Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

To not understand the assault/internals threads?

463 replies

GingerJulep · 21/07/2013 00:04

I've never had one so am really struggling to understand how so many women on here (NOT aimed specifically at the other poster on this page, there are lots in different sections!) manage to have internal examinations before/during/after birth that they say they didn't consent to/asked to be stopped?

I mean that physically, don't they have the option to just shut legs/take feet out of stirrups/kick HCP in face?

Nearest I've ever come (so far, lucky me!) was someone trying to take blood suddenly... I made an automatic physical reaction (big flinch/jump) and they simply couldn't do it until we'd had a quick cat.

So, how much more difficult is it to avoid/stop internal exams if you really want to IYSWIM?

OP posts:
bordellosboheme · 27/07/2013 15:14

As an aside, there are some real twats out there in healthcare. Ds had a febrile convulsion when he was 6 months. We were rushed to a and e. when he came around he was thankfully happy and bouncing around. I overheard one nurse saying to another, you wait, he won't be smiling anymore once we take the bloods.... Or something like that as she scoffed a plate full of flapjacks (whilst leaving me without food a whole day) - dh had to come in with a bag full of supplies. Why talk about a baby like that?

soapboxqueen · 27/07/2013 15:17

Yes, that would get people's attention but I think they would be assuming the problem was something different than it is. It would confuse the message.

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 15:20

"Assaulted at Birth"?

Fair enough, I would think, since none of these escapades can be particularly pleasant for the baby, either.

bordellosboheme · 27/07/2013 15:33

What is the difference between rape and assault? If someone is entering my genitals without my proper consent, I consider hat rape...

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 15:37

Its not the same in law for starters.

I know its controversial and does upset some people who have been raped to call it the same thing or to use the term 'birth rape'.

Its best to use a term that unites rather than is divisive between different groups of women, especially those who have been abused.

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 15:41

Bordellos, in English law rape is specifically carried out with a penis (and includes anal & oral.) You would alienate more women than you attracted, not to mention laying yourself open to a massive libel charge.

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 15:43

Actually, an extract quoted above used the word "battery" which is technically correct. Again, though, its common-usage connotations give the wrong impression. Assault is a perfectly good word.

Assault covers forcible restraint, unlike words associated with sex crimes.

courgetteDOTcom · 27/07/2013 15:46

I've avoided using the term so far because I didn't want to further derail. The phrase often used is birth rape. i think it legally applies more in the US where rape is anything entered into an orifice, rather than here I believe is piv/a. I think it's a good term to describe it, I think we need to keep the emphasis on the fact it is a sexual assault because that's how violated it makes women feel.

soapboxqueen · 27/07/2013 15:47

I agree with redtoothbrush, I think it will detract from the issues in both camps.

At the end of the day campaigns for any purpose have to get their message across clearly. If I was watching the tv and the presenter said our next guest is here to talk about birth rape, I would assume it was women who had been forced to have sex just before or after birth. Once a message has to be qualified or explained, it loses some of it's power.

More importantly, many women who had been assaulted or received degrading treatment may not identify with it and assume it was something else.

I think birth assault is much more distinct yet can cover a range of situations or even medical assault during birth.

courgetteDOTcom · 27/07/2013 15:52

Mega cross post, I'm slow on my phone.

Having been through both I agree with the word. I think worrying about offending people is half the problem, these women on this thread who've over again almost apologised for sharing their experiences.

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 15:59

Just going back to the restraint thing for a minute, I read a bunch of accounts last night from women whose babies were spine-to-spine. Most knew how to position themselves for more effective pushing (side or leaning forwards), but were pinned down on their backs, with most yanked into stirrups as well. Horrible. And unreasonable!

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 16:01

I think the associations of the term 'birth rape' are correct in many respects, but I have seen too many people object to it online to want to use it as the way to front any campaign. You want to get attention, but it has to be right attention and also not offend people you might be wanting to help. It might be right to 'offend' those who are in power and are committing these crimes, but I think you can do it in other ways by being hard hitting.

There are a number of articles about the subject about, so it is a useful term to know, and perhaps use as part of any campaign to explain how it is viewed by some, but not as the headline phrase.

This is an interesting Blog from a few years back about how we should try and recognise the crime. It does use the phrase (which I why I say it perhaps has its place) but if you are going after institutions in a more formal way, which is what you really want rather than being sensationalist, you need to use the correct terms.

Being sensationalist won't effect change. It will be dismissed by hospitals as being tabloid rather than serious in its intentions. It also doesn't get the message across well about the more 'trivial' breeches that are occurring (and as I say, equally wrong and equally illegal). Its such a strong term, that it would be easy for these women to not think they have also been wronged.

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 16:12

Very very good article about use of terms and language

navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/22/what-doesnt-feel-right-isnt.html

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 16:19

Venezuela has the specific crime of Obstetric violence

sarah-stewart.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/obstetic-violence-new-legal-term-in.html

Obstetric violence may include:
1. Untimely and ineffective attention of obstetric emergencies;
2. Forcing the woman to give birth in a supine position, with legs raised, when the necessary means to perform a vertical delivery are available;
3. Impeding the early attachment of the child with his/her mother without a medical cause thus preventing the early attachment and blocking the possibility of holding, nursing or breast-feeding immediately after birth;
4. Altering the natural process of low-risk delivery by using acceleration techniques, without obtaining voluntary, expressed and informed consent of the woman;
5. Performing delivery via cesarean section, when natural childbirth is possible, without obtaining voluntary, expressed, and informed consent from the woman

I find that interesting...

bordellosboheme · 27/07/2013 16:38

Wow Venezuela is ahead of us! This should be the campaign I think. Venezuela has this piece of legislation, we now need it in the uk. Think i will be going to Venezuela to give birth next time......

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 16:44

I think its not a bad idea. It definitely defines a range of different things then and is very clear in objectives.

The big devils advocate question would then be:
Why do we need this law? Why isn't it covered by existing laws?

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 17:19

Oooh, Obstetric Violence says it right!

Goes to show what can happen when you have a female PM Wink (er, not the one we had, perhaps)

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 17:42

It could be created as a specified sub-set of assault, I think, RTB. Offences against the person can only be proven if there is intent to cause injury (intent has specific legal meanings, but they're pretty much as you'd expect.) Medical practitioners would have a ready defence to this so, in a lot of cases, malpractice would provide a stronger basis. Some posters, though, have said their HCPs used expressions like "that'll teach her", which would imply intent.

If I were a lawyer, I'd also look at using the practitioner's knowledge & experience to show they knew their actions would cause injury, therefore intent was present. I'm not a lawyer, though, you need a grown-up to comment!

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 17:45

Reason I ask is simply because it would be the first thing that someone would ask, and you need to be really clear about all the whys, how, and wherefores of this for it to really be taken seriously.

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 18:16

Points 2, 3 & 4 of your Venezuelan summary can't exist outside the labour setting. Since 1 & 5 specify obstetric procedures, they are also different from common assault or ABH.

garlicagain · 27/07/2013 18:18

Or other forms of malpractice, sorry.

Itchywoolyjumper · 27/07/2013 20:51

Red thanks for all your research. I think the obstetric violence angle would be a good one to go for.
We could begin by writing to our MPs/MSPs/MAs/MLAs asking them to help get the Venezuelan model made law here and linking to this thread as proof as to why this should be looked into.

CaptChaos · 27/07/2013 22:12

My DS1 was at spines. No-one told me, no-one told me anything really. When I went into labour I stayed at home for as long as I could bear the pain, and then went into hospital. I was told to lie on a trolley in a corridor of the maternity ward and was told off when I walked about during contractions, I 'had' to lie down, or they couldn't admit me. After a while, I was allowed into the delivery room where I was strapped up to a monitor. I now know that this is the worst position for a woman who's baby is at spines to be in during labour. I was dilating far too slowly, I know this because of the half hourly VE's I was subjected to. During one of these, the MW broke my waters for me, without telling me she was going to do it. She took the gas and air away from me, because I was using too much. The pain was unbelievable, I had been lying in one position for hours, every time I moved I was told off because it would 'upset' the monitors, I was in what was fairly useless labour and I was panicky and felt out of control. I begged for an epidural and was sighed at, eventually she went and found someone who gave me pethedine!!!! Long story short, constant VE's eventual epidural still nothing much happening, until a doctor came in and told me I was having forceps if I didn't 'hurry up', needless to say, a little while later, my DS was born with forceps, I lost a lot of blood and passed out. I came round to find about 20 people in the room, my legs were in stirrups, they were all staring at my vagina, while the consultant (?) talked about me as if I wasn't there. He sewed me up (no one told me that they were going to cut me) and then left, he never spoke directly to me, I don't remember him even looking at my face. I was meat.

This was in the days where they wouldn't let you go home unless you had defecated, so I was chugging fybogel just to get out of there! Eventually I went and was allowed to leave.

My experience is in no way as bad as others, however, I was sexually abused as a child and the feelings of loss of control, the pain and someone forcing their fingers inside me without my consent made me wary of repeating the experience. The mere thought of a doctor inserting anything into me now makes me panic, I can't face having a pap smear, I have made so many appointments and then chickened out, even thinking about it now is bringing those feelings up. I have had to sign a letter which states that I have refused to have a smear even though I know that I am risking having undetected cervical cancer if I do.

What upsets me is that this is still happening, judging by other poster's experiences, there are still HCP's who treat women as if they are meat. We should be angry about this, we should be doing something about this, we are not meat, giving birth is not something someone does to us.

Sorry, terribly rambling, but I started and couldn't stop.

RedToothBrush · 27/07/2013 22:17

Ok, we've got the problem, it seems to be pretty widespread and unacknowledged unfortunatley, we've got a loose idea for a focus and how you term it, we've got a vague reason why its needed and not currently covered. Still needs work but I think its fairly easily achievable.

Your next problem is how how do you get hospitals and officials to acknowledge there is a problem within their institution? And how do you persuade them to actually change their institutionalised procedures and change the practices of their staff. On no budget. What line will the unions take on this issue too? Its worth thinking about. Preempt whats they'll throw back and have all the answers ready. Make it water tight.

The 'getting them to listen' bit is actually the hardest. The experience with Bounty was that the hospitals were really dismissive of questionnaires, being biased or unrepresentative and usually they had a counter one to pull out of their backsides.

The obvious way would be with legal test cases, but given the nature of this, and sheer scale of it, there are a few problems with that too. Having enough people to come forward publicly to do that is perhaps unlikely and would be traumatic for those involved. Even if you proved it in one hospital, they could still then say, it was an isolated thing and one hospital and not endemic throughout the entire system.

The other way would be with whistleblowers who work in maternity. Again difficult.

You need to do something to effectively force every Trust to sit up and take note. So you need to play hardball about what they are liable for and catch them out with their own information or policies, by pretty much showing they are flawed in someway.

Its no good just to say this is wrong because the issue concerned has been going for so many years in this way and despite however far women's rights have come, no ones really managed to tackle attitudes in maternity AND within the public. Its all covered up in the whole 'you should just be grateful you and your baby are alive' thing.

How do you show, that these attitudes are allowing maternity in the UK to be massively under achieving and failing women and how do you show that what you are proposing is affordable within the financial contraints of the time?

This one is actually the million dollar question. All the letter writing in the world actually won't do a lot, if you don't have the jugular vein to go for in the first place.

I think I have a few ideas up my sleeve for this one, but this is where its tough and where people really need to think and I'd really like other people to come up with a few too. Especially from people within the profession, as I think they'll have some cracking thoughts on this.

Think evidence. Think proving something. Think where are their policies clearly non-compliant with existing law, but no one has really thought about it or challenged it. Its there because the problem clearly exists; you've just got to pin it down in a way thats undeniable and makes it very difficult for them to make excuses for or just ignore.

bordellosboheme · 27/07/2013 22:42

I may have to stop checking this thread as its too triggering for me (and I expect for lots of posters). I need to protect my mental health. However, I really hope that there is enough testimonials here for:

  1. mnhq to take this on as a campaign for legislation against obstetric violence,

  2. evidence of mistreatment of a large uk cross section of women. These posts themselves constitute narrative evidence.

I may check back In a couple of days when I'm feeling stronger, but red toothbrush and others you are doing well....

Good luck xx