Birthing mother abused for refusing male nurse 2

[sakura184]

I was actually quite glad the thread reached 1k as I'm not really enjoying it at all, but I've started this on me just in case there is anything else to add.

It ended on the note of talking about the subject of baby centered care.

I think negligence, forced intervention and poor treatment in hospitals can be just as responsible for a damaged baby as a woman who decides to go it completely alone.

One thing I will say, is that we can't have it both ways. We can't insist women are listened to and then blame the hospital when/if it all goes wrong.

But it seems that some women are being overriden by doctors, mainly by arrogance , but perhaps also a fear that they may be sued or something, I don't know. the doctor knows best model still seems to be the norm in hospitals. Women need to be listened to and catered to a lot more

The original article that was the reason for the thread

pjmedia.com/parenting/colorado-doula-and-assault-survivor-investigated-by-dhs-for-refusing-male-nurse-during-birth/

You started another thread and in the same breath you are glad the other one filled up because you aren’t enjoying it? I think you’re lying again. I’m done, whatever.

At least I get to respond to Zebra who seems somewhat confused about the law and the way CSC works.

There are guidelines that govern how information must be shared to safeguard children. Local Safeguarding Children's Boards will have their own policy documents around how to handle a concealed pregnancy (what it is called when a person does not access antenatal care or does not tell health professionals she is pregnant). Every one I have looked at lists not accessing antenatal care as a reason for not only a referral but often a child-protection enquiry assessment.

This assessment would look at the health needs of the baby and how these are being met in pregnancy (or not) among other things.

These guidelines are based on legislation, they are legal.

Birthrights indicates in their factsheet that HCPs may make a referral if they believe there is a risk to the unborn baby. They also say that they shouldn't do it 'just' because a person has declined antenatal care.

However, there is no evidence on this factsheet to back up their claim and if the LSCB has that as their policy then the professionals in that area must follow those guidelines. Whether Birthrights want them to or not.

The woman is free to make a complaint to the healthcare setting or to the LA or even write to the LSCB and ask them to change the policy, but they are under no obligation to do so if they feel it is important to safeguard children.

They don't just pull these guidelines out of their ass.

Birthrights indicates in their factsheet that HCPs may make a referral if they believe there is a risk to the unborn baby. They also say that they shouldn't do it 'just' because a person has declined antenatal care.

Indeed refusal to engage with antenatal care or whilst giving birth CAN be PART of a referral if it helps to demonstrate a PATTERN of behaviour which gives cause for concern.

But as a singular reason, no.

Exactly Aargh, I started another thread because I didn't like the other one
WTF lol

RTB I can understand you saying that, but it is not what the policy documents say from any of the LSCBs I looked at. In fact it indicates that as soon as a concealed pregnancy is revealed a referral should be made to CSC. It might not be what Birthrights say, but they're not the ones making the guidelines.

After all, you can't know if there's a pattern of behaviour if you know nothing about a family and there has been no assessment done during pregnancy (by HCPs).

It seems to me that the only reason a woman would conceal a pregnancy is because she's frightened of a hospital birth. I would say she should go for a midwife/homebirth but are the pregnancies being concealed because they are high risk ones that wouldn't be allowed to homebirth?

I think if hospitals had a better track record and the possibility of an all female unit, for example, and if they eliminated misogyny and had a better culture of listening to women, the problem of concealed pregnancies would surely disappear? Or am I being naive?

There are lots of reasons why a pregnancy may be concealed. Fear of medicalisation is one and IMO is one of the ones that would indicate the lowest 'risk' to a child other than risk to health which obviously could still be significant.

It can be due to fear over a partner or of services finding out about DV. It can be due to fear of family finding out (teenagers/young women), fear that a child would be removed (previous removals, very young mother) or shame around baby's parentage (cases of abuse).

You can obviously understand why the referrals are necessary as you can't know what is happening and the reasons why the pregnancy was concealed unless you explore it.

You seem incredibly blinkered by this idea that hospitals and doctors and intervention are so objectively awful that they are the only reason for women taking risks with their own/their baby's health. This is absolutely not the case although if enough people keep saying it then people will be encouraged to avoid medical care because "oh well it's awful, everyone says so".

RosesAndRaindrops I know right? It’s baffling.

loopsdefruit good point in being able to reply.

In fact it indicates that as soon as a concealed pregnancy is revealed a referral should be made to CSC

I think it depends on how you define concealed pregnancy. If you do engage with antenatal care even for one appointment that's not concealing the pregnancy. Because you've told someone about the pregnancy. I think that the women in the case mentioned in the article did engage earlier in their pregnancy even if they did not do so later or for the birth.

I believe concealment of a pregnancy typically refers to a denial of pregnancy too. Not a failure to attend an appointment though the two things can be related.

The women mentions all had older children too which would probably make a difference as there was a full medical history for those births and the relationship / engagement with services. They could look at this information if there was concern.

Its not a teenage girl with no support and a history in care. Nor a woman with severe mental health problems.

I think concealment of pregnancy as such is perhaps a red herring for that reason and maybe its being misinterpreted.

Women conceal pregnancies for all sorts of reasons, some want to go off grid for example. I’m this country we have safeguarding duties towards children, they don’t have a voice and so a voice essentially has been created for them. You don’t want to tell anyone you are pregnant? What else aren’t you telling? Will the baby be given a birth certificate? At least go and notify your gp that you are pregnant and become acquainted with your local hospital incase you need to use it.

RTB it can also be those other things but, for example (you can google concealed pregnancy CSC or similar and get a few different guidelines)

"A concealed pregnancy is when a woman knows she is pregnant but does not tell any health professional;

or when she tells another professional but conceals the fact that they are not accessing antenatal care;

or when a pregnant woman tells another person(s) and they conceal the fact from all health agencies."

newcastlescb.proceduresonline.com/chapters/p_conseal_pregn.html

I think if hospitals had a better track record and the possibility of an all female unit, for example, and if they eliminated misogyny and had a better culture of listening to women, the problem of concealed pregnancies would surely disappear? Or am I being naive?

I don't think you necessarily need to eliminate the men part.

You do need to do the more listening part though.

And no I don't think it's naive given how I felt and how being listened to alone, did help me trust in a way I never thought possible at the start.

I was considered high risk for concealment of pregnancy (and trying to deliberately freebirth in a potentially high risk situation) and had a documented history of severe anxiety and avoidance behaviour.

It was put to me that they didn't want this situation so felt it was better to help me with the birth I felt I could cope with rather than alienate me. It was about providing support rather than saying I was wrong or reckless or a bad mother in my choices.

The framing made a huge difference to my thought process because of where the power and control lay.

Side note, I don't think that women should not have the right to refuse care but I do think it's helpful for these babies to be known to services. These families may be less likely to seek appropriate care for their children once born or not to follow accepted medical advice regarding (just some areas I have noticed):

• Supplementing if baby is not getting enough breastmilk.
• Vaccinations
• Vitamin K
• HV monitoring

At that point the child has rights independent of its parents and should be safeguarded to ensure that it can develop and meet appropriate milestones and be kept healthy.

Concealing a pregnancy due to an ideological favouring of 'natural is better' could indicate potential problems in the future. It's something for people to be aware of.

Loops, but none of the women in that article did any of those things. And they did engage and THEN opt out. 'Not accessing antenatal care' is pretty open to interpretation; there isn't a legal obligation to attend every appointment offered to you, merely to demonstrate that you have acknowledged the pregnancy by effectively reporting your pregnancy at some point.

It's an important distinction.

It's not about the law, you won't be prosecuted for not doing it, but regular non-attendance at appointments and refusal to follow medical advice (if it's felt that this choice could harm the unborn baby) would indicate that a parent is not meeting the baby's health needs, which could then lead to them not meeting the needs of the child once born.

Social services are not the police, their remit is not legal/illegal, it is about assessing the safety of children (well CSC anyway).

It's ideally a supportive process, to encourage the woman to get care for herself and her baby and help her if she has reasons for not doing so. Obviously her reasons might just be "medicalisation of birth is wrong" but she would still be encouraged to get the support.

The odd missed appointment isn't going to cause a problem, but a pattern of not attending, and in some case an unassisted birth, are grounds for further enquiries.

but regular non-attendance at appointments and refusal to follow medical advice (if it's felt that this choice could harm the unborn baby) would indicate that a parent is not meeting the baby's health needs

Yes but the examples given were for low risk women, who had attended and told of intention, had previous older children (who presumably had gone to the doctors where appropriate), had a previous homebirth and certainly don't seem to have given cause for concern other they weren't doing what they were told.

That's rather different and suggests an overzealousness to force compliance rather than a medical concern beyond that.

It's the big picture rather than merely not attending an appointment and that's where an individual approach is different to a blanket policy. Which is where I think the Birthrights position comes in.

then people will be encouraged to avoid medical care because "oh well it's awful, everyone says so".

Oh god no,it's always been the total opposite in my experience. I even dumped a boyfriend that I'd considered having a baby with because he said he'd insist on me having a hospital birth. He was a nurse. I literally dumped him for his presumption that I was just a vessel.
The only places I've seen homebirth praised and encouraged has been online when I started to research it, and then obviously that lead me to read books written by homebirths midwives

In my circles homebirth is considered totally strange, negligent and dangerous and I presume most people think li this

RTB yes in those cases, this is not specifically about those cases (one was not actually referred to CSC just threatened with it which is not ok, one was referred for another reason it seemed, some kind of issue with the registration of the birth). None of the cases were actioned, just explored.

I am talking generally, about cases where a fear of losing a 'natural' birth would lead to someone not meeting their baby's needs...or their own.

The damaging nature of the NCB and natural parenting ideology on women and children.

It's about the idea that you should not face any investigation for choosing to forego antenatal care or free birth just because it is legal. It is legal, but that doesn't make it sensible or right and it doesn't remove the risks to you or your baby if you do decide to do it.

Sakura, I don't think it's strange (it's historically what was the norm) I would say it is risky and I would only consider it in a very specific set of circumstances which I likely could not meet. I don't really care how I give birth though (when I do). I want a baby not a birth experience.

We're just going to have to disagree on the men Redtoothbrush, because I just think a lot of women would be more comfortable in hospital if there were no men treating them

I want a baby not a birth experience.

Yeah cause I just wanted a birth experience and the baby was secondary

We're not talking about neglecting the baby, we're talking about people treating the mother like she is surplus to requirements

Historically hospital births were not the norm and I've read about how they came about and it gave me the chills reading about what hospitals used to do to women, especially in America. I know things have moved on somewhat, but really , how very dare they treat women like complete shit, just because they thought they were better than women because they were educated and male

I mean, if you're refusing medical care or going against medical advice or seeking out a dangerous healthcare provider (one of those "confident" midwives you mentioned earlier) because it's the only way to get your birth the way you want it then sorry but you are prioritising the experience over the baby.

If you get both it's a matter of luck not of the power of the female body, or the inherent safety of birth as it should be, or of trusting birth...luck.

I do not think it's ethically good to stake your own or your child's life on luck.

You can do it, but then you have to face the potential consequences if you lose the bet, whatever those may be.

Previous successful births or a low-risk pregnancy are not a good predictor of how your birth will go. Good intrapartum care is the only thing that can identify problems and act to remedy them, and a home birth with a midwife is safer than nothing but it's less safe than somewhere close to emergency care (resuscitation equipment, theatres, NICU).

Personally I think a midwife-led unit in a hospital is the best of both worlds, no doctors and a much more 'homey' environment but exceptionally close in case of emergency. Doctors can come to you if necessary, theatres are right there, and you can still birth as hands-off as you like if all is going well.

It doesn't totally solve the male HCP issue but most midwives are female and female doctors can be specific in case of emergency. Even better if your community midwife has the ability to work there and care for you.

In my circles homebirth is considered totally strange, negligent and dangerous and I presume most people think li this

Thats your echo chamber. Not necessarily reflective of 'most people'. I have no idea what attitudes to homebirth are nationally.

I have four friends all in completely different social circles who have attempted one. One completely successfully, one who needed medical help afterwards and two who ended up with EMCS (they were first time mothers). Within all four groups I know other people and I've never heard a word but support though some expression that that wouldn't be their personal preference.

One of them wanted to avoid a dodgy hospital, one is massively into maternity and babies and is a carer, ones a bit of a new age hippy and the last is perhaps what you'd call middle class educated mother who wants to do things the 'best way'. They are aged between 30 and 50. And couldn't be more different.

I don't think any mutual friends think they were reckless etc simply because we all know that none of them would make an uneducated or ignorant decision about childbirth as they are incredibly sensible and educated women.