The Myth of Better Hospital Birth- A History In Pictures
I always find it laughable when people talk about how much birth has improved through time and technology. "Birth was so dangerous before hospitals" is such a ridiculous statement. But one of the most moronic things of all is that we somehow think that women are better off now than they were during the era of twilight birth.
During the era of twilight birth women were so heavily medicated that they had to be tied down to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. They did not remember their births. They were not active participants of the birth. This was all done for the sake of pain relief.
The pictures are rare and disturbing.And yet today we continue to function under the illusion that medicated hospital birth is now a much happier affair.
Again, the pictures tell a different story.
Again we see women unable to move. Again they are not active participants in their births. Again it is done for the sake of pain relief.
Or it is done for the sake of the baby. We can't trust our bodies to actually give birth safely. All those attending us must listen to the mechanical heart beat.
The thing that is most tragic to me today is that we ASK to be tied down in labor. We are so afraid of he process and the pain that we don't even want to be active participants in the process. An epidural is not a feminist statement.
A continuous fetal monitor won't save you from your birth.
Take back your power. Take back birth. Get off your back.
Comments
You are right, SOME babies are saved with fetal monitoring. In many cases - probably MOST - the FM causes unnecessary interventions. Especially with the current mentality of MOST doctors.
I'm sorry you are so upset about this, though I don't understand why. I know why people like "us" get upset that doctors use these interventions and women are given the education about all aspects of what they are told.
Research shows that the constant fetal monitoring does not improve outcome AT ALL but only increases interventions-
But don't take my word for it- look it up! Find your own voice.
The nearly-10 pound baby I gave birth to standing up in my own bedroom was much easier to birth than the less than 6 pounder I gave birth to in a hospital bed, even though I made them get the bed as vertical as it could go.
As for continuous electronic fetal monitoring: again, simply not true. All the research shows that babies are NOT saved by EFM. EFM does NOT have batter outcomes than intermittent monitoring with a Doppler stethoscope.
Do your research before you yell at people.
/sarcasm.
Medical intervention is what helped those rates get that high. Impatient doctors who used fetal monitors, pitocin, etc, is what caused those rates. You might want to do your research before you start shouting that none of this is true.
why do doctors recommend not to sleep on one's back during pregnancy? because doing so compromises the blood flow to the baby.
trolls are not nice. keep an open mind about that which you fear. <3
At the last 2 births I attended, the lives of the babies were saved because of the medical technology we are VERY blessed to have in this country. The EFM saved the life of my sister's baby less than a week ago - her cord was tightly around her thigh and putting great stress on her with each contraction. It dropped dangerously low even as they prepared for a csection and it became a real emergency. There was no way she could have been born vaginally, it wasnt physically possible. They wouldnt have known there was an issue without a few hours on the monitor. God led her there, it was part of His plan and protection for her and the baby. Laboring at home could have been fatal.
**Its really about empowering women to have a choice and be educated about birth and their own bodies, and not about hating the other side**
Both ACOG and AWHONN(obsetric nurse association)have put out statements that's it's ok to use intermittent monitoring for low risk woman. Also any homebirth midwife worth her weight is also monitoring the babies heart rate and transfered if it was dipping low. They just do it in a way that allows them to move.
That said. I also agree there are situations that efm is needed. Just not very many. If that's the case I still try really hard to allow the woman to move around however she wants.
Jeanice Barcelo on facebook.
My website: www.BirthofaNewEarth.com
My facebook: Jeanice Barcelo
Thank you Rachel for pointing out the diff- much appreciated.
Am I passionate about birth- YES- and deeply so. Does that mean I judge women who do things differently than I- No it does not. I believe that women are not getting what they deserve in maternity care in this country. Women that are happy with their birth (no matter what interventions are involved) is what I would like to see more of.
I myself had a baby born at home with a nuchal cord- monitoring was important in helping choose good positions- but it did not mean I had to transfer, or lie on my back, or anything else.
My mission is to empower women- and condemn a broken system. Read the blog- angry posts are only part of it. Or don't, thats ok too.
Blessings, knowledge, and peace in all of your birthing journey's.
I just googled twilight birth pictures-
There are very few out there-
Good luck!
In my sisters birth the heart rate was not disappearing with every contraction but went the baby had trouble, she had big trouble. Thats why I know she was there on that monitor for a reason. I personally have had two in the hospital and two outside the hospital and am having a homebirth this time. I agree that monitoring does not have to be continuous to be safe. For some its good but its often a hinderance.