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

I ended up getting a very expensive male ob/gyn for my last pregnancy because of what had come before, and he never set eyes on my genitals afaik or showed the slightest interest. Nor did he touch my breasts even once. I suppose that's what I was paying for.

The other thing is that women change when men are around. Some women anyway are less critical of men or they speak up less. That can work out well for you if the man is your ally, but what if he isn't. When it's all women I think everyone speaks more freely. That's my experience anyway.

With one of my babies, a doctor I didn't know snuck in and stole him so some students could practice on him. I think he thought I was too drugged up to notice, but I did and when I finally got my baby back, the nurse said "why did you say yes if you didn't want him to do this?" And I said I had no idea he was going to do this. And the nurse said, "well they have to learn somehow, you know" and then told me off for walking with the baby. You have to put them in trolleys but the doctor had taken mine. Then, none of the nurses would speak to me all afternoon (could be a coincidence).

But I wonder, would the nurse have backed up a female doctor like that? Would she have been so indignant at me taking the baby off a female student? (When I finally found them, a male student was sticking his fingers into my son's mouth and my son was screaming, so I took him back and everyone seemed horrified)

I think not? That's what I mean, there can be these hierarchies that have to do with male female.

Maniak

I'm sorry the doctor took the baby off you. I have a similar story, but slightly off topic. My stupid mother in law tried to gatecrash my birth , arrived too late thankfully, and as I was lying there having just pushed the placenta out she burst in the door , grabbed my daughter and ran out without saying anything to me. I had not had an epidural and the labor was fine so I simply got up, went in the next room, held out my arms, and retrieved my baby. She was shocked I could walk. The idiot. I hated her after that and asked her not to visit me for 3 months afterwards. When she took my baby I felt like a limb had been taken. The utter disrespect of treating me like some vessel for her son's seed .

I think not? That's what I mean, there can be these hierarchies that have to do with male female.

Well women do defer to men, yes, for sure.

Yes exactly. You kept the power and banished your mil. I couldn't banish anyone. I didn't even dare complain, because I felt so vulnerable. That's the difference.

Maniak

I wonder how common it is in hospitals for the torture of women to continue after birth, with them taking her baby without asking for various reasons.

Thankfully the days where they would all be put in a nursery are gone. Unless a woman wanted that. Maybe some did. I can't think of anything worse than being separated from a baby just after giving birth. I don't understand why, if there's a legit medical reason, the woman can't go with her baby. Or at the very least have things explained to her politely and respectfully. Obviously o don't think practicing on a baby is a valid reason at all. They're so stupid

I feel the way women in pregnancy are treated is simply a continuation of the way they are treated generally by the medical profession.There are endless stories on here about women not being taken seriously and having contraception and screening forced on them that they don't want.I feel by the time many women are pregnant it's not surprising they have lost trust in the medical profession.

I choose not to have smear tests and this is not respected at all. On each visit to the gp I am harassed, bullied, expected to explain myself and constantly have to say No.Its like a bad date and I don't say that lightly.This has never happened to my husband regarding choices about his own body and never will. Screening for many women is really not a choice and there is often zero concern about consent.

Recently I have developed a health problem, think belly button area. I've had several detailed ct scans. Every doctor I've seen apart from one has suggested examining my vagina. When I've asked what medical information is to be gleaned from this considering the ct scans the matter has been dropped immediately.

Had I not refused these vaginal examinations I would have endured more than 8 in the last six weeks. They are totally unnecessary and I suspect nothing more than a long standing ritual.

*sprouts21
*
Every doctor I've seen apart from one has suggested examining my vagina.

How utterly bizarre. Like I said I never had internal exams during my pregnancies with my 2 female midwife's. Maniak has said she never had one with her posh doctor she paid for. So obviously not having internal exams in pregnancy is a valid thing but I hear so much about them being routine. Not to check for a specific problem, but routine.
You were offered them when your problem was totally unrelated

As i said below I don't go for smear tests either and neither does my girlfriend

Even just having an caesarian, you're off your feet for six weeks. That's no big deal only if the first six weeks of life connecting with your baby are no big deal.

That's a slight exaggeration. I've had 2, both emergencies including one after 75 hours of mostly un-medicated back labour, pushing and a failed attempt at forceps. I was on my feet and dressed all by myself within six hours of the delivery of my son. I was completely capable of physically providing all their care, including lifting them from their bassinets etc.

I read that some women get so fucked over by hospitals that they end up with both and episiotomy and a c section. Imagine trying to recover from that

That could have been me with dc1. He was stuck, mid pelvis. Pushing made zero difference but they thought they might be able to get him out with forceps. I was lucky in that they got the forceps up with zero damage to me or him but he didn't budge. He was eventually delivered by an emcs. However should they have gone straight to c-section? He would have been out faster with the forceps had it worked and they thought it might. Plus I still have a lot of issues around his arrival...I don't consider myself to have birthed either of my children. Would those issues have been worse had they just cut him out of me without trying the forceps, possibly.

The hospitals can't win. C-sections are often seen as very bad things which a lot of women want to avoid at all costs so just going straight to them would cause problems too.

Dinosauratemydaffodils

Yes you're right. Obviously it's better they don't go straight for the c section, in my personal opinion.
When I searched for a health care provider for my first birth I wanted to find someone who didn't carry out routine episiotomies. I'd accept them doing one if they felt it was absolutely necessary, but not someone who did them as a matter of routine- and plenty of doctors do.
When my midwife gave me a bit of a birth talk she held up a posted that had a pair of scissors slicing through a vagina: I said but I don't want an episiotomy if I can avoid it. She said no I don't just give them routinely but this is just the poster we use. In other words whoever made the poster was normalizing episiotomy, rather than viewing it as an emergency procedure

but not someone who did them as a matter of routine- and plenty of doctors do

But in the UK, you won't see a doctor in labour unless there is an issue and even then it doesn't always seem guaranteed. Obviously we're coming at it from different perspectives because I ended up with a number of mental health issues following the arrival of dc1 because they were so determined he was coming vaginally and wouldn't intervene until every possibility of that had been excluded so I struggle with the narrative of there being these intervention happy doctors prowling around because my experiences were so far from that.

They literally remind me of the witches persecuted during the witchcraze because they were making money one of the only ways women could, through midwifery.

Tell me Sakura, why do you think maternal mortality today is significantly lower than it was in the past?

Redtoothbrush
I do know that when physicians began to replace midwives they didn't even know they were supposed to wash their hands after handling cadavers. Can you imagine? Women dying painful deaths because of them. That's why I'm sorry but I just can't take men who enter this field seriously.

lDinosauratemydaffodils

I've already said that refusing epidurals and c sections to women who want them is just more of the same shit of trying to control women

I read about birth houses opening in Germany once physicians arrived on the scene and that women were obligated to birth there despite it being common knowledge the maternal death rate was appalling and I then read about women preferring to commit suicide than go in there.

Kind of reminds me of the disenfranchised women in America seeking out lay midwives even perhaps knowingly putting their babies at risk just to avoid a hospital birth

I'm starting to think more and more that feeling safe and listened to in birth isn't an "optional extra" for women concerned about their "birth experience".
I'm starting to think not being listened to awakens a primal fear that might mean the difference between a healthy and dead baby.

Women who make seeminglyunwise decisions seem to be saying just that: that their and their babies survival depends on how safe they feel.
And even if it's not true, maybe this is what their primal brain is telling them

And I'm not saying still births that have taken place could've been avoided if the birth had been more woo or anything like that, I'm saying that women seem to be trying to say something, and I think it's that they feel that not being listened to is harmful to them

I lurked on the last thread and realise the conversation has moved on a bit from then- with regards to electing exclusively female HPs, but thought I'd add this anyway, as I'm not sure it's been mentioned yet.

When I was a teenager, I fell pregnant to an abusive man and had an abortion. The councillor I had to see beforehand, was male and although this didn't bother me, he wasn't as tactful as later in life I have found female abortion midwifes/councillors to be by far.

I met the anaesthetist very briefly before hand, then was quickly wheeled into a room where there where at least 6 men. No one acknowledged me, they where talking about sports whilst administering the drugs and even as I started to lose consciousness, I was terrified at the sight of all these men around me, whilst being so vulnerable and exposed.

When I woke up, I was incredibly sore. The next day I had bruises all over my arms, legs and wrists. I felt extremely violated for a very long time after that and developed a repulsion for my own body.

Years later, I found myself in the situation of needing a termination again and despite having 2 DCs since then, I became so terrified and consumed by the prospect of the same experience, that I eventually tried to end the pregnancy myself.

I may have been able to ask for female only, had I known the situation, had I assumed it would have been all male previously, had it not happened so quickly and had I not been a scared teenage girl, but it certainly didn't feel like a choice.

I do know that when physicians began to replace midwives they didn't even know they were supposed to wash their hands after handling cadavers. Can you imagine? Women dying painful deaths because of them.

When was this? Roughly what year? I can find a reference to Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847. Twenty years later, around the 1860s, Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur laid the foundations for the modern understanding of transmission of infection.

Are you suggesting that lack of knowledge and understanding was a conspiracy against women, and that death through infection was only prevalent amongst mothers-to-be?

That's why I'm sorry but I just can't take men who enter this field seriously.

You can't take men seriously today because of practices in the 1840s?

I do know that when physicians began to replace midwives they didn't even know they were supposed to wash their hands after handling cadavers. Can you imagine? Women dying painful deaths because of them. That's why I'm sorry but I just can't take men who enter this field seriously

That was discovered that was a risk in 1847.

That's nearly 180 years ago.

At a time when women still mainly gave birth at home anyway. Between the 1870 and 1930 it was safer to give birth at home in the UK.

Then maternal mortality starts to drop rapidly and the pattern is repeated elsewhere.

So I'll ask again. What happened to suddenly reduced maternal mortality, where the biggest risks were infection, haemorrhage, fits / convulsions and illegal abortion.

How do midwives treat these today?

What happened in the past?

What happens if you a medically untrained midwife who doesn't know how to spot these things?

*JurgenKloppsCat
*
When was this? Roughly what year? I can find a reference to Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847. Twenty years later, around the 1860s, Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur laid the foundations for the modern understanding of transmission of infection.

You think midwives who were killed didn't know about risk of infection? Do you also think Braxton Hicks "discovered" Braxton Hicks contractions-- and that before he did, women were totally oblivious to them but thanks to him we now all know about them. Just because a man turns up to name a female experience, doesn't mean women were previously unaware of that experience
*
Are you suggesting that lack of knowledge and understanding was a conspiracy against women, and that death through infection was only prevalent amongst mothers-to-be?*

No, I'm saying that the physicians were totally crap. And considering how much deference they expected for being educated

*That's why I'm sorry but I just can't take men who enter this field seriously.

You can't take men seriously today because of practices in the 1840s*

Precisely, I can't take men seriously today, because of their track record

Just to clarify this, you would judge a modern male medical professional's competence by the actions of men from the 1840s. Over 170 years ago. That is quite a statement.

Do you only judge men on the actions of their forebears?

So just to confirm you don't have a phobia of doctors and your lack of trust is perfectly normal and rational because that's just how men behave?

I often think about what kind of knowledge was lost. We know why midwives and healers were targeted, but we'll never know what was lost.
Like with all murder victims I guess, you never get to hear their side, you only get to hear the side of the murder/s