Homeopathy in Childbirth - objections from hospital midwife

[Rolf]

I have booked a doula for my (hopefully) imminent labour. We have been to see a homeopath together and plan for her to throw remedies in my mouth whilst I'm in labour.

I was told yesterday by a very reliable source (my hairdresser!!) that a friend of his recently delivered at the same hospital and when her doula started giving her homeopathic remedies, the midwife got very worked up and asked her to stop. I'm not sure whether or not she did, but the hospital is now undertaking an internal inquiry (whether generally or into this particular case, I'm not sure). The patient apparently was perfectly happy with her care from both the hospital and the doula so I think it's for the purposes of clarification rather than a big witch-hunt.

I'm slightly concerned that because of this there will be generally twitchy atmosphere about someone not employed by the trust giving a patient any sort of medication. I've added to my birth plan "I would like to use homeopathic remedies in labour and am happy for my doula to administer them". Do you think that's adequate or should I go further? Should I write out a list of the remedies I'm taking in with me, the name of the homeopath who dispensed them and a more sweeping waiver? Or is that the litigator in me speaking?

I have quick labours so won't be able to waste time debating with them. My doula is well-known at the hospital and I think will be very good at this sort of advocacy. And I have a good relationship with the hospital although as it's a big teaching hospital there's every chance that in labour I won't be looked after by anyone I know.

Any thoughts would be v welcome.

[ScienceTeacher]

Ah, bunny friendly...

[CoteDAzur]

jimjams - I went at this statement:

"I personally believe science (medicine especially) has lost an understanding of the power of observation."

... because, of course, the scientific method is all about observation - with large numbers, control groups, double-blind tests - whereas any claim re effectiveness of homeopathy is anecdotal - "My niece had allergies and homeopathy helped" - which ignores multitudes of people on whom homeopathy had zero effect.

Then I realized you have in mind the autism/vaccines issue.

The problem there is not that science has 'lost an understanding of the power of observation'. It is just that the needed experiments are not yet done. We need to see studies that focus on children who have regressed following vaccines. They keep doing experiments on the infant population at large, and declaring that yet another study 'proved' vaccines don't cause autism

Why are the experiments on population at risk not carried out? I don't know. Pressure from Merck et al? Scientists unwilling to be crucified like Wakefield?

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

I wasn't really thinking about autism/vaccination in particular. I was thinking more generally than that.

I do believe that science is very poor at observation- in that as soon as we observe something we can't explain it is discounted. And if it's something that doesn't sit comfortably with current theories it comes under heavy criticism. And is almost impossible to secure funding for research. This has certainly been the case for autism and vaccination (until now) but also for any observations coming from parents for example research into gut issues- such as gut bacteria is now yielding lots of interesting results - potentially very important results- but it is parent funded research and this is stuff that has been discounted and ridiculed for years. I've lost count of the number of rolled eyes I've encountered at saying that ds1 is gluten free. But I get the pleasure of watching him beat his head on concrete when he eats the stuff. Peanuts too - and peanuts are preserved in something that the proper controlled research is now showing to be potentially problematic. Taking observations as the starting point is a good way to be scientific. Dismissing something without investigating it because you have no theory for it is not a good way to do science imo. And it's a way that a lot of science is currently carried out. That's a problem with the way it's funded.

Outside of autism I always mention Helicobacter and stomach ulcers. The (nobel prize winning) scientist was ridiculed for that theory. In the end he had to infect himself to get people to take notice.

Yes of course the anecdote is not the be all and end all - but at the moment there's a huge reluctance to take on observations and examine them scientifically. The vaccination stuff is being investigated now - using macaque models. The first study cost involved giving macaques the equivalent baby vaccination schedule. Vaccinated macaques were late developing a sucking reflex (and there were other differences). The control group was ridiculously small - but apparently the protocol used was the standard in vaccination testing- using monkey models is expensive. A bigger study is now in progress- it is costing millions and it is parent funded.

[CoteDAzur]

I agree with you that theories that challenge current understanding have a hard time being taken seriously. Or that if there is no theory to explain why, the results of some experiments might be ignored - for a short time, until they get to be verified/repeated.

None of this applies to homeopathy, however.

Proper scientific experiments have been done to test whether or not homeopathy is effective. The result is that it is no more effective than placebo - i.e. it doesn't work.

This is very different than not doing any tests or getting a positive result and ignoring it.

Not only do experiments show it to be ineffective, but our understanding of physics also says it should be ineffective. If you dilute a solution to the point of '1 drop in olympic pool', '1 drop in the Atlantic Ocean', and even '1 drop in all the seas of the world', then quite naturally, that solution should have no effect whatsoever.

So... why believe in homeopathy?

[CoteDAzur]

The only way homeopathy can work is if water has memory of substances it has once contained - which, incidentally, is the claim behind homeopathy.

Stop and think about this ludicrous claim. If water indeed had such a 'memory', no water would be safe to drink.

It is fantasy, pure and simple. A profitable one, for some.

[Pruners]

Message withdrawn

[thebecster]

I know Masuru Emoto's work on the memory of water is not scientific, but I do think it's beautiful. I believe in homeopathy because it works for me and my DS. If it didn't I'd stop using it. But I respect other people's opinion's. DH thinks it's bunk, but he saw me have homepathic remedies through labour then tells people 'She didn't need any drugs or anything! She didn't even have gas and air'. Had a ton of remedies though! Good luck to the OP - you sound like the sort of person who will be able to make your wishes unequivocally clear to the hospital, so can't imagine you'll have a problem.

[CoteDAzur]

That is called 'placebo' effect.

Mind over matter can be quite impressive. Congratulations on yours.

I quit smoking five months ago, in a similar way - spent hours reading websites that talk about the horrors of dying from smoking, and convinced myself that I am not a smoker anymore.

I had No Cravings Whatsoever. It is a miracle, but it happened to me. It doesn't mean that the water I was drinking at the time had a molecule of nicotine from a cigarette butt someone dropped in a pond a year ago.

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

What happened to the clustering of molecules in water at low dilutions? Last read something about that in the New Scientist years ago (before I'd ever used homeopathy). Was that work replicated?

As I said before when I take paracetamol I don't really care whether its the placebo effect (and there's a big on with paracetamol) that makes my headache go. I just want my headache gone. I'm the same with homeopathy. If it works I'll use it again. I don't really care how it works. It's has one several occasions had pretty big positive effects in this family (having started using it out of desperation whilst not believing). TBH I don't care if people sniff about double blind trials. It works for us and hasn't yet left any of my children non-verbal and with severe learning difficulties (unlike western medicine). I don't insist that people have to use it. Nor am I particularly interested in sharing our successes or converting people. I don't really care what people do in their won family and I'm always amazed that people get so opinionated about others doing something that has no effect on them.

I'm far more worried about the side effects of drugs (whether conventional or alternative). Western medicine has contributed massively to ds1's severe disability so I don't rush to give my kids anything these days (conventional or alternative). If they're getting something I want to know what the potential side effects are versus the potential benefit is etc etc. My biggest fear is that ds1 will develop epilepsy. He's very high risk. I won't want seizures but I'm not keen on anti convulsants - truly stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'd probably have to take the drugs but also investigate alternatives such as diet.

[CoteDAzur]

What 'clustering of molecules in water at low dilutions"? Are we going to have to review elementary physics here?

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

Oh stop being so rude cotedazur I was talking about this article in the New Scientist and wondering whether there was ever any follow up work on it. I read the article about a year before I used a homeopathic remedy, filed it away in my mind as an interesting study and have never followed it up. I thought that there would be people queuing on here that could point me in the direction of studies showing how and why this study was flawed. I'd be interested to read any follow up studies if there are any.

Incidentally whilst searching for that article I came across this one with some major limitations as stated in the abstract. But perhaps the cash strapped NHS should be investigating further to see if indeed it can be cost saving?

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

This is an interesting study as well from the BMJ

caused a flurry on the BMJ letters page as well Haeve only skimmed but looks interesting. There are other studies like this out there, but I have work to do.

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

And I think this response pretty much sums up my view tbh. I love doctors who are prepared to take this attitude. My old GP was like this and ds1's current paed is.

"Brian J Lipworth,
Professor of allergy and respiratory medicine
Asthma and Allergy Research Group,Dept Clinical Pharmacology,Ninewells Hospital ,Dundee
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The science of homoeopathy

I'm not really too bothered as to the science of homeopathy-as I would be quite happy for my patients to benefit whatever the mechanism,whether it be a "placebo" effect or not.If homeopathy is a form of expensive placebo and it makes patients feel better,then I'm all for it,especially if has no adverse effects.There are many patients I see with allegic rhinitis who clearly do not benefit from conventional therapies or who get side effects.A more mature attitude is to admit the limitations of conventional pharmacotherapy and suggest patients try elsewhere. To deny patients this opportunity is to assume a stance of extreme arrogance .If we can get the answers from RCT's that homeopathy is of benefit in allergic rhinitis then we should include in guidelines that it is a possible option for alternative therapy irrespective of the "science"."

[CristinaTheAstonishing]

"If we can get the answers from RCT's that homeopathy is of benefit in allergic rhinitis then we should include in guidelines that it is a possible option for alternative therapy irrespective of the "science"." Note the if that statement starts with and the "science".

I think the latest was that Prozac works in moderate or severe depression.

[CoteDAzur]

From your link:

"a whole new dimension to just about the simplest chemical reaction in the book - what happens when you dissolve a substance in water and then add more water."

That is not a chemical reaction!!! How can any publication with the word 'scientist' in its name say that?

And this is also from your link:

• "Other researchers failed to reproduce Benveniste's experiments"

• "Benveniste himself does not think the new findings explain his results because the solutions were not dilute enough. "This [phenomenon] cannot apply to high dilution," he says."

Meaning: Experiment results might very well be wrong, and even the guy who did them says it doesn't apply to large dilutions like in homeopathy.

Even if it turns out that some molecules cluster when diluted, that doesn't explain homeopathy is effective. It only means that maybe one in a million pills will be effective.

Like this comment says:
---------
How Does This Help?
By Bob

Tue Nov 13 16:53:59 GMT 2007

(...) if I dilute by a large enough amount voila I have a single crystal of the soluble substance sitting in a huge vat of otherwise empty water.

----------

[CoteDAzur]

I wasn't being rude, by the way, but just asking if we needed to go into the basics. Maybe we do. I don't mind it, if you are interested.

Such as, why dilution is not a chemical reaction.

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

Beneviste's study was different one. To do with memory of water, not clustering of molecules. I know that his hasn't been reproduced.

The clustering experiments were not related at all to homeopathy when done. The authors didn't discuss homeopathy in the paper. I was simply wondering whether they'd followed up with further work in this area.

Anyway since it seems that no-one knows the answer to that I will google one day when I have time.

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

oh cote stop being so patronising.

[grouchyoscar]

Rolf I wanted my BF to provide aromatherapy during my labour. I was shocked to find out that she couldn't as she wasn't covered by insurance. Seems the hospital gets very skitish as should anything go wrong in the labour they would be liable.

I spoke to the head of midwiffery at the hospital, Told her what I would like to happen and asked what the hospital required. I then obtained her aromatherapy cert and insurance for her and took them in. Copies went on my notes and I got what I wanted. A very skeptical MW had her mind changed when she saw how beneficial the therapy was

See if you can contact the head honchos at the hospital and talk it over. Chances are they will be happy to support you, so long as their backs are covered

BF is now in her 3rd year on a midwiffery degree at the same hospital! Result all round I think

Best of luck with getting the birth you want

[CatharsisItIs]

Rolf, I used homeopathy in labour, administered by friends. Midwife wrote of the apparent positive effects in my birth notes. WRT your situation, maybe either approach the hospital to see what their current opinions/preferences are regarding homoepathy.... then use your waiver writing abilities to construct a short para in your birthplan aimed at covering their fears and absolving them of responsibility?

WRT homeopathy debate on this thread, all very interesting, mostly above my head! I do Reiki though so a general faith in energy based healing. IME have seen homeopathy and Reiki work on youngsters and animals (inclusive of what you might call double blind settings) and though obviously a basic argument in comparison to some profered here.... I don't understand how a placebo effect can be used to degrade the potential healing properties of either in these situations.

OTOH, yes! Homeopathy and Herbalism (which I have a deep interest in) are completely different. It's not the first time I've come across the two being bundled together on MN, including a lady who was given homeopathic advice WRT birth by a herbalist?!

[madamez]

Oh come on, homeopathy is a total con and you would be better off spending your money on a good book, chocolate or gin. The only things that get 'better' after homeopathy treatments are things that would get better anyway and a good kick in the jacksy would work just as well.

[CatharsisItIs]

Can't see how a good book, chocolate, gin or a good kick in the jacksy would be useful or 'allowed' in the labour ward in this case TBH. Unless they're bribes/threats aimed at a non-compliant midwife?

Ach, each to their own, some'll never believe, some never wont.

[AussieSim]

It is with great hesitation that I post a response here - seeing that Cote has already made her views so clear and having been personally attacked by her on an earlier thread for my views and experience of alternative remedies.

But here goes ... I was being treated by a naturopath/homeopath and an acupuncturist throughout my last two pregnancies (DS2 and DD) with supplements and herbs etc. Also I had DS1 in Germany where homeopathy is much more widely accepted and even our Paediatrician prescribed homeopathic treatments for DS1.

My last two pregnancies and births were very healthy and uneventful compared to my first when I had only conventional mainstream medical treatment.

For immediately following the birth of DD I had Arnica to help with repair of the pink bits and Phytolacca to ward off blocked milk ducts/mastitis which I have suffered with previously. I also used the aconite to help me manage stress during the pregnancy and immediately following and found it to be very effective. I am very pleased not to have had to take antibiotics or to have had to sit on a doughnut pillow or to have even suffered the baby blues in the period following DD's birth.

[getbackinyouryurtjimjams]

I always laugh at the 'save your money' 'money would be better spent' etc etc as homeopathic remedies are so cheap About £4 for a bottle that will last years.

Interesting from the link above that it seems to have the potential to save the NHS money as well.

Your experience mirrors mine AussieSim, but I have learned not to share it .

The letters page of the BMJ that I linked to above makes really interesting reading. Not so much from the actual discussion but because it was really easy to pick out which doctors I would want to see- and some that I thought would be wonderful- and which ones I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I don't really tolerate arrogance from doctors these days- not after everything we've been through with ds1 courtesy of conventional medicine.

[CristinaTheAstonishing]

AussieSim ?in Romania there?s a big fashion for medical doctors to train up in alternative medicine as well. I think this is to boost personal income, which is still low otherwise. I can?t for the life of me think how they can take leave of their scientific senses quite so much, but I suppose at least they won?t have ignored other signs and will give homeopathy in addition to conventional treatment and after a proper diagnosis. I think this is the case in Italy too, but then I wonder if it?s because they have an overproduction of doctors who find hospital employment difficult.

As for bottles of water lasting ages ? well, it would, wouldn?t it?