pain because the sensations are more intense than anything previously experienced and because women are conditioned to expect pain.'"
-From The Home School Challenge, by Donn Reed

"Giving birth is a highly creative act full of orgasmic feelings, and can be a moment of ecstatic pleasure for the mother."
-From "Mental First Aid in Pregnancy and Childbirth," by Joost A.M. Meerloo, M.D. (Child and Family, Fall 1966)

"Pleasure in birth may be the starting point for optimal family relationships. Our knowledge of reproduction suggests there may be a biological reason for connecting pleasure in birth with the best outcome for the baby."
-From "Psychological Factors in Birth and Breastfeeding," by Niles Newton, Ph.D.

"Pushing was absolutely incredible. It felt SO good. I loved the sensation of my daughter's head popping out; and her body coming out was incredible. I made roaring sounds. KT later asked me if I was in a lot of pain and I said I felt no pain at all. I was reaching down into the depths of my being - I felt like I was reaching back through time eternal, into the Great Mother herself - and using my power to push her out. The sounds were sounds of power. And I felt awesomely empowered. It was I could say the best feeling I have ever had. Primal force of life coursing through me. Power of Woman, Power of Birth, Power of Carolyn! If I can do that, I can do anything I set my mind to. The sensation of my daughter's body sliding out of my vagina was orgasmic. I still shudder when I think of how pleasurable that was."
-Caroline S.

"A woman in California was giving birth at home in a portable birth tub and feeling very sexy and loving with her partner. Each time she had a contraction she would cry out, 'Oh, baby, I love it. More...more!' Her windows were open because it was July, and soon a crowd gathered outside her home. When the baby was born amidst shouts of 'Yes!!! Yes!!! Oh, my God, yes!!!' her neighbors gave her a great round of applause. They only realized that it was a birth after they heard the cries of a baby."
-From Gentle Birth Choices, by Barbara Harper, R.N.

"It was the ultimate climax. I felt open, loose and free. Words cannot explain the feeling as my baby's body slithered out. To this day I can still sense that wonderful feeling inside. It makes me tingle."
-From "Unconditional Faith," by Allison Scimeca in the book Unassisted Homebirth: An Act of Love , by Lynn Griesemer

"Yet in a strange way the energy flowing through the body in childbirth, the pressure of contracting muscles, the downward movement of the baby and the fanning open of soft tissues, can be powerfully erotic....[Childbirth] can be the most intensely sexual feeling a woman ever experiences, as strong as orgasm, even more compelling than orgasm."
-From Women's Experience of Sex, by Sheila Kitzinger

"Birth is fundamentally a creative act, as is the act of sexual union....Indeed many women have described giving birth as intensely pleasurable and have discussed it in orgasmic terms....more and more women are enjoying labor and birth with their husbands just as they have enjoyed the sexual experience....Making love, orgasm and giving birth are all inter-connected."
-From Special Delivery, by Rahima Baldwin

"It was ecstatic, wonderful, thrilling. I heard myself moaning - in triumph, not in pain! There was no pain whatsoever, only a primitive and sexual elation....With the most spiraling, fascinating thrill of all, I felt my baby slither out. I wanted to shout with joy."
-From Natural Childbirth and the Christian Family, by Helen Wessel

"My first son was born by unexpected cesarian section. My second was a planned homebirth with a midwife assisting. He was posterior, so it was all back labor and he wouldn't turn. There was a great deal of pain, but in the last few minutes, as much pain as there was, it suddenly swung the other way to huge waves of pleasure as his body came out - an incredible RUSH like nothing I had ever felt before or since. I said to my midwife, Dhyana, 'Wow! What was that thing in the end!?' She said, 'That was The Gift. A lot of my ladies get that.' I held that baby and instantly loved him with my whole being. Maybe this is the way that nature had intended it to be for us. Now, looking back, the only thing I can think is that he went ramrod over my G-spot...all 9 pounds of him."
-From "The Gift," by Susan

"I asked my husband to make love to me as I was in a very romantic mood and wanted to feel him inside me urgently. It was a wonderful experience. I had a few orgasms during contractions - an absolutely delightful sensation. There was no pain at all....(since then) our lovemaking has gone from great to extraordinary."
-From "The Effect of Lovemaking on the Progress of Labor," by Marilyn Moran (Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Journal, Spring 1993)

"Birth has much in common with orgasm; the hormone oxytocin is released, there are uterine contractions, nipple erection, and under the best circumstances for birth, an orgasmic feeling."
-From In Labor, by Barbara K. Rothman

"Birth is a dark, private, and secret opening up of our ancient sexual selves. Birth sensations, when we allow them to be, are actually highly sensual - much like the intense, luscious, squeezing contracting that happens during orgasms experienced in late pregnancy.... the sensations of giving birth are not fierce and violent; they are rapturous - we feel an ever-increasing pressure on our cervix as our body prepares for the sweetest, most intense of orgasms, the lovely culmination of our labors of love: birth. During birth, we pant, scream, and throw our head back - this is sensuality with a purpose: we are taking in extra oxygen, releasing adrenaline into our bloodstream, and widening our pelvic outlet. And when the baby comes out all slick and new, we are in ecstasy, enraptured by the most heightened hormonal load we will ever know."
-From Resexualizing Childbirth, by Leilah McCracken

"At about 3 AM, I got a real feeling that the baby needed to be born, and also a great surge of energy, the first I had felt. Then I made a very astounding discovery. I was able, through prayer, to get knowledge directly from God, that birth is a sexual event, and involves the same mechanisms that the beginnings involve. I was able to get my labor started again and I was in hard labor within 15 minutes. As long as I was alone and able to yield to the sexual joy of the birthing, I was able to experience wonderful orgasmic feelings and no pain at all."
-From Pat Goltz, in the newsletter, The New Nativity, edited by Marilyn Moran

"My body told me to squat, so I did. I hunkered down on two feet, concentrating, knowing without being told that millions of females before me had brought their babies into the world in this ordained position. It felt so deliciously comfortable to squat; I felt the baby move down. Come...COME... COMMMMME!

It was then I began to scream, but not with pain - with joy. With release. I felt an enormous all-body orgasm as I bore down, again, and again, and again, crying out with lust and happiness. The baby was coming, and so was I. I pushed an enormous last push with every fiber of my being; the head and shoulders appeared. By then I was sobbing. I reached under the baby's armpits and pulled out...a child. A living, breathing infant...born perfect. Perfectly beautiful. My daughter."
-From Awakening, by Jen Bradley

"I returned upstairs with some of Stella's dance tapes. Belly dancing to the music, I found that the contractions were much more bearable....Oddly enough, the more obscenely I thrust my pelvis back and forth, the less it hurt. I was amazed! Why hadn't I known that these movements were linked to the act of birthing, I wondered....Moments later, I discovered that all the pelvic thrusting I had been doing in my life - dancing to get a date, making love, and now, giving birth - was integrally connected. All that thrusting had gotten me pregnant, and all this thrusting would help bring a new life into the world. While the drums banged in my head, I was serene knowing that I had found the secret to life: the glorious pelvic thrust."
-From "The Glorious Pelvic Thrust," by Maria Young Alders (Mothering, Winter 1994)

"Birth is always intimate and sexual, although the intimacy and the sexuality can be masked. My own personal experience of the births of my children confirms this. My feelings throughout my wife's labors I can describe only as those of a very close, physical-emotional, sexual union with her and what I felt to be the transcendent force flowing through her. The sensation was warm and soft, like making love, but was also strong, forceful and awesome. Each time the experience changed my life and allowed me a glimpse of the transcendental."
-Lewis E. Mehl, M.D., quoted in "Psychophysiological Aspects of Childbirth," in The Psychology of Birth, by Leslie Feher

My God. Befuddled by poverty and illiteracy. I love it. That's a good one. Nothing in those graphs shows or indicates anything of poverty or illiteracy. In fact that factor alone provides different factors. Nothing I have typed with my fingers in this thread has anything emotional attached to it.

Pick any of the countries that have the lowest infant mortality rate Iceland one of the highest literacy rates and poverty is low, Hong Kong, Canda, Germany, France. See the states that spend more on medicine.

Again, you insert words to push emotion into the discussion (if we can even call it that at this point.)

What does that mean? Inherently? Dangerous? Another set of emotionally charged words to obfusicate the discussion at hand.

Make your definition, make your clarification for yourself.

I will say that yes it is inherently dangerous because the evidence shows that death of the infant or the mother is greater than zero. Is jaywalking inherently dangerous? Maybe not in the middle of nowhere, but in midtown Manhattan, it has a risk of greater than zero. Again, the idea here minimizing the danger right? You believe and feel that freebirth defined as unassisted birth at home with no intervention of medically trained staff or midwives, provides you better safety. That is your choice.

Since you asked about Perinatal Mortality Rates, there are MANY studies and lots of data. I will cite just two of them.

http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary...1/01hus023.pdf
http://cynthetiq.com/perirates.jpg

Please note that the trend is downward as medicine has gotten better since the 1950's. If your hypothesis and claims were correct, then the perinatal mortality rate would be growing.

I can see here that ONE of the reasons that can happen is a physician, but it is qualified with the word inexperience. Not, "backed by pharmaceuticals" or "works in dirty cities, malnourished" and whatever qualifiers you've placed to emotionally charge the discussion. All the other causes happen, they are not qualified nor stated as cannot happen in house or hospital.

from WHO.INT
There is plenty of data showing that deaths during birth have dramatically declined as medicine advances. I have cited a few already.

Uhm....what do all those testimonials about orgasmic birth have to do with safety and health? Again, we're on one page, you're on another frantically trying to prove...what? That women should disregard medical advancement in obstetrics so they can have orgasms? WTF?

*shakes his head* I'm so glad that the large human dildo spreading her vagina open got her off. I'm still not sure she spoke to God, though. Maybe that was just the orgasm starting.

As for her and the rest of those "stories", how in the hell do they have any bearing on what we're discussing here?

EDIT: Didn't see ng's post. She said more than I did, I agree with what she wrote.

.

I would have to agree. I then read, "I referred to orgasmic childbirth, here are a couple of testimonials. Compiled by Laura Shanley." It cemented it for me that this discussion isn't about childbirth or protecting the child. It is about making the mother feel good.

It is exactly why this discussion hasn't been a discussion. It has been strictly presented fairly and simply, you don't address any of the points in front of you, but add emotionally charged words and then move the target.

I am glad that you have stopped here. I am very glad. This is a heavily trafficked site, and as you found us, other people looking for more information on freebirth. I hope that people find this and can easily make the decision as to what is good for themselves based on evidence presented in this discussion. I hope that they find this information least biased as far as your normal experiences which you claim you were dogpiled and flamed. I don't wish that upon anyone for their beliefs.

Why you should go to the hospital for childbirth? Because the evidence and statistics show that it is in the child's best interest.

So far your posts all show that your interests seem to be more rooted in the mother's interests. I have gone back and reread all your posts, to make sure that I'm not being biased in my opinion or missing some key element in your presentation of your side of the story.

All these emotionally charged statements have nothing to do with the benefit of the child, but have everything to do with the benefit for the mother. I'm with Sticky, it sounds like you are more about you and your well being than about the well being of the child.

Exactly, and in order for all this to be OK it has to work out that it is OK for the baby.
That is why we have all this discussion that is better for the baby - babies grow up better adjusted and all that.

I just can't get past the fact that if there is a complication - and the article I posted mentions that there is some type complication (small to large) in 10% pof births - then I don't see how anyone can take the risk with their child.

Ya, fine, the risk may be small, but it is more risky then with a trained asistant or in the hospital. This is just logical.

It has been hard to find any stats on this stuff but I posted (in my last post) about an Indiana community where there were "300 unattended births in the 1980s. The neonatal death rate was calculated as 19 per 1,000 live births, compared with seven per 1,000 for the rest of Indiana."

I was looking for the New Scientist Indiana study and haven't been able to find anything on it. I did however stumble upon this Junkfood Science blog entry.

Junkfood Science
I find this blog entry very interesting because she tries to show both sides. Jenny may try to dismiss the Uganda maternal mortality rates with waving her hand as being compared to "mothers in the poorest sections of the country, befuddled by poverty and illiteracy," What she is missing is the facts that poorer nations and poorer states have higher infant and maternal mortality rates.

Again, I have to thank Jenny for giving me the passion to do the due diligence in researching the actual facts surrounding childbirth.

Again, Jenny dismisses this because it is someone within the medical industry stating this information. Yet someone who is not within the industry cannot truly interpret the data and findings as suggested by abaya and sapiens earlier.

I must admit Sandy Szwarc, BSN, RN, CCP, the blog author is on point. Jenny is also on point within the same vein albeit misguided and misdirected. Jenny's premise is flawed from the beginning stating that the data isn't available, when it readily is. What is not readily available is data showing that freebirth is better. The best I can find is comparing lack of access to medical facilities and trained professionals has increased mortality rates for the mother and child.

Sandy, Thank You!!! We need more people to make these kinds of claims, "other social engineering classes they have to sit through, replace them with some sound medical, scientific and online media literacy could help prevent us repeating history. But it goes beyond critical thinking skills and education. The healthcare industry has some work to do, too. It does itself and consumers a disservice when in the eyes of the public it blurs the distinction between good, credible science and untenable modalities."

I love Sandy!!!!!

I also PRAY that people researching Freebirth will find this thread and thoughtfully consider the various comments that have been made. I also hope that those who are planning a hospital birth will consider what has been said.

As noted ad nauseum, sharing studies on birth that were conducted during the early 90's do not take into account the very real use of Cytotec for labor induction right now TODAY, the HMO depersonalization of continuity of care, nor the fact that more drugs than ever before are being eaten by pregnant women-both prescribed and over the counter meds. They also do not factor in lifestyle and quality of life issues, economics, or the very real issues surrounding the black hole of obstetrics, post partum care. All of the money, statistics, focus is on the birth event itself...and very little follow up research is being conducted on the long term effects of drugs and surgery American Birth on American Families, including drug addictions, postpartum depression, inability to breastfeed, and bonding disorders.

When Obstetricians ban the use of Cytotec and get the induction rates down to a reasonable level, use the brewer pregnancy diet as the foundation for healthy pregnancy, get the section rates down to a reasonable 10% and ease up the laws against lay midwifery, then I will believe that it has found its soul. Until then? I'm claiming my rights of self determination over my own body and staying home!

During my last freebirth, after doing my own prenatals, two colorado laws kicked in, that should I have chosen to have a midwife attended homebirth, would have precluded me having the peak experience of a successful home birth.

First Law: No midwife is allowed to attend a woman who has gone past 42 weeks at home. Ben was born 42 weeks and 3 days.

Second Law: Midwives must transfer care to an OB if the mothers membranes have been ruptured for more than 24 hours. My water broke three days before Ben was born.

It was almost as if Ben was laughing at those Colorado laws, saying....you can't get me with your stupid rules.

He was born on the very day he was ready to be born, in the quiet and sanctity of our bedroom, surrounded by love and his family.


I predict that as we get more socialized in America birth is going to continue to be a dangerous and deadly event for women and babies. Watch the stats over the next ten years.

I shared the information on ecstatic and sexual birth simply because you are a group that claims an interest in evolution of sexuality and philosopy.

It will be a cold day in hell when a woman experiences total sexual fullfillment during a C-section.

How baby is born has a profound effect on how that child is mothered. And if during the early weeks after the birth mother is recovering from her knife in the belly rather than riding the ecstatic wave of sexual birth, which some women have described as renewing them not only sexually, but also emotionally, spiritually, and physically (and I have felt this renewal), this will also have a NEGATIVE impact on how that mother relates to her child.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that a mother who experiences hormonal ecstasy during birth juxtiposed with a mother who is numbed with belly pain will have amazingly different reactions and connections in her memories of the event.

How many people reading this thread know women who have claimed to their dying day that giving birth was bar none the worst experience of their lives?

My paternal grandmother was one of these women. She had typical thirties hospital birth - knocked out, lots of drugs, huge episiotomy, and forceps to pull out her nine pound sons.

How do you think that impacter her marriage? Her children? Her views of herself as a woman? Her overall sense of feeling at peace with the universe?

I have met many woman who have described birth in those terms.

Yet I get together with a bunch of freebirthers, and the happiness and joy is coming off of them AND THEIR CHILDREN, in waves. Bright eyes, loving and tender nurture at the breast, and an overall feeling of peace in the room.

These are the intangibles of Freebirth. They are not going to show up in a study. They are not going to turn up in some dissertation or professional paper on the so called FACTS of birth. They are not even considered in the equation. But I can testify, THEY ARE IMPORTANT.

And it is in educating women about these intangibles and the very simple and basic facts of natural birth that I find profound satisfaction and joy as a child birth teacher.

What keeps me motivated is the birth stories, the pictures, the videos, the joy, and the absolute KNOWING I have that families are being strengthened and renewed by freebirth.

Does this mean that all mothers will give birth perfectly with perfect outcomes every time? Nope. Some will need professional help, and some will even die. It is going to take several generations before we get to fulfilling that prophecy I mentioned by the prophet Isaiah where he said we would get to the place in our society where "no more would there be an infant of days and man would live to the age of a tree".

To say that reality is all tied up in Medical Birth and Chemical living as practiced right now today in America is just a farce and a delusion of what is real and what is possible.

I want to thank all of you for a stimulating and invigorating discussion. I think it's time for me to go.

All of my work on the internet, including chats like this, are dedicated to the babies who will be born in the future. May they all enjoy a peaceful and gentle entry into the world.

Jenny Hatch

Oh, thank GOD.

The one thing this has done for me is to convince me to make a web page.

Unfortunately, many young women, seeing that the first few pages on Google when you type in "freebirthing", are essentially all pages created by rather devoted advocates of this practice and are all obviously in favour of the practice without considering much of the science (or God-given common sense, but that's another issue).

What is needed is the "con" side of the argument to appear on the first couple of Google pages to offer a more balanced and objective perspective.

It should be pointed out, as I think this gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, that most people are not opposed to home delivery - but with a doctor, nurse or highly trained and licensed midwife in attendance. My own POV is that deliberatelty "going it alone", whoever you are, whatever your background, is inherently selfish and ill-considered, an attempt to find meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence.

Amen highthief!!! Well said. Fortunately I have a brain and can think for myself (and I've given birth) so most of the "stuff" thats been posted here by Jenny is going in one ear and out the other. Its the women that are easily brainwashed that I'm worried about.

I cannot, just cannot read this crap knowing how many of us have refuted the crap that has been spread here.

Asking for people to look to their genealogy and then discounting it when we DID? I spent time to gather facts from a rural georgia county that was not "industrialized" or a "big city"...and when my fact dont compliement what you've claimed, you have to totally ignore it (and then misstate what I said)

I really really really feel for women taken in by this and I can only pray that no one loses a child or their life unnecessarily because "god told them giving birth was sexual pleasure" and that they don't need anyone with training at the birth

jesus christ this has been some of the most absurd stuff IMO that I've ever read.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/images...ies/2rofll.gif
She's said that before, though....

Maybe it affected YOUR mothering, it didn't affect mine.
The life-threatening dangers you put your son through for your own selfish reasons make me shudder. You gambled and that time, didn't lose.

Yeah, doesn't the placenta or something start to break down at that point, leading to potential damage to the child, which is why women are typically induced if they go past 42 weeks? And that if the membranes break and there is no delivery within 24-48 hours, an increased risk of infection for the infant occurs?

Just to take this statement a bit further (sorry to diverge from the medical discussion, folks), I have heard that this is the only rational reason for the existence of the G-spot.

Think about what it takes to stimulate the G-spot. You have to use fingers (or a toy), because you have to reach in, then hook back and apply pressure. How else could you achieve pressure on that spot? A baby's head is perfect.

Think about what happens during a G-spot orgasm. Huge muscular contractions and a large quantity of fluid release. Both of these would be very beneficial in birthing a child.

But, there's no reason that you couldn't achieve this with the right mindset and a midwife, or even an understanding doctor.

You are exactly right. Many doctors and midwives have reported women experiencing orgasm during natural birth. I first read about it in Robert Bradley's Husband Coached Childbirth.

Problem with epidural is that it numbs the woman and even if she is fortunate enough to experience this ecstasy during the birth of her child, she won't feel it. Episiotomy also can interfere with the birth climax.

And you are also right that the birth orgasm helps the child to be born. Thanks for sharing.


For the gals who talked about freebirth being all about the mother.

Does anyone here honestly believe that a mother who starts asking her doctor how many drugs she can have during labor soon after her first contraction has her childs best interest at heart?

Doesn't that qualify her as a selfish person, only concerned about her "experience"?


And highthief, I wish you well with your web site.

You are going to have some stiff competition from the freebirthers though. Unassisted Childbirth.com gets 70,000 unique visitors a month, with hundreds of thousands of hits. And with all of the recent media attention, Washington Post article comes out this month, reuters blasted all over the world last month, and Eve magazine in the UK comes out this month, I predict those numbers to double very quickly.

My own sites get pretty good traffic, and because of the way the internet works, those numbers grow exponentially every time a momma shares the good news with her email list. The most gratifying fact of my traffic is the thousands of people who use the "send to a friend" function on both my web site and blog. I feel so much joy thinking of the shifts that are occuring in the minds of parents all over the world as they read this empowering and enlightening information, and then take the leap of faith and actually give birth alone.

But you go for it. It's obvious you have some real passion, you are an articulate spokesperson for the indefensible practice of allopathic birth, and really believe you have the "facts" on your side. You share those facts! And at the end of the year when your site has fizzled out from the five people who have visited it and the freebirth sites have 2 million unique visitors a month, and then 5 million, and so on and so on....just remember this little chat.

I would encourage you to save your time and money and do something productive with your life. You know, give birth to a child or mentor a teen, or raise a puppy, grow a garden, or sing in a choir. And let those gentle activities free your mind from the shackles of science and the tortured world of obstetrics.

Just a little bit of friendly advice!

And now, Adieu.....

Jenny Hatch

First you say Industrial age information doesn't count:
then you now discount more current statisticis:
It is OBVIOUS that you don't understand how and what infant mortality means since it doesn't NEED to include or disclude it. The statistics themselves should be agnostic to those conditions. The data collected is just data. It is up to the person reviewing the data to look at the information provided and then ask the crucial and critical questions that then explain the data. If you don't want to look at the 90's look at the 70's and 80's and compare those to the 50's and 60's. Again, if your cytotec fears had any bearing to the data, there would be some data trend going upwards. But anyone with eyeballs can see in the data I have posted, that the trends go downward.

Looking at the scope of the infant mortality rates (IMR) it is apparent that there is some relationship between prenatal medical care and continued care since they track from birth to age 5.

You narrow the scope, widen the scope, adjust the findings to determine and rationalize your position. Again, it is your choice. It is ulitmately your choice, but it is also your responsibility.

Again, that is YOUR responsibility. Because your doctor didn't, and YOU didn't bother to inquire, then it is the doctor's fault, that is patently absurd.

Yes it does. Just like those who want to have a scheduled c-section since they want to control the date and time of the birthing. It speaks to some degree to the character of the individual.

i'm glad my mom is not that nutty... she's into the hole 'back to nature organic thing' but when it comes to real medical things, she goes to the doc.

First off, I'm a father, so how I might manage to give birth to a child, I'm not quite sure - perhaps if I don't go see a doctor then I'll be able to miraculously give birth! Perhaps fatherhood is another thing you aren't in favour of?

But what I do know is that I'm honest - you keep saying you're "done" and "finished here" yet keep coming back. Is going back on your word part of this freebirthing nonsense too?

As I read your Natural Family website I encountered you adding some credentials to your name PhD MH, so I double checked as I recalled you didn't have any completed undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate work.

From Jenny's Dissertation on Motherhood
After reading the above I have a hard time taking you seriously as being "educated" in the classic sense and definition. Perhaps it is as hyperbole as your "murder" definition.

Furthermore, after thoroughly reading your website and other freebirthing websites, I stand in awe. Had it just been as simple as, "This is my choice for my body and my baby" without the rhetoric of Big Pharma and Doctors more intertested in playing golf, I think your movement would have had more support from those that don't understand nor subscribe to your viewpoints. To selectively expound on why the current medical industry with respect to birthing is flawed, and then not to wholly reject the whole system seems hypocritical.

Here is the study that the Guardian article mentioned was covered in the New Scientist.
(I added color to highlight specifics)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Abstract

I really can't believe this thread is still going. I guess some people like to believe their opinion is better proof than cold hard facts. Looking at post #142, It interests me that Afghanistan is #2 on the list. You see... I'm there now. Our unit does a lot of MEDCAP missions (medical relief). I've heard from people about the loss of newborn brothers, sisters, sons and daughters a LOT in the three months I've been here. Oddly enough, there is no medical care or facilities here. Women ALWAYS (outside of maybe Kabul) give birth at home, usually with the aid of a female relative. Must be a great program to have the second highest infant mortality rate IN THE WORLD. What numbers can possibly convince an intelligent, thinking human being that your opinion otherwise is rational? It seems like a great disillusion to me.

I said I THOUGHT I was finished with this thread, especially since it is obvious you are more interested in talking about medical statistics related to babies who die during the first year of life rather than freebirth and wether or not we are "nuts". As the original poster, you said:


"Am I missing something or is this concept really defensible?"

I have been trying to explain to you the various different reasons that families get in to Freebirth.

Sorry for thinking you were female, it is difficult to determine who is male and female in this forum.


Jenny


We accept the fact that some women will need c-sections. And are even grateful for the times when women really do get the true help they need during birth. I don't reject the whole system, I just reject the way that technology is god in birth.

You forgot to include the KICKER in my introduction to my dissertation.... in that portion you cut and pasted....and it is this:

What do those little letters mean?

Jenny Marie Hatch PhD MH

To get to my Dissertation simply click on this link below. This file is stored on my blog with pictures and video enhancement.



I have had mothers tell me that my Doctor in the philosophy of Motherhood line was a milk snort through the nose moment for them. Spill coffee on the keyboard, choke on breakfast laughing so loud.

It was meant to be humorous, and taken out of the humor context it does look a little silly.

Choosing to be a stay at home mother does tend to bring some condemnation from various circles in our society, and living in the one county in America that has more PhD's than any other place in the world, (Boulder County) the ivory tower is quite high and inpenetrable to those of us who have little more than a high school degree.

Whatever, I know what I am about. And now I believe we are really getting off topic talking so much about me and my sites.

Jenny Hatch

I don't mean to be insulting, but do you understand what perinatal means? If so, how can you insist that the perinatal statistics provided by Cynthetiq are irrelevant in judging the safety of birth? He isn't just supplying infant mortality rates, look more closely at the charts supplied.

At what point in an unsupervised unaccompanied birth attempt by an inexperienced mother trying to listen to her body do you think she would be able to determine "this isn't working, i need immediate medical attention or a c-section?" I am baffled by the logic you claim to follow.

Something you learn in higher education is that if the evidence is contrary to everything you have thus far learned, question the source. The word 'educated' means something very specific, and I find it offensive that elsewhere you have claimed that you belong to a, quote, "very educated and proactive group of mothers." This directly contradicts your statement that you have little more than a high school diploma (not a "high school degree," incidently).

Let me be very clear: I am not insulting your intelligence. You can be smart (very smart, in fact) without being educated, but you cannot be considered 'very educated' without having undergone (and completed) some sort of higher education.

I find it quite offensive that you would refer to yourself as a PhD in a deceptive manner. Claiming that you use it for anything other than to bolster yourself, and give weight to your opinion, is, in my opinion, merely creating some plausible deniability.

In looking up prolonged gestations(over 41 weeks), I found some interesting tidbits:
There is a general increase in death rates, partially due to some prolonged pregnancies being the result of malformations. Rates are considered small, about 6 in 1,000.
There is an increased chance of the baby inhaling meconium(its first bowel movement) or passing it into the amniotic fluids. This can lead to death.
Uteral-placental circulation should be tested.
The baby starts to lose weight and body fat.
When your water breaks:
If the amniotic fluid is ruptured for more than 24 hours your risk of developing a uterine infection increases dramatically.

Several things about freebirth really bother me, specially if it's decided that neither a doctor or midwife will be part of the process:
1) Breech.
2) Multiple pregnancy(it can be that you wouldn't know you're carrying more than one-happened to my grandmother and, I'm sure, many women before the advent of prenatal testings.)
3) Large baby.
4) Malformations/congenital defects
5) Nutritional deficiencies
6) Miscalculations of time
7) Self-diagnosing

Forgive me, but I think this thread might merit it:

http://internetarguing.ytmnd.com/

Out of context is a fair statement, if again you were using it tongue in cheek. But again, you misrepresent your knowledge and credibilty by adding those designators education earned and bestowed by accredited colleges and universities. I am of the opinion that when reading something that deals with medicine and biology, designators of higher education are important factors in author credibility. There is no "kicker" to explain your choice here.

I don't see where I can purchase your books, either by small press, brick and mortar or internet sales only. I can only find electronic versions, which I assume are the only incarnation that exists as far as I can tell. Books are very specific as to what that means, and I must again state that you are stretching definitions to beyond hyperbole. I do hope that one day you can find a publisher who will actually print your manuscript. It can then be properly scrutinized and subject to peer review.

Your self-designated PhD is not amusing, in any context, to those of us who have actually put in the time and coursework towards getting a bona fide PhD. Since graduating from high school, I have spent the last 10 years in higher education (with several more to go), and I'm not about to put up with someone who jokingly adds a PhD "MH" after her name on a public website. I don't care if you were trying to be funny; that is just total horseshit.

Seconded.

Kills your credibility.

Shows that you really AREN'T educated, so you want to pretend to be.

You're like those people who drive around in sold-at-auction police cars pretending to be a cop. Then, when someone calls you out on your bullshit, you reply with "oh, I do it to mock police officers" or other lame-brained excuse.

If you EVER hope to convince someone with MORE than half a brain, DONT PRETEND TO HAVE CREDENTIALS YOU DON'T HAVE.

Please discontinue breeding.

(reads thread) ... (shivers)

I'm sticking to housecats.

Humans are just all bad.

Yeah. It's really insulting to even jokingly self-apply a "PhD". People spend 8 - 10 years studying intensely to earn their doctorates and hone their basic skills. You have no formal education in the birthing process. Experience, and reading birthing books, do not count. I don't even get the impression that you have CPR training- [PSA]which, by the way, I recommend everyone take. It's extremely simple: it's a quick, single class but it's invaluable in case of emergency... either cardiac, or in the case of choking/airway obstruction. (PM me if you need help finding a CPR trainer in your area)[/Public Service Announcement]

The fact of the matter is, modern medicine is why neonate deaths are so low (as compared to the entirety of recorded past, and in current third-world countries). Your individual personal experience matters fuckall in the grand scheme of things. Just because you, Madame Consumer, didn't get perfect nutritional and/or prenatal care, and weren't informed that you can ALWAYS specify the level of your medical care as it pertains to medical intervention (up to where the fetus' life is in peril, meaning that you can specify that you do not get a c-section unless absolutely necessary) doesn't mean that your anti-medical-establishment rants are justified. It means your personal experience sucked ass, and you believe that it's a systemic issue rather than a specific one.

Medicaid pays for prenatal care. People with no insurance and no money in general get professional medical prenatal care and nutritional advice. This availability helps to stem trends in populations of low economic status such as premature birth, low birth weight, and complications due to malnutrition/drug habits (including alcohol and tobacco) of the mother. People with no money and/or less education have access to appropriate medical care that will help to ensure the birth of a healthy baby.

Myself personally, as someone who does have formal education in the birth process, I'm shocked and dismayed that you actively profess that modern medicine is useless and out to kill your baby. It's just asinine. Reading birthing books is all well and good. Having enough babies to qualify your vagina as a human clown car is not education. It's experience.

Your experience is meaningless when compared to formal medical education- you insist otherwise, and that's frankly insulting.

You hold no formal training in nutrition in general, prenatal nutrition and care, or the ability to diagnose any medical condition, but proclaim infallible superior knowledge without any substantiative information, let alone proof.

A consortium of midwives hell-bent on home birth? Well excuse me, but with all due respect to midwives, midwives' collective opinions on the care of pregnant women are meaningless when they buck against all established medical knowledge as practiced by doctors and without any research or data to substantiate their very contrary claims. When you're trying to effect change on a medical standard of care, you need to have lots of research and hard data to prove the benefit of changing. I have seen nothing that even glances in the direction of "research" or "data".

I hate to throw it around in this way, but in my professional opinion as a person with formal education in the field which is under discussion, which gives me credible authority to make the following statement against your debate, I have the following to say regarding your overall position:

http://www.whatwillyoubring.com/temp/Shh3.gifShhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................

*closes eyes and chants*

"There's no such thing as batshit crazy. There's no such thing as batshit crazy. There's no such thing as batshit crazy. There's no such ......"

This screams bumpersticker!http://www.debatepolitics.com/images...ies/2rofll.gif

I can't take full credit... I saw the picture below a long time ago and it was the inspiration for my continued use of the phrase:

(Pic is SFW but contains kids, so I'm not embedding it)
Vagina: It's not a clown car.

Oh Really???
 

"We consider this site to be the best of its kind. Nowhere else on the internet will you find a better assemblage of discussion, knowledge and intrigue. Feel free to browse around to get a feel for the site and see for yourself. We hope that you'll enjoy what you see and want to register and join in the fun.

If you've ever wanted a place to discuss sensitive topics with mature people, and get quality feedback on your thoughts and ideas, look no further. That's what the TFP is all about. This community was founded in 2002 on the statute of mature discourse and the tradition lives on strongly today.

At the TFP, you don't have to worry about immature flaming"



Ha ha ha ha snort, hee hee, heh, heh, ha ha ha

Jenny

you must really not frequent many message boards if you are under the impression you have endured immature flaming here.

Jenny, while I and many others here understand your enthusiasm for your chosen lifestyle, one cannot expect to be protected from criticism simply because we wish it to be so. Your charges of immaturity should be tempered with the acceptance that you are not in a majority when it comes to such adamant belief in freebirthing, Hell I have been alone with my wife for two births and quite frankly would walk out of the room after you talked for 10 minutes.
While you likely took that as an immature comment as well, it was not....it was honesty. Rather than communicating your beliefs in this thread, you have done little but preach them, and few adults wish to be preached to. If you actually want people to listen to your message I would recommend a more subtle approach....as it is you come off somewhat fanatic and do more damage to your cause than good.

Whether you've noticed or not (and I'm betting on not), this entire discussion has been populated by mods, past and present and not once were any warnings issued or edits made.
Tec made an astute observation-that all your posts were preaching. Few, if any, questions were answered; instead, we were entertained with such 'facts' as orgasmic birth and subjected to outrageous claims of some mass OB/GYN conspiracy.... I would also go so far as to say that by offending anyone who actually does earn their PhD by 'jokingly' attaching one to yourself, you've killed any possibility of having your position respected as one of esteem.