Jump to content
IGNORED

Do Fundie Women Believe In Inducing Labor?


ljohnson2006

Recommended Posts

If the pregnant woman had sole control over where she would give birth, Zsu would deliver dead Twin A at home, along with a, hopefully, live Twin B.

And the alternative is what, forced hospitalization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wow...I LOVE reading this forum? Opinions are so diverse and everyone believes so strongly in what they are saying. I personally hope there are fundies up here trolling around so they can learn and "possibly" understand how the rest of us think. I've learned so much up here. So far most of the snark has been very informative. Ten years ago I was just a die hard People magazine reader. Then hubby decided to buy me a laptop that I DID NOT ask for. I was content reading traditional paper books. Turns out I got the hang of the laptop and discovered certain web pages. Didn't realize these web pages were called, BLOGS. Well 1 day a few years ago I was researching heart disease and a blog called, A Pondering Heart came up. So you all probably already know who my gateway fundie is. Jocelyn Dixon is one deep lil chic and it was her world that got me fascinated and addicted to reading on fundie blogs. I heard she ain't even fundie anymore. I found FJ while looking for Duggar info. I didn't get interested in them until Jackson was born. Honestly thought he would b her last. Guess not. So sorry for the babbling off topic. Just felt a need to express myself ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With statistics like a 34% c-section rate, 20-40% of births being induced, and the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, it is perfectly logical to question American Obstetricians.

I don't get why people are so against c-sections. Without mine my son and I would be dead. i can not even begin to tell you how many people were so offended that I didn't have a "natural" birth. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people are so against c-sections. Without mine my son and I would be dead. i can not even begin to tell you how many people were so offended that I didn't have a "natural" birth. :roll:

No one is against necessary Csections. What is offensive is the idea that over a third of women can't give birth. It's false and harmful as a csection is serious surgery with more risks and possible complications than a vaginal birth, for both mother and baby.

I had a homebirth for my second and was planning on one for the third. Had complications and was glad to go to a hospital. I'm not against hospitals or necessary surgery. I'm against the way many women are treated during pregnancy and birth in this culture where almost all births are medicalized and managed and subjected to numerous interventions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people are so against c-sections. Without mine my son and I would be dead. i can not even begin to tell you how many people were so offended that I didn't have a "natural" birth. :roll:

I don't know you, but I'm glad you had a medical intervention available to you that saved both your life and that of your son.

I am not a mother, just an aunt. But what I've observed of random strangers' interactions with my sister-in-law suggests that if you are a woman and are parenting, people whose opinions you never asked are going to tell you that You're Doing It Wrong, no matter what you're doing.

That kind of shaming is a messed-up and gross byproduct of a society that believes women's bodies are property and, thus, other people's business. And seeing it happen up close has had a moderating effect on my snark instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people are so against c-sections. Without mine my son and I would be dead. i can not even begin to tell you how many people were so offended that I didn't have a "natural" birth. :roll:

A necessary c-section is a wonderful thing. But an unnecessary one isn't.

Or would you be glad if you went to the dentist, he told you you had a very little cavity and pulled your tooth, and the ones next to it, too "just in case"?

A c-section is a major abdominal surgery, with all the risks that come with surgery, and carries risks for future pregnancies and the natural birth process is also beneficial for the child (preparation of lungs, contact with beneficial bacteria in the vagina). Such an operation shouldn't be undertaken lightly or for no good reason.

And we know that the rate of c-section many industrialized nations have (well over 30%) is too high and not medically necessary. And also not caused by elective c-sections, which are, in the complete picture, quite rare. They are caused by a false assessment of the risk mother and child are in during the last stages of pregnancy or during birth.

For example: "Large baby" (which turns out to be perfectly normal - ultrasound in late stages of pregnancy does not predict birth weight accurately), a previous c-section ("Just to be sure, we want no uterine rupture!" - the risk is elated, but not as high as to make a vaginal delivery very risky) or a breech baby/twins (which can be delivered vaginally in most cases, most providers just have no experience with it, are afraid and prefer the cut).

Over-treatment is malpractice as well as refusing necessary treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With statistics like a 34% c-section rate, 20-40% of births being induced, and the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, it is perfectly logical to question American Obstetricians.

The risk of fetal death doubles from what it was at 40 weeks (2-3/1000) by 42 weeks and it is 4 to 6 times greater 44 weeks. Going postdates is very dangerous.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0515/p1935.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The risk of fetal death doubles from what it was at 40 weeks (2-3/1000) by 42 weeks and it is 4 to 6 times greater 44 weeks. Going postdates is very dangerous.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0515/p1935.html

But you could argue that one all day long because just inducing ALSO greatly increases your risk of a multitude of complications, up to and including death. Not to mention that the date the obstetrician uses is often just a guess, so induction can run the risk of premature delivery, which also carries risks, even when it is by a just a few weeks.

And many o.b.s will hang on to the projected date like a dog with a bone. I have a young relative who had 0 idea when she conceived, and had irregular periods, so her initial stab at the date of her last period was literally just a guess. Yet her o.b. Insisted on inducing at 41 weeks to the day because that's just what they do now. Luckily she was fine, but the Dr. Could easily have been far off on dates.

I was induced with my son by having my water broken, I was a little past dates , and on track for a 2 nd vac. What the dr who did the induction didn't tell me, but I found out later through my own research, is that his cord prolapse , which could have easily killed him, was far more likely due to the induction. He did suffer some oxygen deprivation.

Seriously, I swear, before induction became the norm most women did manage to go into labor on their own.

Women have every right to research the pros and cons of every procedure and not assume their doctor is going to know everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity is induction when babies go past their due date more common now than 20-30 years ago? I ask because both my husband and I were 2 weeks late and there was no complications (other than our moms being annoyed at their procrastinating offspring)

I think the fundie emphasis on low intervention hospital birth/home births is not really based on women asserting agency over their body but because

- most of them don't have health insurance and so a midwife is cheaper than a hospital stay or if you did go to a hospital a low intervention birth cost less when paying out pocket

- less chance of being treated by one of those pervvy male obgyns that saved Zsu's baby's life

- there's a link between induction and increased use of drugs/c-section which would likely decrease the number of babies you can safely have afterwards since either vbacs or Cesarean can really do a number of the uterus if you're trying to get to the magic number 20th kid.

- I'm willing to bet some asshole patriarchs want to see women have un-medicated birth since we're all supposed to suffer from Eve's curse or some bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Going postdates is very dangerous" is an incorrect statement. Most women will never face any danger from being overdue. No one hits 40 weeks and is suddenly in danger. Even if your statistic is true it's still a VERY small risk of danger that will affect very few women. Inducing a woman who is not having a problem is probably more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity is induction when babies go past their due date more common now than 20-30 years ago? I ask because both my husband and I were 2 weeks late and there was no complications (other than our moms being annoyed at their procrastinating offspring)

I think the fundie emphasis on low intervention hospital birth/home births is not really based on women asserting agency over their body but because

- most of them don't have health insurance and so a midwife is cheaper than a hospital stay or if you did go to a hospital a low intervention birth cost less when paying out pocket

- less chance of being treated by one of those pervvy male obgyns that saved Zsu's baby's life

- there's a link between induction and increased use of drugs/c-section which would likely decrease the number of babies you can safely have afterwards since either vbacs or Cesarean can really do a number of the uterus if you're trying to get to the magic number 20th kid.

- I'm willing to bet some asshole patriarchs want to see women have un-medicated birth since we're all supposed to suffer from Eve's curse or some bullshit.

In my not-researched opinion, a bit more common.

I was told in no uncertain terms that my OB's office would not be OK w/ having me as a patient if I went over 42 weeks (would have been helpful to hear that at appt #1, not at the one at week 41, but that's neither here nor there); people I know a generation older than myself said their doctors didn't even think about an induction at week 41, it was at week 43 or 44 when they did.

And, I had a well drugged induction and all was well/good/etc--I'd make the same decision again. But that doesn't change that factors that are more or less 'convenience' were major influences --(I had just used up 1.5 of my weeks of leave at home waiting for the baby to come. I wasn't allowed to make the drive to work, and I didn't have unlimited sick time. My husband was going to be away for the next days, and the chances that he would have problems getting from work to the hospital were high. My mom's chemo schedule made it so that a baby on a Thursday was awesome for her to visit, a baby on a Wed wasn't. The doctor I liked best was on the calendar on Thurs, not Wed, etc), and I think some of those are increasingly common for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity is induction when babies go past their due date more common now than 20-30 years ago? I ask because both my husband and I were 2 weeks late and there was no complications (other than our moms being annoyed at their procrastinating offspring)

I think it's definitely much mor common to induce for going past the due date now. I had my kids in the 80 s, I was 3 weeks past dates with the first and the doctor hadn't even mentioned inducing. 2 weeks with my second and no talk of inducing, except to suggest loooonggg walks etc. The third as the induction...but I was a lready about 10 days over and it was a second vbac, my o.b. Was going out of town and was worried about the other doctors not doing the vbac, it had nothing to do with being past dates.

I think it's partly because people know much earlier and have ultrasounds earlier, so people now are much more likely

to say " I'm x weeks pregnant" in my time it was more like " I'm about x months"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me there is a big difference between 'I am an expert on what is normal for my body and my healthcare is in partnership with my doctors' (which I agree with 100%) and saying 'It is my body and nobody is more invested in the outcome than me so my choices should always be put ahead of whatever the doctor recommends'.

I used to have a lot of blind trust in doctors. I was a very sick baby and a sick child and excellent surgeons and specialists saved my life more times than I'm even aware of. But then I had a routine athroscopy in my knee and it became infected.

I rang my surgeon's office the day after my surgery and told his receptionist I wanted to speak to him, that I was in too much pain and my incision was leaking heavily. She laughed me off - wouldn't let me talk to him at all - and said 'of course you're in pain, dear, you just had an operation!'. I'd had an athroscopy (and lateral release) done in the past and I knew something was wrong.

Five days later I had to go to hospital because I couldn't move my leg and it was heavily leaking. My surgeon prescribes antibiotics and takes 5 huge syringes worth of fluid out. I told him I'm allergic to antibiotics and they make me vomit. He said to stop taking them if I vomited. I took them and they made me vomit so I stopped them. By this stage I'm at home but still can't move my leg and it's leaking a thick, soupy yellow-green pus.

He saw me that monday (2 weeks after the surgery) and admitted me then and there to have it cleaned. I had to be on IV ABs (with anti-emetics) for 2 weeks in the hospital, I even ended up with a PICC line. After I got home there were a further 2 months on oral ABs. My knee is ruined and the infection reached the bone.

So I don't blindly trust doctors. He didn't listen to me and it ruined my leg. He was arrogant and awful.

That is why you have to shop around for a doctor who you can trust. A good doctor will listen to you and believe you and take what is normal/comfortable for you into account in your treatment. I don't think living with your knee or getting pregnant means you know best all the time, especially if you have an excellent doctor. It's a fine balance but I can't get behind 'it's my body part so what I say should always go' mentality. Patients do not always know best even if they're the most invested in their outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, a person doesn't always KNOW best, but the final decision is theirs when it is their body which is affected.

My husband has been finding himself both sad and frustrated recently, because a friend's wife has stage 4 cancer and has rejected the chemo option in favor of a wild goose chase around the world for a cure. Chances are that their efforts have only depleted their funds, deprived her of precious remaining time with her family and made her condition worse....but we are not in her shoes, and it's not our decision to make. With or without treatment, the prognosis is horrible, and the chemo itself would have been brutal, so it's hard to say that there is one right answer. [i know he'll be fuming today because she's got yet another rant about the local health system posted, and he'll feel compelled to tell people that if you actually get yourself under the care of a real doctor, you won't encounter the same problems.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip*

That is why you have to shop around for a doctor who you can trust. A good doctor will listen to you and believe you and take what is normal/comfortable for you into account in your treatment. I don't think living with your knee or getting pregnant means you know best all the time, especially if you have an excellent doctor. It's a fine balance but I can't get behind 'it's my body part so what I say should always go' mentality. Patients do not always know best even if they're the most invested in their outcome.

This is one of my soapbox-y topics, but it can be really hard to find out before you're in the middle of a crisis.

I mean...I'm currently in the market for a primary care doctor (*waves* anyone local to me who wants to make a recommendation, I"m game :lol: ).

I have a long and lousy history with doctors, so I took a recommendation to my current PCP. I liked her--she was willing to look at some non-traditional stuff and was very knowledgeable on nutrition-y stuff, which was something Mr. Dawbs needed in a PCP.

ANd then, Mr. Dawbs had a bad bout with depression. He ended up hospitalized, things were hard, and it has been a challenge (for several years now) to find the right balance. This doctor--who was great at all sorts of things, has started the "well, you don't want to be on anti-depressants FOREVER" sort of BS --very dismissive and problematic (which, in an ideal world, no, he wouldn't. Given that the choices, as they currently stand are hospital, dead, or meds, we'll take the meds TYVM).

That's one example, but I can think of 3 or 4 more where I had a doctor, it was all rosy, and something changed and we went from "supportive and helpful" to "giant obstacle in my path to wellness"--happened w/ one of my neurologists while TTC/PG, happened w/ another PCP when I started having migraines, etc.

You can *THINK* you've found the right doctor, but things shift to fast in medical situations to ever be sure you've got the right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle a lot with this one because I'm not convinced that a lot of fundie women actually have the agency to fully consent.

I am a midwife's daughter (in NZ). She changed careers a couple of years ago, but in her career she attended and supported many homme births, as well as birthing centre and hospital births. With her first 3 children (before she trained) she simply went along with what the dr said. It ended up in 1 awful birth (mine - years later when she was able to read her notes as a trained meical professional she realised the degree of negligence in my birth) and 2 amazing, empowering hospital births. For my sister, baby 4, 20 years after me, she chose home birth. Unfortunately due to complications she ended up in hospital. In my world all birthing options are seen as normal and valid.

I'm currently toward the end of my first trimester. I am seeing the OBGYN (here in Ohio) regularly because I have complications, but will be then transferred to the midwives that she works with, who have a birthing centre associated with the hospital (the OBGYN is hoping next visit! Eeep :D). In my location and in my current situation, this is an ideal circumstance. Elsewhere I may have chosen differently.

What concerns me is that in a lot of circles women are given the appropriate method and can't necessarily consent to other options. An example that sticks out to me is Carol Balizet's Zion birthing movement. This movement eschews all modern medicine and intervention as sinful. There have been a number of associated deaths. If a fundie woman is living in a culture where this is normal and expected, how much choice does she really have over what happens to her body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you define "ability to consent" this narrow, basically nobody but members of mainstream culture are able to consent, which brings paternalism back in a big way. As long as the person concerned is not obviously mentally impaired or mentally sick, we have to assume the person is also capable to consent.

We might not be able to imagine women might consciously chose to take part in such movements/religions, but if they are asked and confirm they are not forced to adhere to it, you have to take their word for it in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of opinions here. Ok, I will dive in:

First off, I am a stronger believer that women have ultimate control over their bodies. Even when that decision goes against medical advice. I know there are always exceptions and exceptional cases and I believe most woman want to do what's best for themselves. From legal standpoint, I will always, always support a woman's right to do what they want.

The only segment I disagree with is the one that hand waves the doctor's expertise, but then turn around and uses medical data to prove their own point. It's no different than creationists who think the biologists have just missed this critical piece of evidence that they (creationists) have suddenly hit upon after googling a for a few days.

We practice evidence-based medicine in this country. This means we base decisions on data that's acquired over many, many years; through millions of patients; with people who spend their entire lives in this field trying to piece the data together to maximize the best possible outcome for women and children. Protocols aren't written by trolling websites for personal stories.

The layperson may have read up on a website about the evils of induction/epidural/c-sections/etc. However, the OB-GYN most likely also read up on papers too, first during med school, then during residency and then during practice.

Now, imagine a bunch of OBs and clinical researchers came together to pool their knowledge to create general guidelines after arguing and weighing in with their respective research. That's where so much of medical protocols come from.

That doesn't make doctors omniscient, but it does make them more knowledgeable than someone who attended Google medical school, more knowledgeable than even the woman who spent all of 9 months reading OB forums and baby books.

However, there's still so much we don't know, and therefore, doctors also know people aren't all the same. We have yet to discern why some individuals defy our modern understanding of medicine. That's why a good doc should personalize and tailor medical protocol to specific patients.

There's also medical judgements that comes with reading papers. It's not a matter of "I found procedure X can lead to these risks", it's "procedure X has been shown for women with this condition and these set of circumstances to have just the same outcome as not doing X but with all these risks". Sure, induction isn't always the best course, but there are circumstances where it's proven to have better overall outcomes than not doing it.

Heck, my husband is a practicing (non-OB) physician and he has flat-out stated he would probably never feel more qualified than an OB if I'm in the delivery room precisely because as a student of medicine, he realizes how little he actually knows about the practice of obstetrics.

Perhaps the old saying that the "The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing" is particularly apt in medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

]I struggle a lot with this one because I'm not convinced that a lot of fundie women actually have the agency to fully consent.

I am a midwife's daughter (in NZ). She changed careers a couple of years ago, but in her career she attended and supported many homme births, as well as birthing centre and hospital births. With her first 3 children (before she trained) she simply went along with what the dr said. It ended up in 1 awful birth (mine - years later when she was able to read her notes as a trained meical professional she realised the degree of negligence in my birth) and 2 amazing, empowering hospital births. For my sister, baby 4, 20 years after me, she chose home birth. Unfortunately due to complications she ended up in hospital. In my world all birthing options are seen as normal and valid.

I'm currently toward the end of my first trimester. I am seeing the OBGYN (here in Ohio) regularly because I have complications, but will be then transferred to the midwives that she works with, who have a birthing centre associated with the hospital (the OBGYN is hoping next visit! Eeep :D). In my location and in my current situation, this is an ideal circumstance. Elsewhere I may have chosen differently.

What concerns me is that in a lot of circles women are given the appropriate method and can't necessarily consent to other options. An example that sticks out to me is Carol Balizet's Zion birthing movement. This movement eschews all modern medicine and intervention as sinful. There have been a number of associated deaths. If a fundie woman is living in a culture where this is normal and expected, how much choice does she really have over what happens to her body?

Agreed. I think Anna's first homebirth with Mackenzie was coerced because Smuggar wanted it to be filmed so they'd get the money. They were originally planning to use their usual family doctor who does allow it to be filmed but then she was unavailable so they decided on an impromptu homebirth (and just called up the bradley coach who may or may not have been a midwife) to assist. There was no indication they had planned anything in advance, gotten any medical supplies, or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, a person doesn't always KNOW best, but the final decision is theirs when it is their body which is affected.

I agree. As long as the patient is fully informed I think they have the right to choose any (or none) of the options given to them. I do think sometimes patients make really poor decisions without realising how dangerous those decisions are and in some of those instances I don't have a problem with a doctor taking over.

I'm talking about things like parents prolonging the suffering of a child on life support for selfish reasons, or when a woman is clearly being forced into doing something due to family pressure and the doctor can tell she doesn't want to do it (like a natural, drug free birth when the woman wants pain relief) or if a patient forgoes a treatment without understanding that it will cost them their life (people turning refusing cancer diagnosing MRIs/blood tests and so forth because they don't like tests, or saying no to chemo they need NOW to see if it 'goes away on its own' because they truly think Jesus will take away their cancer).

Those are all situations I've heard about from people in the medical field, and in all of those cases I would support a doctor taking whatever legal action is necessary to give treatment (or in the case of the woman giving birth, the doctor booted the husband out and performed an epidural, which the lady consented to). Of course, I only advocate that for the most extreme of cases. Otherwise I absolutely think an informed patient with all the information a doctor has given them has the right to choose which path they wish to follow, even if that's not the wisest choice.

I realise it's not a popular opinion, but those are just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of opinions here. Ok, I will dive in:

First off, I am a stronger believer that women have ultimate control over their bodies. Even when that decision goes against medical advice. I know there are always exceptions and exceptional cases and I believe most woman want to do what's best for themselves. From legal standpoint, I will always, always support a woman's right to do what they want.

The only segment I disagree with is the one that hand waves the doctor's expertise, but then turn around and uses medical data to prove their own point. It's no different than creationists who think the biologists have just missed this critical piece of evidence that they (creationists) have suddenly hit upon after googling a for a few days.

We practice evidence-based medicine in this country. This means we base decisions on data that's acquired over many, many years; through millions of patients; with people who spend their entire lives in this field trying to piece the data together to maximize the best possible outcome for women and children. Protocols aren't written by trolling websites for personal stories.

The layperson may have read up on a website about the evils of induction/epidural/c-sections/etc. However, the OB-GYN most likely also read up on papers too, first during med school, then during residency and then during practice.

Now, imagine a bunch of OBs and clinical researchers came together to pool their knowledge to create general guidelines after arguing and weighing in with their respective research. That's where so much of medical protocols come from.

That doesn't make doctors omniscient, but it does make them more knowledgeable than someone who attended Google medical school, more knowledgeable than even the woman who spent all of 9 months reading OB forums and baby books.

e.

I disagree. In my experience many people are able to find out what is wrong with them and get appropriate treatment ONLY because of Dr.Google, websites and forums. Because their own G.P. will have no idea what is wrong and write off anything unexplained as being " stress" or psychosomatic or just let it drop. It is only through researching the symptoms themselves and finding hundreds or thousands of people going through the same thing that they might have an idea of what could be wrong, and often that idea will turn out to be correct and they can start to get help. Obviously this can be carried too far,and some people will freak out about every little sniffle, but there are a shocking number of people suffering from various diseases who were brushed off for years by the medical providers. I know this is often true with autoimmune diseases.

Also even without attending medical school most reasonably intelligent people can learn how to slog through medical terminology and read professional articles. What is unfortunate is that many Doctors seem too invested in their pride to hear new information if it doesn't come from another Doctor.

I don't think anyone expects their physician to be all-knowing and to have heard of every disease and complication and condition on the planet, but they shouldn't be so arrogant that they won't look into it if the patient has researched something themselves.

Or, in my daughters case, if a 9 month pregnant patient presents saying that 1) She thinks she is leaking amniotic fluid 2) she has a fever of 104 3) her abdomen is painful and hot and 4) when she's in the hospital and her water fully breaks it is filled with meconium .........Maybe, possibly, the f&$$) Dr. should listen when she says there is a problem and should of known, without being told by the patient, that she had chorionamniotic infection.

In ways I think the Internet is a huge equalizer not just for political movements but for a wide range of issues, including health problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only segment I disagree with is the one that hand waves the doctor's expertise, but then turn around and uses medical data to prove their own point. It's no different than creationists who think the biologists have just missed this critical piece of evidence that they (creationists) have suddenly hit upon after googling a for a few days.

We practice evidence-based medicine in this country. This means we base decisions on data that's acquired over many, many years; through millions of patients; with people who spend their entire lives in this field trying to piece the data together to maximize the best possible outcome for women and children. Protocols aren't written by trolling websites for personal stories.

We wish we'd practice evidence-based medicine! This is a goal that hasn't yet been achieved because many procedures established now are not thoroughly tested or can't be tested because it wouldn't be ethical to do so (for example, not operating upon people with appendicitis to see how many would actually die - this study is not going to happen). And even IF there is evidence, this does not mean it will be followed by the practitioners. OBs, for example, do often considerably stray from the guidelines laid out by ACOG.

A doctor will not

a) necessarily practice evidence-based medicine.

b) necessarily pay attention to the data produced by medical scientists.

c) have the time to study all available studies for every case he has to treat, while a person actually affected by a condition might very well do this.

d) be magically immune from malpractice because he or she is a doctor.

And being no doctor doesn't ban anyone from accessing data evidence-based medicine should be based on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wish we'd practice evidence-based medicine! This is a goal that hasn't yet been achieved because many procedures established now are not thoroughly tested or can't be tested because it wouldn't be ethical to do so (for example, not operating upon people with appendicitis to see how many would actually die - this study is not going to happen). And even IF there is evidence, this does not mean it will be followed by the practitioners. OBs, for example, do often considerably stray from the guidelines laid out by ACOG.

A doctor will not

a) necessarily practice evidence-based medicine.

b) necessarily pay attention to the data produced by medical scientists.

c) have the time to study all available studies for every case he has to treat, while a person actually affected by a condition might very well do this.

d) be magically immune from malpractice because he or she is a doctor.

And being no doctor doesn't ban anyone from accessing data evidence-based medicine should be based on.

I agree. Many common obstetric practices are culturally based not evidence based.

• continuous fetal monitoring

• Vaginal Examinations during labour

• Labouring in the lithotomy position

• episiotomy

To name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I qualify as fundie by the definition of this board.

But in my own experience, and knowing many, many fundie women, the answer is what it is for many of these questions: It depends.

Personally, I went past 42 weeks twice. There was no actual medical issue requiring induction. I was under the care of CNMs and their practice's OB. I went for NSTs/BPPs 3x a week in the last two weeks to make sure the babies were fine in there. And they were. Those last two weeks were misery but the trade off was 4 hour labors both times. :)

But with my last baby, I developed pre-e. Making the decision to induce at 38 weeks was hard for me, because that is a bit early, when things are going well. But as sick as I was, I knew that whatever benefits were to be had by continuing the pregnancy were way outweighed by what my body was going to do to the baby if we didn't get her out. So pitocin it was. Same midwives, btw.

Among my fundie friends, they run the gamut from fully medical deliveries to "all natural" unassisted births. IME it has more to do with their other lifestyle preferences than their faith. And the midwife practice I used had everyone from super-fundies (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) to non-religious lesbian couples as their clients, hippies, hipsters, anarchists, country dwellers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With statistics like a 34% c-section rate, 20-40% of births being induced, and the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, it is perfectly logical to question American Obstetricians.

When I see this statement in the context of a debate on birth practices, I know that I can conclude the person making the statement is ill-informed at best and disregard any other statement made from said person. This is a popular lament in the natural birth community and among lay midwives and on the surface it SEEMS like a good argument because it is true. BUT, infant mortality has nothing to do with birth practices. It is the wrong statistic to use. You've clearly fallen into the trap of Google University by believing everything you read.

Now a homework assignment. Do some more research and find out the definition of infant mortality and what it means as far as medical care. To what medical specialty does it apply? Then find out the name of the statistic that applies to obstetric care and do a little reading about it. I could tell you the answers but you won't believe me (nor should you because I'm just someone on the internet) and it's probably a good exercise for you and anyone else who feels smug when using the infant mortality statistic inappropriately.

(While you're at it, I would be interested to know what c-section rate you think is appropriate. No need to provide evidence to back up your opinion because no such evidence exists. No one else knows what the appropriate rate is but you apparently want to judge the hell out of a rate that YOU seem to think is too high.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.