This is an interesting topic. Here's my experience of hospital births.
Our two children were both born in hospital Both times labour was very long, about 15 to 20 hours from memory. Our first need the ventouse (sp?) and ended up in an incubator as she struggled a bit but was fine after a few hours (although my wife was very upset to not be able to hold her new daughter straight away). Our second was even more nerve wracking with the midwife concerned about her heart beat and I think used forceps in the end. I had an awful few minutes as it became apparent that the umbilical cord was around the baby's neck and she was a bluish colour rather than pink. There was a flurry of activity for a few minutes as the apgar score was too low.
Both kids were 100% fine in the end but I can't say I 'enjoyed' the experience. I hate to think what might have happened if we had been at home. Therefore in our case hospital births were absolutely the best choice. The nurses/midwives were first class in their approach. They were definitely trying to avoid a caesarian unless absolutely necessary.
I can categorically say that I have never been more tired or emotionally drained than after the birth of our second child. I finally got to sleep after about 40 hours of being awake - I think I was almost hallucinating in the end (and I didn't have to go through the actual giving birth bit!!)
Neither of our babies were heavy at birth - presume some come out easily and some don't! Best of luck Adam and I hope you enjoy the experience!!
Post peak birthing
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Bedrock Barney
- Posts: 319
- Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 22:23
- Location: Midlands
Thanks goslow, tattercoats and others for your best wishes. My forum-shy wife is very appreciative.
A lot of the problems that develop during hospital births happen because of the unnecessary interventions that hospital births make more likely. The process is affected by the psychology of the situation. In a hospital, the women is made to distrust her own instincts in this most primal of life events. In fact, our culture encourages women to think of normal pregnancy as a series of crises that require routine medical intervention to overcome. Women who demur are made to feel irresponsible and selfish because they are exposing themselves and their babies to unacceptable risks. Many births are made unnecessarily traumatic by taking place in unfamiliar surroundings, attended by lots of strangers and where the woman is passive recipient of clinical expertise. Key to making delivery easier is being calm and confident and secure in one's surroundings; and being in control. The stress of the medicalised birth actually has a physical effect on the muscles around and below the uterus which makes it harder to open up and release the baby. This is because, in our evolutionary past, a mechanism was needed to delay birth for a while, to allow the woman to flee predators. Stress induces changes that also impede the efficacy of endorphins that flood the body to help a natural birth. This stress-leads-to-delay-and-pain factor conflicts with the hospital's need to get the birth finished in a reasonable time to free up hospital bed and staff resources. The hospital then uses drugs to create artificial contractions (which are far more painful than natural ones), the woman is in such pain by this point that she goes for the epidural to switch off the pain. The epidural makes it harder to push or to maintain any autonomy in the birthing, making use of ventouse and forceps more likely. All this stresses the baby out and this sequence of events can often lead to a caesarian. The more interventions the more traumatised mother and baby are. With a caesarian, the baby does not have that key, instinctive, bonding skin-to-skin contact with mum, where s/he tries to find mum's breasts immediately after the birth.
As I said before, I'm not against medicalised births in the small minority of births where they are needed. I think, particularly in the light of peak oil, routine medical intervention is unwise - to say the least - and will lead to more unnecessary suffering in the future.
The birth process must be massively important in forming us at that key initial stage in life. We tinker with it at our peril. Conception and birth are processes which involves a massively complex biological, evolutionary, psychological and physical systems. The medicalised birth alters parameters and, as will all complex systems, it is virtually impossible to know how they will respond.
I'm not advocating no medical intervention, just no routine medical intervention. If we will lose midwifery skills, like the US has, and end up unable to manage normal, uncomplicated birthing without the medics, then, yes, we will have higher death rates. My point is that it is only a small minority of cases need that medical intervention. The vast majority of births can be done by women, attended by a properly trained midwife. Higher death rates in the past or in poorer countries today are caused by poor maternal nutrition before and during pregnancy and by poor hygiene during birthing.JonB wrote:the idea post peak without modern medical intervention we will not return to the something like the death in childbirth rates we had historically is wishful thinking. Same goes for death in prematurity and similar problems. Hospitals have their problems - I think the American situation is more to do the lawyers and risk of being sued than purely medical. After all they are the ones who carry the can for dead babies and mothers. And that does still happen.
A lot of the problems that develop during hospital births happen because of the unnecessary interventions that hospital births make more likely. The process is affected by the psychology of the situation. In a hospital, the women is made to distrust her own instincts in this most primal of life events. In fact, our culture encourages women to think of normal pregnancy as a series of crises that require routine medical intervention to overcome. Women who demur are made to feel irresponsible and selfish because they are exposing themselves and their babies to unacceptable risks. Many births are made unnecessarily traumatic by taking place in unfamiliar surroundings, attended by lots of strangers and where the woman is passive recipient of clinical expertise. Key to making delivery easier is being calm and confident and secure in one's surroundings; and being in control. The stress of the medicalised birth actually has a physical effect on the muscles around and below the uterus which makes it harder to open up and release the baby. This is because, in our evolutionary past, a mechanism was needed to delay birth for a while, to allow the woman to flee predators. Stress induces changes that also impede the efficacy of endorphins that flood the body to help a natural birth. This stress-leads-to-delay-and-pain factor conflicts with the hospital's need to get the birth finished in a reasonable time to free up hospital bed and staff resources. The hospital then uses drugs to create artificial contractions (which are far more painful than natural ones), the woman is in such pain by this point that she goes for the epidural to switch off the pain. The epidural makes it harder to push or to maintain any autonomy in the birthing, making use of ventouse and forceps more likely. All this stresses the baby out and this sequence of events can often lead to a caesarian. The more interventions the more traumatised mother and baby are. With a caesarian, the baby does not have that key, instinctive, bonding skin-to-skin contact with mum, where s/he tries to find mum's breasts immediately after the birth.
As I said before, I'm not against medicalised births in the small minority of births where they are needed. I think, particularly in the light of peak oil, routine medical intervention is unwise - to say the least - and will lead to more unnecessary suffering in the future.
The birth process must be massively important in forming us at that key initial stage in life. We tinker with it at our peril. Conception and birth are processes which involves a massively complex biological, evolutionary, psychological and physical systems. The medicalised birth alters parameters and, as will all complex systems, it is virtually impossible to know how they will respond.
Will have to agree to differ on some things.
I agree that things should be more midwife led, but disagree on most other things. NCT are going in the right direction, but are way too preachy for my liking.
Hope things go well for you and you get the birth you and your wife want.
Be interested to hear feedback afterwards.
One of the things that hasn't been discussed is age.
Evolutionarily speaking, we should have kids 15-30 then die (statistically) only in the last few generations has this not happened in any numbers.
I think some of the increase in medicalisation is due to age of mothers - we are a case in point; my wife was 34 with our first.
Again, good luck and I hope all goes well
Jon
I agree that things should be more midwife led, but disagree on most other things. NCT are going in the right direction, but are way too preachy for my liking.
Hope things go well for you and you get the birth you and your wife want.
Be interested to hear feedback afterwards.
One of the things that hasn't been discussed is age.
Evolutionarily speaking, we should have kids 15-30 then die (statistically) only in the last few generations has this not happened in any numbers.
I think some of the increase in medicalisation is due to age of mothers - we are a case in point; my wife was 34 with our first.
Again, good luck and I hope all goes well
Jon
A lot of the comments about hospitalised childbirth that one reads are frankly out of date. I have 2 children 18 and 12 and had an epidural for both. Yes the exeprience for the first one was that it made it hard to know when to push and I ended up with forceps. But 12 years ago when I had DD2 (at the age of nearly 42 and after 4 miscarriages so high risk) the epidural technique had been refined beyond recognition. I could move my legs and push with no problem - I just did not feel any pain. And that was 12 years ago - now women can walk around, they have got so skilful. Apart from having the epidural I was attended by midwives throughout (despite being high risk) and I was at home within 12 hours after the birth. I really enjoyed having DD2
Hospital births have saved a lot of womens' lives even in modern times. One girl of 22 who was in my ante-natal group had a caesarian first time round and really wanted a 'natural birth' next time. She suffered a ruptured uterus and bled to death. Another friend would have died from the placenta becoming detached if they had not got to hospital in time for an emergency caesar.
Please keep an open mind and if when the time comes it does not want to go to plan, don't feel you have 'failed'. The only real measure of success is a healthy mother and baby
Hospital births have saved a lot of womens' lives even in modern times. One girl of 22 who was in my ante-natal group had a caesarian first time round and really wanted a 'natural birth' next time. She suffered a ruptured uterus and bled to death. Another friend would have died from the placenta becoming detached if they had not got to hospital in time for an emergency caesar.
Please keep an open mind and if when the time comes it does not want to go to plan, don't feel you have 'failed'. The only real measure of success is a healthy mother and baby
Mary, I did stress the word "routine" many times in my comments above deliberately to communicate that it isn't a case or home birth good, hospital birth bad. If we get into difficulties - breech birth etc - we will both be very grateful for hospital intervention, however, my point remains that using drugs (however good they've become) and medical technology for normal births is of questionable wisdom now and will very probably be impossible by the time our kids have their own children. As our energy supply drops off, just like the suburbs, routine medicalised birthing will probably not be on the menu for most of us, however much we may want it. My hope is that things hang together enough to maintain the high tech safety net in the very small minority of cases where it is needed.maryb wrote:Please keep an open mind and if when the time comes it does not want to go to plan, don't feel you have 'failed'. The only real measure of success is a healthy mother and baby
p.s. ...and, don't worry, we won't feel we have failed if we end up in hospital.
This site and links from it (below) explain why how we give birth is important...
http://www.birthchoices.co.uk/normal.html
http://www.birthchoices.co.uk/normal.html
-
RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
A big contributing factor to the numbers of women dying in childbirth in the old days was the sheer number of times they had to repeat the risk, each one having the potential to weaken you for the next. Nine or twelve wasn't unusual in Victorian times, typically these days it's between one and four. Interestingly, evidence has appeared that the huge family sizes of the 19thC were historically unusual: go back further and four-or-five is more typical.
There has been some research (Barker, Uni of Southampton, but I can't find it at the mo.) that has attributed today's long life expectancy in France to Napoleon's policy of making sure that even in times of shortage pregnant women didn't go hungry. Bearing in mind that we each grow from eggs that were being made while mum was a foetus inside gran, that doesn't sound quite so outlandish.
There has been some research (Barker, Uni of Southampton, but I can't find it at the mo.) that has attributed today's long life expectancy in France to Napoleon's policy of making sure that even in times of shortage pregnant women didn't go hungry. Bearing in mind that we each grow from eggs that were being made while mum was a foetus inside gran, that doesn't sound quite so outlandish.
Hmm... Childbirth used to be THE most dangerous situation an adult woman can engage in. Yes, the hospital processes can be clumsy and insensitive, but they DO save lives. Big time.
I would dare to guess that pregnancies and childbirths is one of the few areas where modern medical practices actually affect demographics in any significant way.
Infectious diseases like pneumonia might be no 1, but the cure is mainly due to administration of a small set of antibiotics.
Otherwise, fridges and municipal waste-water plants have probably saved more lives than the medical profession has done.
I would dare to guess that pregnancies and childbirths is one of the few areas where modern medical practices actually affect demographics in any significant way.
Infectious diseases like pneumonia might be no 1, but the cure is mainly due to administration of a small set of antibiotics.
Otherwise, fridges and municipal waste-water plants have probably saved more lives than the medical profession has done.
RC - Yes, I hadn't considered the frequency of pregnancy factor. In hunter-gatherer times, our itinerant lifestyle was supposed to have acted as a constraint on the number of times a woman could get pregnant.
It is a strange idea that, if we have a girl, half the genetic material that could form some of our grandchildren have already been created.
Hope I'm not getting too adamant in this thread. It is just something that is on my mind rather a lot just now (for some strange reason).
It is a strange idea that, if we have a girl, half the genetic material that could form some of our grandchildren have already been created.
Hope I'm not getting too adamant in this thread. It is just something that is on my mind rather a lot just now (for some strange reason).
Medical interventions save lives in the minority of genuinely high-risk births.MacG wrote:Hmm... Childbirth used to be THE most dangerous situation an adult woman can engage in. Yes, the hospital processes can be clumsy and insensitive, but they DO save lives. Big time.
I would dare to guess that pregnancies and childbirths is one of the few areas where modern medical practices actually affect demographics in any significant way.
Infectious diseases like pneumonia might be no 1, but the cure is mainly due to administration of a small set of antibiotics.
Otherwise, fridges and municipal waste-water plants have probably saved more lives than the medical profession has done.
According to the consultant obstetrician at our local NHS hospital and various midwives we have spoken to, their view of the research evidence is that hospitals are no safer for normal births than home for the baby and the mother.
The dispensing of antibiotics doesn't need a hospital admission - that's what you meant, wasn't it MacG? I'm not sure that birth is the most dangerous situation a woman is put in. Doesn't it depend on what circumstances you are born into.
I think that the emotive nature of this topic is partly because of the point that MaryB touched on above. People do often feel a failure or at the very least that they have missed out if they go further down the medical path than they had planned or hoped beforehand. People bring their own feelings and regrets and insecurities about their own birth or expectation of it to the subject.
Over the last few months, my wife has talked to many women about their birth stories. The pattern that emerged has been reflected in this thread: the majority of women still say hospital is safer but their stories of what actually happened range from the OK to the awful. None have spoken positively of the experience, whereas the women who had natural (home) births were incredibly enthusiastic about their experience.
We are doing stuff to prepare psychologically for the birth, doing a hypno-birthing course and spending time learning about which factors lead to pain. It will hopefully be of use, where ever we end up having the baby.
Wow! Looks like I was lucky four times!
I have had very positive experiences with our local hospital. Of course, for me the location (knowing I was in hospital and so not likely to be "late" for the birth of my own child) actually made me more relaxed and so by all reckonings less likely to suffer complications than if I was stressed.... which I surely would have been at home (personal view here).
So YES I can only agree that the mother's comfort with the situation is important - as is an "eyes open" outlook to what your choices entail. I have no doubt Adam that you and your OH have found your right choice.
Best wishes to your good lady for the big day! (How soon might it be?)
I have had very positive experiences with our local hospital. Of course, for me the location (knowing I was in hospital and so not likely to be "late" for the birth of my own child) actually made me more relaxed and so by all reckonings less likely to suffer complications than if I was stressed.... which I surely would have been at home (personal view here).
So YES I can only agree that the mother's comfort with the situation is important - as is an "eyes open" outlook to what your choices entail. I have no doubt Adam that you and your OH have found your right choice.
Best wishes to your good lady for the big day! (How soon might it be?)
Thanks Sally. Baby's due in just under seven weeks.
One of my cousins did her midwifery training in Belfast at the beginning of the 1990s and later spent some time practising in London. She was shocked by how much better practices were in Belfast than in London.
I must say that I'm impressed by our local maternity service. I think quite a lot of resource has been put into it and they seem to be aware of the need for a relaxed mum and a low-intervention approach, plus they encourage home birthing where things are going well.
One of my cousins did her midwifery training in Belfast at the beginning of the 1990s and later spent some time practising in London. She was shocked by how much better practices were in Belfast than in London.
I must say that I'm impressed by our local maternity service. I think quite a lot of resource has been put into it and they seem to be aware of the need for a relaxed mum and a low-intervention approach, plus they encourage home birthing where things are going well.
I'm mainly talking about historical time and Europe. People used to die rather deliberately. Childbirth and infections seem to have been prime causes for adults and infections for children. Lousy nutrition, sleep and general conditions was the rule.Adam1 wrote:The dispensing of antibiotics doesn't need a hospital admission - that's what you meant, wasn't it MacG? I'm not sure that birth is the most dangerous situation a woman is put in. Doesn't it depend on what circumstances you are born into.