Showing posts with label medication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medication. Show all posts

5.29.2014

Trust

A friend of mine related this story to me and the mother involved and she both asked me to share it. Trust, what does it mean?

According to Merriam Webster, trust is the firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

For a pregnant woman or new parent, it means being able to believe in someone who should be reliable and truthful, especially when it comes to medical care for herself or her child. I have had the 'conspiracy theory' conversation many times with the women I work with. This conversation sounds something like, "well, don't they legally have to give me true and complete information so that I can give true and informed consent?" ... and then I reply that providers are supposed to, but it doesn't always happen.

And I end up sounding like a conspiracy theorist... until email after email just like the one below shows up in my inbox... and now I have permission to share one of these stories.
"Last week, my non vaccinating friend and I were hanging out when our daughters shared a granola bar. Later on that week, she called me up to let me know that her little one was just diagnosed with measles because of a rash that showed up and that, after a long talk with her husband and the doctor they then decided to start vaxing both girls... her youngest will be 4 months at the end of May.  
This little one had cold symptoms about 10 days before the rash and never had a fever. It made me question the diagnosis. The rash looked exactly like measles but no other corresponding symptoms in the days surrounding the rash. More accurately, the doctor said it was, "measles of some form"...
She and I started researching - me because something didn't sound right, while she started researching because she was talking to the director and assistant director of her daughter's preschool. They were telling my friend that if it were measles, the doctor would have to report it to the CDC.  
In order to do that they would have to have a confirmed diagnosis through a blood test. The pediatrician told my friend that doing a test wasn't necessary, that it would take 3 weeks to get the results back. The director has a friend who works at this pediatrician's office. So she called and talked to her friend. Obviously this friend couldn't tell the director much but she did say "don't worry one bit, its definitely not measles".  
Then the director mentioned to my friend that the doctor probably jumped to the worst case scenario and allowed my friend to jump to the worst case scenario because of her vaccination status. 
At that point my friend still had no idea what the rash might have been from but, during our text conversation, she mentioned she had to go back the next day for a check-up because of her daughter's double ear infection. She is going to ask them to do the blood work to check and see if she is now immune to measles.  
Then she mentioned that maybe the rash had something to do with the ear infections or the amoxicillin her daughter was taking. I asked if she had had amoxicillin before. She said no, but that the doctor said it was not an allergic reaction. her daughter's dad is allergic to penicillin. So I looked up amoxicillin rash. It looks strikingly similar to a measles rash. An allergic rash itches, a non-allergic one doesn't. Amoxicillin rash begins on the abdomen and spreads. 
Measles rash begins on the face, usually near the hair line and moves down. She had no spots in her mouth (which is tell-tale for measles) and no fever (which can get up to 105). My friend believes (as do I) that she was pushed into rethinking her stance on vaccines; that the doctor use the "fear of measles" and her daughter's lack of vaccines to misguide them.  
I asked my friend if she told the doctor where the rash started. She said she did (on her belly) and that the doctor suggested they give her Benadryl. If Measles doesn't go away with Benadryl, and the rash isn't from an allergic reaction, why would you recommend Benadryl?  
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am absolutely shocked, speechless, and disgusted by what this doctor did. As far as my friend having reconsidered her stance on vaccinating her children, she re-reconsidered and has reconfirmed her non-vax beliefs. "If she reacted like that to a regular medication, how in the world would she react to vaccines?!" was her conclusion."
A parent should be able to trust her provider. But how can they trust providers when those same providers use any in possible to try to coerce, mislead, or ridicule that same parent into making choices that the parent would not, otherwise, make.

Unethical, untruthful care, like that which was experienced in this situation, occurs more often than we would like to admit... and more often than the medical field will ever admit. So care providers, this is a shout out to you: if you want us to trust you, then you have to be trustworthy. If you want us to respect you, you need to provide us that same respect.

1.03.2013

All About Medications

There are many options when it comes to the use of pain medications for labor and birth. Some of these options may not be available at your particular place of birth, so, if you plan on using medication during labor and birth, it is a good idea to consult with the anesthesiologist at your birth place. This will also enable you to talk to the about your concerns and to ask any questions that you  might have about the procedures involved.

As with any/every intervention, the use of pain medication during labor and birth inadvertently always carries risk. Weighing the benefits with the risks will allow for families to make the best choice for their birthing needs and desires.Best odds, interventions should be reserved for emergencies; interventions should never be routine.

When accepting an intervention, such as pain medication, always ask yourself:
  • What are the risks?
  • What are the benefits?
  •  Do I accept the possible risks in order to receive the benefits?
Some doulas, like myself, use an epidural agreement with mothers. This epidural agreement is useful in all situations involving the choice of medications. Herein, we will be talking about the benefits and risks of medications that might be available to you, so that you can make an educated decision regarding them during your birthing time.

Medicated Pain Management - Analgesics:

Pudendal Block: An injection of narcotic medication (usually  bupivacaine) is given through the vaginal wall and into the pudendal nerve in the pelvis, numbing the perineum. This is not a readily available option and most doctors don't offer this anymore. The few women I have worked with who have had this (in past births) said that the administration was quite painful and one said the numbing was 'confusing'.
  • Pros: given shortly before delivery so less medication reaches baby, quick acting and short term (2-4 hours), alleviates pain associated with the second stage of labor 
  • Cons: does not relieve the discomfort of contractions, short window of time that it can be administered, may cause residual to permanent nerve damage, increases swelling of perineum, decreases elasticity of perineum (which increases risk of tearing), can puncture fetus, can puncture uterus or arteries of mother.
Paracervical block: An injection of narcotic medication into the tissues around the cervix. A form of
local anesthesia. This is not a readily available option and most doctors don't offer this anymore. The few women I have worked with who have had this (in past births) said that the administration was very painful.
  • Pros: decreases contraction and dilation discomfort, short term (1 to 2 hours)
  • Cons: can puncture uterus causing infection, can puncture placenta causing hemorrhage, can puncture baby, can cause swelling in cervix, can cause damage to cervical tissue.
Stadol: an analgesic (works on whole nervous system instead of one area) which is administered via IV. It is an opiate derivative (narcotic) with an additive to combate the dysphoriate reaction to narcotics.
  • Pros: near instant relief, takes the ‘edge off’ of hard labors, moderate (2-4 hours) spanning. Oftentimes sleepiness occurs, contractions feel shorter in duration.
  • Cons: loopy or high feeling, hallucinations, nausea, depressed respiration in mother and baby, decreased cardiac output, decreased oxygen in blood in mother and baby, fetal heart rate deceleration, and/or epidura hematoma (bleeding on the brain) can occur. Roughly 20% of women have a sensitivity or allergy to the narcotic Stadol. Does not remove pain, simply makes one not care about the process or the pain, or too sleepy to resist the contractions.
Demerol: a narcotic analgesic which is administered via IV sometime in the early-late phase of first
stage. This medication is very closely related to Stadol.
  • Pros: near instant relief, makes one relaxed enough to not care about pains of labor, moderate (2-4 hours) spanning. Oftentimes sleepiness occurs, contractions feel shorter in duration.
  • Cons: loopy or high feeling, nausea, irreconcilable fatigue, depressed respiration in mother and baby, decreased cardiac output, decreased oxygen in blood in mother and baby, fetal heart rate deceleration, and/or epidura hematoma (bleeding on the brain) can occur. Does not remove pain, simply makes one not care about the process or the pain, or too sleepy to resist the contractions.
Nubain: another narcotic analgesic, administered via IV throughout the first stage of labor.
  • Pros: Near instant effectiveness, moderately spanning, similar reactions as marijuana. Oftentimes sleepiness occurs, contractions feel shorter in duration.
  • Cons: abdominal cramps, nausea and vomiting, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, restlessness, anxiety, elevated temperature, respiratory depression in the neonate, and death. Does not remove pain, simply relaxes mom so that she forgets or does not concern herself with the process of labor. Roughly 20% of women have a sensitivity or allergy to the narcotic Nubain.
More information on the medications listed above:
http://www.drugs.com/cdi/nubain.html
http://www.drugs.com/cdi/stadol-solution.html

Medicated Pain Management - Anesthesia:

Spinal (saddle block, intrathecal) Block: an injection of opiates between the vertebrae of the low-mid back, through the epidura, and just beyond the dura – before the spinal cord. This injection is directly into the spinal fluid.
  • Pros: near instantaneous relief, less medication than epidural, less chance of infection as there is no running line, should completely numb the uterine area. Should still be able to feel the tightening of the contractions. Feelings of pressure but no pain with contractions.
  • Cons: can be ineffective (either completely or in ‘windows’), re-administration means another needle. Can cause fever, maternal drop in bp, fetal respiratory depression, arresting of labor, inability to push, urinary incontinence, decreased cardiac output of either mother or neonate, increase risk of jaundice, fetal bradycardia (decreasing heart rate with or without contractions), improper engagement (head or presenting part not moving through the pelvis correctly), breastfeeding problems, fetal death, maternal death, or cardiac arrest. Long term consequences can include chronic lower back pain, spinal headache, ruptured discs, or permanent nerve damage.
Epidural: a cocktail of various opiates and narcotic anesthetics placed into a catheter (thin tubing). The catheter is fed between the vertebrae of the low-mid back and into the epidura space before the
dura/spinal cord; hence the term ‘epidural’.
  • Pros: can be given in varying doses, works quickly (within 5-10 minutes), easy to re-administer if it runs out, easy to increase the dose if necessary for a c-section, should completely numb from the uterus to the toes. Ideally, will retain mobility of legs and feet. Feelings of pressure but no pain with contractions.
  • Cons: can be ineffective (either completely or in ‘windows’), cause fever, maternal drop in bp, fetal respiratory depression, breastfeeding problems, increase risk of jaundice, fetal bradycardia (decreasing heart rate with or without contractions), improper engagement (head or presenting part not moving through the pelvis correctly), arresting of labor, inability to push, urinary incontinence, fetal death, maternal death, or cardiac arrest. Long term consequences can include chronic lower back pain and ruptured disc.
Walking Epidural (Combined Spinal Epidural, CSE): a combination of the epidural and the spinal. An initial injection into the spinal fluid, then a catheter line running continuous low-dose narcotics and opiates to the epidural space of the spinal column.
  • Pros: quick acting, again can be given in varying doses. easy to re-administer if it runs out, easy to increase the dose if necessary for a c-section, should completely numb in the uterine area while still allowing movement of the legs.
  • Cons: all of both the epidural and the spinal. In addition, though it is called a walking epidural, a mother does not have full use of her legs and will still be, most likely, confined to bed or sitting in a chair.
More information on the medications used in the spinally administered medications,  bupivacaine and
Fentanyl:
http://www.drugs.com/cdi/fentanyl.html
http://www.drugs.com/mtm/bupivacaine.html

Nitrous Oxide:  this option is becoming more readily available in the United States. Nitrous Oxide is an odorless and tasteless gas that is inhaled during contractions. It is self administered through a hand-held face mask and takes effect within a minute.
  • Pros: Alters pain perception, can  be used intermittently or continuously and can be stopped at any time. Short term relief. Has very little effect on baby as nitrous oxide dissipates from the neonates blood stream upon first breaths. Can be administered in any birth setting.
  • Cons: Doesn't eliminate pain, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, and restlessness can occur. Can cause problems with mild maternal hypoxemia.  
In closing, consider printing out and going through the PMPS here. This worksheet can  help you to establish just what types of pain management you are comfortable with and just want support your birth team might be able to provide for you during your birthing time. 

8.03.2012

Doulas Do It Anywhere - pt 3




Doulas help women give birth anywhere. We offer support in a home birth setting, hospital birth setting, birth center birth setting, medicated birth setting, and even cesareans.

Again, the definition of a doula:
A doula is not a midwife (unless, of course, she’s certified as both), in that she has no authority to make medical decisions, nor is she credentialed to deliver a baby. She’s not considered on the level of a nurse, either; doulas cannot administer or regulate medicine, operate monitoring devices, et cetera. In fact, a reputable doula will tell you that she doesn’t even have the authority to speak on behalf of the mother should a complication or other medical surprise surface.

But sometimes it’s the unnameable, intangible aspects of the conclusion of a pregnancy that require the most help and planning. And that’s where a doula is indispensable. In addition to the priceless knowledge and experience she brings to the laboring phase and to newborn-care assistance, she’s a wellspring of intimate emotional and physical support. A doula educates the family ahead of time; keeps the laboring mama focused and lucid; instinctively retrieves things she needs, like water or compresses; supports her body while walking through contractions; suggests different laboring positions; initiates massage and breathing patterns; reassures other labor partners; works alongside hospital staff; advocates for the mother; and, afterward, ensures that the new mommy is getting enough rest, is recovering well, and is bonding with the baby.  - Divine Caroline

That said, a doula is definitely a soothing presence in all birth settings, including MEDICATED HOSPITAL BIRTH.

During those home visits, your doula can help prepare you for early labor, before pain medication is available or a good idea, through teaching you coping techniques and making suggestions for home labor. Your doula can also help you understand the different medications available and the interventions associated with them so that you can make the best choices for your circumstances and desires. Some of the things that a doula does during a  medicated hospital birth include all of the same stuff we do during an unmedicated hospital birth, plus:
  • We 'better and best': we will make suggestions along the way in order to minimize risk. There are 'better times' to get an epidural vs. IV pain medication. Likewise, there are 'best' times to get the epidural that you are anticipating receiving.  
  • We body work: after the medication is administered, we will still help your body into different positions to encourage baby to rotate through the birth canal. 
  • We keep it mother-centered: we help to encourage the hormones of labor to continue, regardless of medication, by setting ambiance and preserving the 'sacred space' of birth. We also gauge the emotions of mom: disappointment, anger, happiness? If she needs to work through emotions, we have an impromptu emotional mapping session. 
  • We move it along: we will watch your contractions. If they start to space out, which often happens with epidurals and spinals, we will encourage labor to pick back up through acupressure points, aromatherapy, and massage.
  • We stay on task: if a medical emergency does arise, which more frequently does with medicated births, we can  help to prepare you prenatally and during the actual birth event, to be as involved as possible and to ensure this is still your babies birth story/time.
  • Breast is still best: we still stay after the birth to help with breastfeeding, which may need more help than otherwise would have.
Anything the doula might do on this list is definitely interchangeable with your other support person (spouse/partner, etc..), so that we can  make a seamless team of support for you where none of your needs, or the needs of your other support person, go unmet.

Doulas do it at medicated hospital births!

4.04.2012

A Quick History of Medication in Maternal Health Care - (and the Business of Being Born)

originally posted on 5/12/07

Taking the lead from another great blogger I read often - try to find her ;o) - and from a recent viewing of the Business of Being Born - I wanted to touch on the dark blemish of American Obstetrical practice - routine medication for birth. (BTW, it is funny that this was shown as a screening in the midst of a High Risk conference for Vanderbilt - on the heels of a recent development plan).

While watching the Business of Being Born - a WONDERFUL look at childbirth practices in the US - I was struck by one very apparent thing: doctor's know nothing about bodies and birth. They know everything about risk - and, as one OB nurse told me, their job was to take away pain and have a healthy mom - not to get the best outcome.

That mentality was prevalent back in the late 1800's - early 1900's when OB's infiltrated the childbirth field and it is prevalent now. FRIGHTENING! Why is it frightening you say? Let me expound...

Let's start with the advent of anesthesia in general. It all began on October 16, 1846, at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, in a room now called the Etherdome, when William Morton administered the first successful public demonstration of ether anesthetic. This was a great breakthrough for SURGICAL needs, and the news spread around the world quickly. So quickly in fact, that within a month the first modern anesthetics had been given on both ends of Europe, and within six months in Australia and China.

One doctor who heard of the use of ether was James Simpson. Breaking out of his social class, he put himself through medical school and later became the chairman of obstetrics at the University of Edinburgh. He is best known for the forceps which he devised to counter his initial use of ether on maternal patients.

His first maternal patient was a woman whose pelvis was deformed by rickets (a common issue in that time from malnutrition) who delivered on January 17, 1847. These deliveries can be especially difficult because of the manipulation needed to get a baby out of a deformed pelvis.

There was a great concern, though, for this use of ether because of the knowledge that ether often stopped contractions. As well, most babies born from ether-administered mothers had ether-smelling breath, ether smelling placentas, and tires/lethargic/unresponsive babies. So, Dr. Simpson created forceps, to pull babies from their mother's wombs before they were 'too drugged' and to minimize the incidence of failed labors due to ineffective or stalled contractions. Then why was it continued?

To understand the merging of surgical breakthroughs and maternal downfalls, we need to look at the social climate of the time. Two major events were happening: childbirth was taken out of the home and into the hospital (where disease and infection ran rampant), and the feminist movement was on the rise.

"Early feminists campaigned for social reform of all types, for the abolition of slavery and the abolition of the use of alcohol. They were also concerned about improvements in health care, particularly for women and children. They had good reason to be concerned. Although death rates for men and women had been falling throughout the nineteenth century, risks of a woman dying in childbirth had not decreased. In New York City, for example, 15% of deaths of women between the ages of 20 and 40 were related to childbirth. Although deaths from other causes had decreased, deaths from childbirth had not. By 1900, 30% of the deaths of women in this age group were attributed to childbirth." - now remember that those deaths were NOT due to childbirth - but malnutrition causing complications in birth, deliveries being moved to hospitals where illnesses and disease ran rampant, and before the advent of antibiotics - IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MIDWIFERY and THE SAFETY OF HOME BIRTH.

Suffragettes saw maternal health care as a significant area that needed improvements. The only problem is that they focused on the labor of childbirth (pain/discomfort) rather than the true source of the maternal and fetal demise of the time. Not to fault them as the information and scientific breakthroughs were not accomplished yet; in their early industrialized minds, pain equated illness and death.

(Maternal death rates dropped slightly in the US between 1880-90, when doctors rooted out the nature of childbirth fever in relation to cleansing practices in the hospitals. They started washing their hands between women's beds and the death rates dropped. Then, the numbers steadily rose again until 1940, when they dropped once again (steeply and greatly) with the introduction of antibiotics).

Queen Victoria used ether when she delivered Prince Leopold in 1853. From Inside Surgery:

"Queen Victoria went into labor on the morning of April 7, 1853. As her physicians readied her for the birth of Prince Leopold, John Snow positioned a handkerchief moistened with 30 drops of chloroform over her nose and mouth. The Queen had an immediate response to it. Over the next fifty three minutes he reapplied the anesthesia fifteen times, using between 15 and 20 drops each time. The birth was without complication and the child was pronounced healthy, although at the time no one knew that he was afflicted with hemophilia.When accounts of Queen Victoria's labor anesthesia reached the general public, John Snow became an instant sensation and was much in demand by the social elite of London."

The National Twilight Sleep Association was formed in order to support the use of a new maternal anethesiac development begun by a young obstetrical doctor by the name of Carl Gauss. Around 1900, Gauss combined two drugs that had been in the medical armament for a long time to treat childbirth pain. One main component was morphine, used to alleviate pain during surgery. It had, thus far, been avoided in obstetrics because of its effect on the uterus, its effect on the newborn, and its effects on bleeding and infection. The other drug was scopolamine, which causes amnesia - in the past, these had been used as poisons in high doses. Hamlet's father was killed by one of scopolamine's cousins.

Gauss mixed these two drugs and administered them in 'small doses' to his patients - the morphine provided relief from pain while the scopolamine provided the women with amnesia of their labors and what was done to them. The problems? Oh, there are many!!! Scopolamine caused women to lose their inhibitions. They would have no memory of what went on, nor did they realize what was happening, so most of them screamed during labor. They became uninhibited and psychotic. They would thrash about on the bed, causing injuries to their heads. So, their heads were wrapped with blankets or towels, turban-like. They would attempt to claw at the walls or their medical providers, so they were put in straight jackets or their wrists were strapped to the beds. Then, so that they would not fall out of bed, they were put in 'labor cribs' - and were allowed to labor, screaming, tied down, blinded and bound - often in their own urine and feces, and sometimes for days on end, until it was time to birth. The women had no memory of this, the husbands were not allowed in to see their wives, so they didn't know what was happening - and everyone was happy.

Gausses concoction was tried out first in Europe and was found to be less than satisfactory for maternal care. It would probably have died out there had it not been for an infamous article in McClure's magazine. Two female reporter's who were also staunch feminists, accompanied their friend to Germany, where she was traveling to be 'treated by Dr. Gauss'. The woman was administered Twilight Sleep and was ecstatic with it. She simply woke to a baby - with no memory of the labor or birth. The three women decided to liberate American women through Twilight Sleep.

Every woman wanted to have that type of birth. Medical research was not sought as to the safety, and feminist drive demanded quick results. So - the U.S. because predominantly a Twilight nation between the years of 1914-1945 (although my grandmother recounts her story of TS in 1956 and there are reports as late as the 1980's).

Thankfully (and sadly because of what it took) this time in American history quickly collapsed when Frances Carmody died under Twilight Sleep. Although there had been numerous women who had died under Twilight Sleep, she was the wife of a Brooklyn lawyer and happened to also be a huge rally organizer for the Twilight Sleep Campaign. Her husband and her OB assured everyone that her death had nothing to do with Twilight Sleep, but, with a key organizer gone from the game, at the very time she was using something she was promoting, the campaign began to fall apart.

Women began to have windows of remembrance, and by 1948, the baby boom got into full swing and the huge number of women having babies while under Twilight Sleep raised the issue of comfort at a cost. Women began reporting their birth trauma - both physical and emotional/mental. Moms began to speak out. And, in 1958, an article headlined "Cruelty in Maternity Wards" ran in Ladies' Home Journal. It detailed the "tortures that go on in modern delivery rooms.". The response? A flood of women sent the magazine their own horror stories. "I've seen patients with no skin on their wrists from fighting the straps," a nurse from Canada wrote.

"Just let a few husbands in the delivery rooms and let them watch what goes on there," said one reader from Detroit. "That's all it will take — they'll change it!" An Indiana mom claimed, "The whole thing is a horrible nightmare."

Women began desiring and demanding safer births - the OBs were fraught with the problem that they could not guarantee a medicated, but safe, birth. So, in the 1960's and 1970's - many women went back to natural birth. This was short lived, though, as Obstetrician's saw income diminishing... Cue the epidural.

Mothers giving birth in the late 1970s and '80s had more options than ever. They could have a medicated or unmedicated birth. They could deliver in a freestanding birthing center, a hospital, or at home (in most states). They could be attended by a midwife, an obstetrician, or both (in some states). And, through all of these options, they could have their husbands by their side.

What led up to the advent of the epidural? In 1898 German doctor August Bier injected cocaine into his assistant's spinal column. It numbed his lower body, but the next morning he awoke with horrible vomiting and headaches (cue the spinal headache). It took the next 80 years to perfect this. But, by the 1970s, lidocaine was dripped into a tube inserted by needle into a woman's spinal column. By the 1980's, it was all the rage! The hitch? The procedure numbed women to their chests, causing breathing issues and, at times, heart problems.

My question - and the question that Ricki posed in her documentary is this:

What will we find in the near future is the clinically proven downside to epidural births? We NCB advocates already know of the obvious, though seemingly unimportant to many women when compared to an easy labor, risks... But think of it...

- In the late 1880's early 1900's it was chloroform / ether - which inhibited neonatal breathing attempts, caused forceps to be necessary (which caused many horrible scarring issues with babies), maternal reproductive harm, and heart failure routinely.
- In the early to mid 1900's, it was forceps - which were necessitated from the use of 'knock 'em out medications. These scarred women's cervix's, making them incapable of dilating at all or efficiently in later pregnancies, tore ears, noses, and scalps off of babies, and created severe perineal and labial scarring in women. Forceps are still used today!
- In the mid 1920's, it was Twilight Sleep - causing maternal mental, emotional, and physical trauma, more of the same as chloroform did, AND caused a number of incidences of stillbirths.
- In the mid 1950's-60's, it was thalidomide, prescribed to pregnant women routinely - causing the widespread incidence of 'flipper babies' - children who were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia (short limbs and deformed extremities).
- In the 1970's, it was early spinal/epidurals where the needles were too large and the puncture too deep, causing a whopping 50% of women to get debilitating spinal headaches that, at the time, were not treatable.
- In the 1990's, it was Cytotec, used to induce labor (off-label and unapproved). With a HUGE risk rate, it can/did cause stillbirth, neonatal distress, uterine rupture, severe postpartum hemorrhage, and more. Cytotec is still used today!

What do all of these things have in common? NONE of these procedures are tested before they are tried out on pregnant and laboring women. We are used as guinea pigs. So, my, and Ricki's question, again, is: What will we find in the near future is the clinically proven downside to epidural births? And, at what cost?

We have a huge increase in ADHD, ADD, Autism, early and late-onset Jaundice, asthma, and allergies/intolerances... how can we know that these are not a result of our maternal health practices now? We can't. BECAUSE, we are a society driven on comfort and ease rather than health and well-being. Well-being does NOT equate to ease or comfort. And, until we demand better health care, we are doomed to repeat history on different levels - until we learn to choose better for our bodies and our babies and leave the testing to the REAL guinea pigs.

See here and here (pic) for more information on this history.

*Edited to add the great information sent to me by some readers!

9.06.2009

If We Can't Make It Illegal...

Approx. read time: 3 minutes 30 seconds
It's no surprise with the increase interest in homebirth and unmedicated birth that the ACOG and AMA have reiterated their "long-standing opposition to home births"

On August 19, 2009, though, the American Association of Anesthesiologists came out with a "What Every Expectant Woman Should Know" 'fact' sheet.

Craig Palmer, M.D., Chair of the Committee on Obstetrical Anesthesia, American Society of Anesthesiologists states,
“While the Internet has vastly increased the quantity and accessibility of medical information, it has also fostered the spread of misinformation about pain management and childbirth. The goal of this campaign is to provide the public with accurate, impartial, and scientifically-supported information to help expectant mothers make choices that are right for them.”
(emphasis mine)

'Misinformation' abounds on the internet, according to this statement. It also states that the general public has more access to medical information... so... does that mean that the medical information out there is wrong? It seems that this statement is a little errant. The information that childbirth professionals interested in true and informed consent would like to share with every woman, such as doulas, childbirth educators, and midwives, is rooted in medical studies and their conclusions that, because of the internet, are more readily accessible to the public.

I also have a bit of a problem with the comment that the ASA is offering impartial information. If you have a financial interest in something, it cannot be impartial.

If the increased exposure on alternative pregnancy/childbirth options decreases the number of women seeking medicated births, especially since national findings put average hospital revenue for hospital-based births at 66%, it is no surprise that the ASA is rallying with their 'fact sheet'. I mean, if you can't take away their options the next best thing is to give nice blanket statements on the safety of your source of income, right?

Here are some of their 'FACTS':
'Fact': Pain management during labor and delivery is a personal choice for women. Women should not feel pressured to either accept or refuse pain management treatment during labor.
I agree... but then why I have I been to numerous births where doctors, nurses, and anesthesiologists continually attempt to coerce women into using medication during their labors even when they have made it abundantly clear they don't want it?
'Fact': Pain during labor is different for every woman and depends on a variety of factors. Some women need little or no pain relief medication, while others find that pain relief medication gives them better control over their labor and delivery.
Better control for the mother? I, and anyone who has ever been in the labor room, can tell you that having medication introduced to the process takes away a woman's control of the process. She might have better control of her pain, but not the process; she gives up her autonomy, being confined to the bed, the bedpan or catheter, the IV pole, the EFM or IFM and blood pressure cuff.
'Fact': Except in rare and exceptional cases, pain management has no impact on labor. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no impact on the mother, the baby or the labor delivery process. The decision whether to use pain management treatments is largely a question of the comfort of the mother. Furthermore, contrary to myths frequently cited on the Internet, there is no credible evidence to show that epidurals (or other pain management procedures) slow labor, cause C-sections or lead to a higher incidence of depressed babies.
hmmm.. for my response on that, see the medical sources cited below showing complete contrary information.

FACTS, with cited sources, can be found on:
Again, I'm not out to make every woman have the birth I would choose, it is about making informed, non-coerced, educated decisions. And ultimately, healthier, safer, beginnings.

FACT: I would like well-rounded and all information to be provided to women so that they can make fully educated and informed choices for their, and their babies, health.

9.09.2008

Delivery Method Affects Brain Response to Baby's Cry

This article came to me quite timely after find it on Karen's blog:
Delivery Method Affects Brain Response to Baby’s Cry
When my own daughter was born by Caesarean section delivery, I was surprised how uninvolved I was in the process. My body was numb, and my view of the surgery was blocked by a sheet. When I finally heard a baby cry, it took a minute for me to realize that the sound belonged to my own baby.

Karen reports something similar...
I know that from my personal experience, I felt very detached in my mothering with my first child, who was born via c-section, when she would cry. With my second child, who was born via vbac, I couldn't tolerate hearing him cry. I would act immediately (well, most the time). I have chalked this up to the toll the difficult labor and recovery with the c-section, that it just took a lot out of me, emotionally and physically; whereas with my second, I felt victorious and energized, and I had energy to spend mothering my child.

I say this was timely, because I had just spoken with a wonderful woman who had an epidural with her two previous children and was now seeking a natural birth. Now I know that this particular article is talking directly about vaginal vs. cesarean births, but I would like to see vaginal unmedicated vs vaginal medicated vs cesarean as the conversation with this woman raised some interesting dialog.

One of her previous experiences, in particular, she had gotten the epidural, had her little girl, and then, after being given her baby, kept thinking 'how long until I can give her back'.

She felt bad that she was, for lack of a better explanation, not that interested in her babe at first site. As she said, it was like a dream. Only after her epidural wore off, and when her babe was brought to her a second time, did she really feel like she was meeting her little girl for the first time.

Sarah J Buckley, whom I have referenced before, has two great articles called Pain in Labor: Your hormones are your helpers and Ecstatic Birth.

In them, she talks about how a woman's body creates this marvelous cocktail of hormones that help her throughout labor, postpartum, and with newborn immediate bonding. When epidurals, synthetic induction hormones, or cesareans are performed/introduced to the laboring woman, these hormones production are stunted.

Oxytocin is the hormone that causes the uterus to contract during labor. Levels of oxytocin gradually increase throughout labor, and are highest around the time of birth, when it contributes to the euphoria and receptiveness to her baby that a mother usually feels after an unmedicated birth. This peak, which is triggered by sensations of stretching of the birth canal as the baby is born, does not occur when an epidural is in place. Administration of an epidural has been found to interfere with bonding between ewes and their newborn lambs.

Synthetic oxytocin is often given by drip- that is, directly into the bloodstream- when labor contractions are inefficient. Oxytocin given in this way does not enter the brain, and so does not contribute to the post-birth “high”, and in fact can lead to desensitization to the mothers own oxytocin production.

... Again we must ask: What are the psychological effects for mother and baby of laboring and birthing without peak levels of these hormones of pleasure and co-dependency?

Epidural pain relief has major effects on all of the above-mentioned hormones of labor. Epidurals inhibit beta-endorphin production,15 and therefore also inhibit the shift in consciousness that is part of a normal labor. This may be one reason why epidurals are so acceptable to hospital birth attendants, who are not prepared or trained to deal with the irrationality, directness, and physicality of a woman laboring on her own terms.

When an epidural is in place, the oxytocin peak that occurs at birth is also inhibited because the stretch receptors of a birthing woman’s lower vagina, which trigger this peak, are numbed. This effect probably persists even when the epidural has worn off and sensation has returned, because the nerve fibers involved are smaller than the sensory nerves and therefore more sensitive to drug effects.

... Another indication of the effects of epidurals on mother and baby comes from French researchers who gave epidurals to laboring sheep. The ewes failed to display their normal mothering behavior; this effect was especially marked for the ewes in their first lambing that were given epidurals early in labor. Seven out of eight of these mothers showed no interest in their offspring for at least 30 minutes.

There is good indication, from the article on cesarean vs vaginal bonding, as well as the articles by Dr. Buckley, that we are starting to make good strides to understanding the endocrine, psychological, mental, and emotional repercussions of our medicalization of childbearing women and processes.

Good information to, hopefully, cause us to pause and reconsider our birthing practices and what we optimally want out of our birthing time. Because, as I have said before, it is not 'just about the process' - the journey, the process, is for the health of the baby/mom (not just physically), and just happens to include the experience?

5.04.2007

#21? Are You Kidding Me?


MORE STATS!


Interesting isn't it? Here in the US, the most industrialized, progressive, and technologically advanced country, where we have freedoms and accessibility to so much more than other countries in terms of healthcare and financial gains, we still have horrible infant mortality rates, with one of the highest preemie rates in the world of developed countries. For every 1000 births last year in the US, 6.4 resulted in newborn death. WHY?! With all of our know-how, we should not be ranking #21 in the world! (On another ranking, the US is #43).


The World Health Organization (WHO) has seen the potential danger in the overuse of technology, medicine, and intervention in childbirth for years; and it has tried urging the US to reevaluate our childbirth practices for decades. Their urging strikes a clear tone: we need a more natural and wholistic approach to childbirth in order to better our numbers and outcomes. This approach is found in the midwifery model of care. Every developed country that beats us at stats like these have two things in common: less medicinalization and more midwifery.

"The neonatal mortality rate for the U.S. in 1989 was slightly more than 10 per 1,000 live births. We have the most highly sophisticated and expensive system of maternity care in the world, yet in the same year twenty other countries — countries with less technology than we have in our hospitals and laboratories — had more babies survive their first months of life than our babies in the United States.

With fewer high-tech hospitals and obstetricians available, many of those countries — like Holland, Sweden and Denmark — use midwives as the primary care-givers for healthy women during their pregnancies and births." - gentlebirth

Infant Mortality Rates 2006 infant deaths per 1000 of population:
1. Sweden 2.8
2. Japan 3.2
3. Finland 3.5
4. Norway 3.7
5. Czech Republic 3.9
6. Germany 4.1
7. France 4.2
8. Switzerland 4.3
9. Spain 4.4
10. Denmark 4.5
11. Australia 4.6
12. Austria 4.6
13. Canada 4.7
14. Portugal 5.0
15. United Kingdom 5.1
16. Ireland 5.3
17. Greece 5.4
18. Italy 5.8
19. New Zealand 5.8
20. Korea, South 6.2
21. United States 6.4
22. Israel 6.9
23. Cyprus 7.0
24. Poland 7.2
25. Slovakia 7.3
26.Hungary 8.4
27. Chile 8.6
28. Costa Rica 9.7
29. Sri Lanka 14.0
30. Russia 15.1
31. Panama 16.4
32. Mexico 20.3
33. Albania 20.8
34. Venezuela 21.5
35. Ecuador 22.9
36. China 23.1
37. Brazil 28.6
38. Syria 28.6
39. Guatemala 30.9
40. Peru 30.9
41. Egypt 31.3
42. Iran 40.3
43. Zimbabwe 51.7
44. India 54.6
45. Kenya 59.3
46. South Africa 60.7
47. Bangladesh 60.8
48. Pakistan 70.5
49. Nigeria 97.1
50. Mozambique 129.2
51. Angola 185.4

I have been accused of everything from being a hippy on a mission to being an OB-hater, to being a conspiracy theorist. But the numbers and practices associated with those numbers simply do not lie. What is wrong with our country that we (Obstetricians and those on medical boards) are more anxious about their pocket books than children's lives? Why is that we (the consumers, expectant parents, and patients) are more inclined to sue for 'negligence', perpetuating the high cost of health care and 'precautionary obstetrics', rather than take responsibility for our own consumerism and health care? Someone PLEASE tell me why!!!

1.03.2007

At Your Cervix


I just happened upon a great blog excerpt from the blogspot, At Your Cervix. She has posted a great wealth of information on induction and risks.
I cannot say it enough: educate yourself! If you are at all concerned about your newborns wellbeing and your own, EDUCATE yourself and make informed and responsible decisions regarding your healthcare. I encourage all women to read this.

12.06.2006

Perception of NCB and Public Opinion

“Why go through all that pain if you don’t have to?”
“You’re not going to get a medal for bravery”
“You think you are better than us”
“Don’t try to make me feel guilty for wanting/having drugs”
“No one is better than another for not having medication”

How many of those of us who have chosen natural childbirth has faced these statements? I, for one, have heard them all… and more – including ‘crazy pioneer woman’, ‘hippy’, ‘holier than thou’, and ‘out to prove something’.

Where does this perception come from, and more importantly, why the animosity toward those who chose NCB?

How ‘screwed up’ is the United State’s perception of childbirth and pregnancy? A mother of two puts it this way: when she was looking forward to sharing her recent natural childbirth story with friends and family as it was an empowering and beautiful experience, this is her story. “When she tried to talk about the experience, however, people couldn't get past the fact that she'd had a drug-free birth. ‘Forget about all that other stuff,’ they would say. ‘You didn't have drugs?!!’

‘That's when I realized it was just even more screwed up than I thought,’ the mother says. ‘If people couldn't even hear you tell a story about how great childbirth was even though it hurt a lot, then there was something really screwy going on.’ "

We, as women, have allowed medical society to strip us of a very fundamental right: the right to full disclosure. Disclosure of what; what is lost during childbirth when it is not allowed to happen nature’s way, and what is added to labor and birth when interventions are thrown into the mix (risk).

The truth is, birth can be painful, but it is so much more than the discomfort. There is a beauty, a rite of passage, a feeling of self-accomplishment, growth, and self, a humbleness, and a safety net of giving birth the way nature intended. It is not about being better, being braver, being hippy, or being righteous – it is about being educated and making the decision that is most in favor of the facts. It is being wise.

Our society doesn’t get that. Just like the recent commercial for an over-the-counter pain medication ‘one more step toward a pain-free world’, we are dead set on floating through life comfortably. Fast and easy, pain free and strain free, we don’t want to work or feel the sweat of our brow any longer. And we are missing out on life in the process.

And, God-forbid, we remind someone of what they missed out on – inadvertently or purposefully, and we, the bearers of the good, though hard-to-swallow, news of natural childbirth, are on the chopping block. Guilt is translated into anger and defensiveness. Grief is translated into angst and self-preservation. Doubt is translated into fear and justification. And women who are 3rd and 4th generation victims of the breakdown of the beauty of life once again become proponents of the very thing that have instilled this victimization in the first place. They vehemently defend their abusers.

So, full circle, how do we get past this barrier that is set up in the minds, hearts, and defenses of medicated mommas? How can we share the beauty of something that seems so elusive and fantastical to the majority of women? I would love to hear your ideas – for I am at a loss at times… times such as these.

11.13.2006

Why Unmedicated (natural)?

Birth itself is hard work. That is why it is called labor. No matter how you have a baby - it is hard work. NCB, OTOH, is hard because it involves the woman taking an active rather than passive role in her labor and birth. She must work through the labor and work with the labor - working with her body and her particular birth experience to bring forth a child. This most commonly involves little to no intervention from medical staff (nurses, OBs, MDs, MWs, etc...) and relying on the woman and her support people to work through the hard work called labor.

The reason, I believe, so many women decide on medicinalized labor or surgical birth is that it is 'easier'. We are a culture of ease. We want things fast and easy. The fastest easiest way to lose weight, the fastest easiest way to make money, the fastest easiest way to have a baby. But - you loose so much in getting things easier. The number one thing in getting things the easy way is not appreciating the end result. The second thing you loose in getting things easier is that you don't learn and grow (mature and develop) from getting things the easy route. What do you gain from loosing weight the easy way? You don't learn better eating habits, you don't gain a healthier lifestyle, statistics show these ppl gain the weight back more often than those who work hard at loosing the weight... this is just one example. And these are only two of the things lost in 'easier' births.

That said, if you plan on an epidural - it does not mean you will have an easier or better labor. Around 1/3 of my clients, their epidurals don't take at all, are inadequate (they still feel discomfort and were not planning on it OR they have patches of pain), or have dire side effects paired with them (depressed respiration, decreased bp, short-term paralysis, spinal headaches, infection, etc...). As well, if you plan on a c-section, it does not mean that it is without pain. Women who have Cs have a harder time in recovery, have long term consequences (scar tissue, increased incidence of infection, increased incidence of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies, increase incidence of hysterecomy).

As Dr. Robert Bradley says "It is not good to fool with Mother Nature".

It is proven that there is a greater bond, and less incidence of PPD when an NCB occurs. Also, there are higher doses of oxytocin and other biological and chemical productions that occur during an NCB (check out this article and this article). There are other benefits as well. Psychologically, a woman feels a sense of accomplishment and strength. Children who attend an NCB come away with a deeper respect for life, their new siblings, and have a healthier view of sex and and their bodies. Physically, there is an easier, faster recovery, and less incidence of serious complications. Risk is cut out of the picture and women are shown to actually celebrate their births - rather than look back on them in fear and avoidance.

I was recently asked why, though there are so many risks, women still opt for medicated births... my answer was this:

I firmly believe it stems from the culture we live in. In addition to and as a biproduct of that, I believe it is also because we have lost trust in our bodies, ourselves, and the natural process. Check out Healing Birth Healing the Earth. We want a diagnosis and subsequent 'cure' for everything. We are missing 3 or more FULL generations of women (in most families) who understand and can teach the next generation of women about true labor. Birth is dying; as in, birth as nature intended is dying. There are a few women (and the numbers are growing) who know these inherent truths and are reclaiming their trust in birth and their bodies, are educating themselves to the risks of Obstetrical deliveries, and have decided that the risks, not only of the medications used, but of the experience lost, do not outweigh the benefits and instead, opt for natural childbirth.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Total Pageviews