Discovery Health - Baby Story... EPIDURALS ALL ROUND!!

[M2T]

I have confessed to being slightly obsessed with the afore mentioned Maternity and Labour program... On Discovery Health there is a British program and an American one.

Why are American woman made to lie on there back whilst in labour, it looks awful!

And:

Is it just me or does it seem standard for an American woman to have an epidural?? And it seems to me that a C-section is offered if the woman feels too tired to carry on with the rest of the labour!!
One woman had got to 9'5 cm dilated, but the Doctor offered her a C-section coz she was getting tired. As far as I could tell there was NO medical reason why she should have a section. I dare say there are a lot of women that would say yes to a C section when they had been in labour for 12 hours and were 9cm dilated, but is it really the best for Mum or Baby???

Have I got it all wrong? Maybe some of you American Mums can set me straight.

Having said all that though (sorry it was SOOOOOOOOO long ) I did feel very reassured by the fact that all the high-tech stuff was there immediately should we need it.

Pupuce, are you a midwife too ?

Yeah, I think that the truth is that most women, respective of nationality, want a healthy baby and to feel a part of the whole process (pregnancy, labour and delivery) rather than feeling like a thing to be managed by medical professionals. My point is just that it is possible to have medical interventions, epidurals, etc and still be happy with the way things go. So when people say, "Oh, a standard epidural, why oh why?", I think, "well, because it's available and I don't like pain". The c-section thing has a lot to do with the individual ob it does pay to shop around for someone who believes what you do, if you believe something strongly (and can shop around!). I guess reading these (and other posts) I get the impression that people think all doctors are bad and only midwives can be good. While I've fired my share of doctors (no obs, though, as I chose them pre-pregnancy), I've always felt like a partner in my (and my children's) care with the people we've ended up with. To me, that's what's important with any medical professional. Anyway (just clarifying this in my own mind), to me, medicalized doesn't mean impersonal or that I've been left out of any decisions made about my health. But I do admit to leaving any doctor, nurse or whoever who thinks I'm too stupid to make informed decisions or takes my fears/worries as impositions on his or her time.

Sweetypie, I do think that there need to be more midwives/doulas/stand alone birthing centers in the US.. ie, there does need to be more of a choice. I had thought of having a doula for my first baby (5 1/2 years ago) in the US but decided against it (because I really didn't want someone other than my husband with me the entire labour ) and I woman I knew casually (my next door neighbour's best friend) was a midwife who did home births in Chicago. (The treatment the midwives who did home births in IL got was shameful and I certainly don't agree with that.)

I just get annoyed by people thinking that because there was medical intervention in my labour/birth (I had GBS and the baby was back to back -- delivered him that way, even though I had an epidural) it wasn't "normal" or is something to be derided. It was fine by me, fine by my son, so who else matters?

(slight rant over-- good point about mumsnet not being representative of the general public. Truthfully, I was thinking that if I had had to give birth on the NHS, I would have opted for a home birth....)

There was no way I could have controlled my pushing wobblymum. My body seemed to do it involuntarily, I couldn't stop it !

BTW, it does strike me as a bit stupid to have the pre-natal and del suite on different floors.

Sorry, I never meant my story to come across in a way that upset mums who went for full or even partial intervention

I don't 'like' pain either but I just didn't like the idea of any of the heavier forms of pain relief. It seemed to me that they either had an adverse effect on the baby or they had an adverse effect on me.

At the end of the day, it's all about what works for you and your baby. I really don't think that those parents who choose to go the high-tech route are derided by those who chose the opposite. By the same token please do not assume that those who take a low-tech approach are some sort of crazy, evangelical gluttons for punishment !

What I find interesting on the Discovery programmes (is there anyone on mumsnet who doesn't watch these...?) is the number of times you see intervention leading to other problems - I saw a classic one where the baby was a week overdue, was induced, mother needed epidural, because was on drip, baby got distressed, turned drip down, labour progress stopped, ended up with c-section. I'm all for epidurals if you want them, and had one with ds (who was induced) - dd was natural, and hurt so much less! Had no pain relief at all for her, whereas with ds I thought I would die if I didn't get the epi.

Oh no WSM, you didn't upset me! I think of it like a marathon-- I'm so happy that you did what you wanted to do and proud of the women who want that and do it; I honestly think it's quite an accomplishment. But I didn't want to and don't think that that's bad. You don't seem to think it's bad, either, so don't worry.

Off to read the Guardian and the latest installment of their "Why America Has Always, Does and Will Always Suck" series. sigh.... (and no, I can't think of one good or even not-bad thing about the current administration)

Phew

www,

Surely one of the reasons for the turn around in statistics relating to home birth vs hospital is the foundation of the NHS. I don't know for certain but suspect that prior to this you would have had to pay. Also extended families were more readily available to help deliver at home. However the mortality rate was higher. Perhaps one of the midwives on here would know more info.

As to the hi tech deliveries I think we are more conditioned now to believe that it is not necessary to feel the pain and more options are available. Perhaps those births shown on the tv are a poor representation of what really happens in the States but if you were going to have it recorded wouldn't you go for the make up and all the pain relief on offer to give you some semblance of dignity. Wonder how they get people to volunteer to do it - I wouldn't !!

btw I ended up on my back both times - my legs just gave out.

stripymouse

I've ordered the toddler book of Baby Whisperer from amazon as a result of seeing the programmes. dd just turned 2 and is stubborn about many things and difficult to leave. Hope I find a few ideas there.....

Agree so much with JJ's comparison to a marathon. Good on you if you want to do it, I personally couldn't think of much I'd enjoy less
My c-s was the perfect birth for me, safe, calm, controlled, over very quickly, no pain, in a clean environment - and I could lie down throughout! I also felt I kept my dignity (I personally would have been mortified and devastated to be screaming, writhing etc in public - which is just my PERSONAL opinion and feeling and no reflection on anyone else) and could get on quickly with the real business of parenting, which is what it is all for (IMO, of course!)
Yes, I think we all want a good birth, but what constitutes a good birth varies hugely from person to person. I liked being pregnant, was appalled by the prospect of birth, but love, love, love being ds's mother. I have a friend who had a five hour first labour - very painful! - and everyone said how lucky she was. But I would still prefer to have a c-s. Five hours seems a long, long time to be in pain to me!

BTW, bought the Babywhisperer and found it hopeless, personally. Ds had no intention of sticking to a 45 minute routine, and I actually found it impossible to work out exactly how a day was 'supposed' to go on her routine. It was baffling! I actually found Gina Ford more helpful with naps, not that I followed her in any meaningful sense.

musica makes a very good point about one intervention leading to another - induction and epidurals are cases in point - I would refuse to be induced unless there was clear evidence the placenta was failing or likely too. I would refuse an epidural too, now that I know all the complications that can ensue (why don't they tell you these things in antenatal classes so you can make an informed choice).

I personally cannot understand how a caesarean can help you to "get on quickly with the real business of parenting". All the statistics point to an intervention-free birth being the ideal birth in this respect.

What I mean, is, the birth is so unimportant compared to the next few decades of actually being a parent. I regarded it as no more important than opening a box to get at the thing that really matters inside.

The moment of actually holding ds was, of course, wonderful, magical and unforgettable, but the pain beforehand I was happy to do without

So, just out of curiosity, was your c-section elective for non-medical reasons ? If so, had you ever even considered a vaginal birth whilst pregnant ?

Hmm, opening a box, interesting choice of words LIZS, yes, infant mortality was higher BUT there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between that and hospital birth I wouldn't have thought. There is no evidence that hospital birth now is any safer than planned home birth. This has been proven over and over again by statisticians. I have got some details of the reasons for the rise somewhere, I'll post if I can find them. I suspect many women went into hospital back then when it began to be an option because it was thought to be better and because it meant getting a rest from other children and the demands of a family (this being when many women automatically gave up working on marriage and/or children).

WOW! Didn't expect all this when I checked!

JJ - What do you mean our dirty hospitals, infection levels etc etc in NHS Hospitals!?? Where do you get your info from? How many children have you had in an NHS hospital? I don't think that intervention is abnormal, I mean that it seems to be forced upon these women and in some cases is totally unecessarily.

Safe to say I'm not the only one who has an unhealthy obsession with watching babies being delivered... thank goodness we're ALL at it.

When I mentioned lying on their back I didn't mean just to deliver or even in well established labour, I meant from the minute they get into the hospital they are lying flat! They could be there for hours... how uncomfortable??

Stripeymouse - Wonderfully put! Bravo.

Musica - Excellent point about one form of intervention leading onto others then ultimately a Csection.

If Mumsnet isn't representative of General Public..... who does it represent?

No I don't think hospital births are any safer than home births now. The trouble is that there has been a definite trend over the past 40 -50 years, most of us would have been delivered in hospital with a week or 2 's rest for our mums too. I fear that it never becomes an option for many women and therefore the trend is hard to reverse.

Incidently , can anyone remmeber when a soap character last had a planned home birth ? The last home delivery I can think of is Sonia's in Eastenders and that was hardly a positive image. For a hospital birth on tv there is always some crisis requiring a medical intervention either during or after birth. You rarely see a straightforward delivery in either instance. If these sort of worries are so frequently presented then I think most women would tend towards the perceived "safer" place ie. where there was hi- tech equipment and specialist staff on hand should you need them.

I do remember being told that one intervention could lead to another and that was one reason I was keen to avoid an epidural. I did have a very good NCT teacher who presented balanced and statistically supported information. Can't remember the NHS midwife covering this particularly.

I agree with the others m2t. I don't think Mumsnet is representative. I think it attracts a certain type or types of people.

Don't know about the rest I'm afraid - we're too poor to have Sky

It attracts parents that have access to the Internet.... apart from that I think that there is a HUUUUGGGGE variety of people here....

Poor
Moderate
Rich
Working Mums
SAHM Mums
Single Mums
Gay Parents
....and from all around the world!
There's even a few Dads

How can that not represent a fair majority of people?

Like I said... what type of people does it specifically attract (apart from those who watch too much Sky )

LIZS, good point about soaps/other tv and pop culture and perception of home birth. I've never seen anything positive, you're right. Is it any wonder women are scared? (I count myself as one of those women despite being on for giving home birth a go again). M2T, yes, there are lots of different people here but that doesn't make it a representative cross section of the UK population or of UK parents. I think that's what we're trying to say, those of us who've said it.
This message is previewing as 2.22pm when my pc says later so maybe it'll end up in the wrong place on this thread, like the other thread? Apologies if so.

I did say "types" M2T

Also like I said I don't have Sky so it must also attract those who don't watch too much Sky. This is the thing that has most tempted me to get it though I think.

Wickedstepmother - I am a doula
M2T - to start with this thread and pregnancy/childbirth threads are for people who care in this topic... not everyone would want to participate or show the same level of knowledge/opinion/curiosity as all mumsnetters.

Wickedstepmother - I am a doula
M2T - to start with this thread and pregnancy/childbirth threads are for people who care in this topic... not everyone would want to participate or show the same level of knowledge/opinion/curiosity as all mumsnetters.

wsm, yes it was for medical reasons - complete placenta praevia, so I have to say, I do have the view that birth can be a very dangerous business indeed as it would have killed me and ds without high-tech intervention. Before I found out (very early on) I was looking at the epidural rates of the local hospitals to find one with high epidural rates, 24-hour epidural cover and possibly mobile epidurals (which reduce the rate of forceps etc practically right back down to the norm in non-epidural births). However, when the midwife told me I'd need a section, I was actually pleased. She said, 'aren't you going to cry about not having a normal birth?" and I was thinking 'why?" I was a bit concerned about the PP, but not about the section at all. And now, being so very, very ancient and having had one section I do know I would get another easily if I had another baby, which is also reassuring. I have to say, the only real disadvantage I can think of with another section is having to stay in hospital for a couple of nights away from your child - but maybe that wouldn't be so bad either