Duggars Vs. Bates

[Palimpsest]

Just now, Apricot said:

@VelociRapture great post.

Not sure how it works over there but in the UK it's actually illegal to have an unassisted birth.  It's against the law for a couple to birth a baby deliberately without consulting a medical professional.  Im guessing that's not the case in the US? 

 

Nope.  It certainly wasn't feasible historically (frontier days).  And the US is big on individual rights.   Also religious freedom  !!!!!!111Eleventy!!!11111!!!

 

 

[VelociRapture]

4 minutes ago, Apricot said:

@VelociRapture great post.

Not sure how it works over there but in the UK it's actually illegal to have an unassisted birth.  It's against the law for a couple to birth a baby deliberately without consulting a medical professional.  Im guessing that's not the case in the US? 

 

As far as I know it's not. It's highly recommended that an expectant mother has prenatal care and an assisted birth, but I don't believe it's required by law.

[Apricot]

Just now, VelociRapture said:

As far as I know it's not. It's highly recommended that an expectant mother has prenatal care and an assisted birth, but I don't believe it's required by law.

They obviously assume that people use their common sense!

Obviously over here there will be cases where labour is fast and a baby is born before someone is able to attend but in general if a mother is planning a homebirth then they can contact their midwife and someone will come out to assist them. 

[Palimpsest]

10 minutes ago, Apricot said:

They obviously assume that people use their common sense!

Obviously over here there will be cases where labour is fast and a baby is born before someone is able to attend but in general if a mother is planning a homebirth then they can contact their midwife and someone will come out to assist them. 

This is from an advocate of unassisted childbirth.  http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/is-uc-legal/

About as lacking in common sense as you can get.  Again, just my opinion.

[Apricot]

1 minute ago, Palimpsest said:

This is from an advocate of unassisted childbirth.  http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/is-uc-legal/

About as lacking in common sense as you can get.  Again, just my opinion.

Quote

When couples approach me and are nervous about the legal issues surrounding UC, I always tell them this: Just as you believe you will have a safe birth, you must also believe you will not have problems afterwards. If there is anything I have learned from having UC's it's that I am more powerful than any government official. If you believe you are safe, you are.

Wow.  I can't even form a response to that little snippet. 

[formergothardite]

The first time I heard of unassisted birth was at MDC and most of those people were insane and believed that as long as you kept happy thoughts nothing bad could happen. 

 

[blessalessi]

37 minutes ago, Apricot said:

It's against the law for a couple to birth a baby deliberately without consulting a medical professional. 

I was totally unaware of this. I presume the law is intended to protect vulnerable women from medical complications, rather than to punish women who may simply be too afraid to deal with an unwanted or traumatic pregnancy?

(I think I just assumed that if socialised healthcare is available, most people will automatically make use of it.)

I am interested in the debate above around "direct entry midwifery" vs "nurse midwife".  In the UK, nursing has become increasingly specialised, probably as a function of a socialised healthcare system that cannot afford to provide consultant care to the same level you all seem to get from your insurance policy healthcare (eg with your paediatric GPs, your annual healthchecks, your ObGyn as standard, etc).   Generally, we seem to be much more cheap, when it comes to taking care of ourselves.  But although they are probably vastly underpaid, our nurses are often very specialist in their skillset.

But Direct Entry Midwifery courses here involve a 3- year university/hospital/community based training, and the qualification is at the same level as say, an Adult Nursing course, and the registration and continuing professional development requirements are regulated by the same body, the Nursing & Midwifery Council.  If a general nurse wants to change direction and become a midwife, then there is an 18 month course, which kind of indicates that the Direct Entry course is more or less made up of 50% general nursing education and 50% specialist midwife training. 

[Bad Wolf]

1 hour ago, Apricot said:

@VelociRapture great post.

Not sure how it works over there but in the UK it's actually illegal to have an unassisted birth.  It's against the law for a couple to birth a baby deliberately without consulting a medical professional.  Im guessing that's not the case in the US? 

 

You have universal healthcare, we don't. Big difference.

[midnightviolet]

40 minutes ago, Apricot said:

Wow.  I can't even form a response to that little snippet. 

No wonder!

Yes, believing I was safe would totally have stopped me haemorrhaging after both my births. *rolls eyes at the stupid* 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

14 minutes ago, blessalessi said:

I was totally unaware of this. I presume the law is intended to protect vulnerable women from medical complications, rather than to punish women who may simply be too afraid to deal with an unwanted or traumatic pregnancy?

(I think I just assumed that if socialised healthcare is available, most people will automatically make use of it.)

I am interested in the debate above around "direct entry midwifery" vs "nurse midwife".  In the UK, nursing has become increasingly specialised, probably as a function of a socialised healthcare system that cannot afford to provide consultant care to the same level you all seem to get from your insurance policy healthcare (eg with your paediatric GPs, your annual healthchecks, your ObGyn as standard, etc).   Generally, we seem to be much more cheap, when it comes to taking care of ourselves.  But although they are probably vastly underpaid, our nurses are often very specialist in their skillset.

But Direct Entry Midwifery courses here involve a 3- year university/hospital/community based training, and the qualification is at the same level as say, an Adult Nursing course, and the registration and continuing professional development requirements are regulated by the same body, the Nursing & Midwifery Council.  If a general nurse wants to change direction and become a midwife, then there is an 18 month course, which kind of indicates that the Direct Entry course is more or less made up of 50% general nursing education and 50% specialist midwife training. 

Same here in Italy. Prenatal care though is done only by ob/gyn. During my hospital birth I was given medication by an ob/gyn to induce labor and then everything else was midwife led. Actually I got stitched by the ob because he was bored since nothing else was happening in the unit and the midwives told me he was the best one at stitching, I didn't have a bad tear it was only very unaesthetic they said. Usually midwives also do the assessment of baby conditions at birth but in our case they called the paediatrician on duty because she was born with the cord wrapped around the neck, but everything was fine they just wanted to be sure.

BTW universal healthcare system here too.

[Ali]

31 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

The first time I heard of unassisted birth was at MDC and most of those people were insane and believed that as long as you kept happy thoughts nothing bad could happen. 

 

Is it the power of positive thinking? Just think positive thoughts and the baby will be in the perfect birth position, the cord will not be around the babies neck, the mom won't develop preeclampsia, etc.

[blessalessi]

17 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Same here in Italy. Prenatal care though is done only by ob/gyn. During my hospital birth I was given medication by an ob/gyn to induce labor and then everything else was midwife led. Actually I got stitched by the ob because he was bored since nothing else was happening in the unit and the midwives told me he was the best one at stitching, I didn't have a bad tear it was only very unaesthetic they said. Usually midwives also do the assessment of baby conditions at birth but in our case they called the paediatrician on duty because she was born with the cord wrapped around the neck, but everything was fine they just wanted to be sure.

BTW universal healthcare system here too.

Generally here, you get a choice as to whether you want/need a midwife-led or Consultant-led birth.  Some areas only have midwife services, and you need to book into another area if you need the availability of a consultant. It is all a bit contentious because in better resourced areas, you can plan to give birth at home, or on the local midwife unit, but if the shit hits the fan, you can be transferred quickly to hospital (or to the next ward, if the consultant-led unit is in the same building) . In poorly resourced areas, you and your blue baby can end up on a long and frightening ambulance journey to an area that does have a consultant-led unit.

Midwifes are half-general-nurses though, so either way they have "pathology radars" available to them, even though they themselves will usually enjoy facilitating a safe, pleasant, soft lights, sweet music  birthing-pool baby delivery, as much as the mother who has requested it.

[19 cats and counting]

I didn't watch Jessa's birth special, but did she have anyone attending to the birth?  I know Jill was in CA by then, otherwise I'm sure it would have been her (video chat doesn't count).

You would think a family like the Duggars would know about birth.  Why couldn't she have gone to that OB that Michelle went to with her last 5 kids?

[lascuba]

1 minute ago, 19 cats and counting said:

I didn't watch Jessa's birth special, but did she have anyone attending to the birth?  I know Jill was in CA by then, otherwise I'm sure it would have been her (video chat doesn't count).

You would think a family like the Duggars would know about birth.  Why couldn't she have gone to that OB that Michelle went to with her last 5 kids?

She was rumored to have had Teresa, the "birth educator" who attended Mackynzie's birth--and who gave us the technical term "baby juices"--attend her. She's not a midwife in even the fake way that Jill is, but she's apparently popular among the fundie homebirthing crowd.

[19 cats and counting]

Just now, lascuba said:

She was rumored to have had Teresa, the "birth educator" who attended Mackynzie's birth--and who gave us the technical term "baby juices"--attend her. She's not a midwife in even the fake way that Jill is, but she's apparently popular among the fundie homebirthing crowd.

At least Anna went to an OB when she was pregnant with Mack (same one as Michelle IIRC).  

[Apricot]

31 minutes ago, blessalessi said:

I was totally unaware of this. I presume the law is intended to protect vulnerable women from medical complications, rather than to punish women who may simply be too afraid to deal with an unwanted or traumatic pregnancy?

<snip>

http://www.birthrights.org.uk/library/factsheets/Unassisted-Birth.pdf Sorry I think I had my facts skewed  Basically a woman cannot be forced to accept medical help but no other person must act as an attendant if they are not medically registered. 

I should have fully looked into it before I posted as a fact, I obviously mis-remembered slightly!

[ksgranola1]

Of course Jessa had  a birth attendant. They WANTED it to look like she did it all on her own.

And you all fell for it.

[iweartanktops]

58 minutes ago, Ali said:

Is it the power of positive thinking? Just think positive thoughts and the baby will be in the perfect birth position, the cord will not be around the babies neck, the mom won't develop preeclampsia, etc.

Well, fuck it! Who needs doctors at all, right? If we all just think happy thoughts, we'll stay healthy. 

 

[lascuba]

16 minutes ago, ksgranola1 said:

Of course Jessa had  a birth attendant. They WANTED it to look like she did it all on her own.

And you all fell for it.

Huh? I never got that impression. If anything, they wanted it to look like they had a qualified attendant by refusing to name Teresa or showing her face. That all turned to shit when Jessa had a PPH and the alleged midwife apparently didn't carry pitocin, but the birth clearly showed someone who wasn't a family member delivering the baby. If they wanted it to look like she did it on her own, they wouldn't have shown Teresa at all.

[Wenny]

16 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

Considering the complications with both Izzy and the Spurge's births, I don't trust the midwife skills at the TTH.  I heard through the grapevine (here or PTV) that Jessa only had a boutique ultrasound and had no prenatal care with the Spurge (supposively from someone who was close to Ben's extended family).

I am not sure if Jill had prenatal care (at least Anna did with the older M kids, not sure with the younger ones).  For all of Michelle's flaws, at least she had prenatal care with every kid born on TV (Jackson-Josie).  

And the Bates ladies had prenatal care.  The two grandsons were born in hospitals (not emergency).  (No idea with Allie).  

(Note-- this is not about hospital vs home births.  This is about a pregnant woman looking out for her and the baby's health).

No prenatal care! Oh goodness. My daughter had a neuro-tube defect that was caught in a ultrasound, they said it was lack of folic acid. Nothing wrong with a home birth with a low risk mom and certified attending midwives or doctors. 

[OrchidBlossom]

On 4/4/2016 at 5:57 AM, elliha said:

Alyssa could be modern and still wear skirts, I am confident she chose to wear pants (if her husband or FIL suggested it I don't know but I am actually pretty confident this is not something she didn't want herself). While I don't see it as an extreme rebellion I am sure it was not just a publicity stunt.

Can I ask why you are certain it was her choice alone and not something that was "allowed" to her? I'm not saying she doesn't like wearing pants and sleeveless tops, I think it is clear she is enjoying her new wardrobe freedom. But I also believe (until proven otherwise) that someone who grew up in a cult like ATI would defer to their headship, so I feel certain it was something discussed and approved by her husband beforehand. So I guess the difference is you are highlighting her feelings on the matter, which I am not contesting. She probably really enjoys it. But I am saying I believe she wouldn't be wearing them if her husband wasn't okay with it, and that means it isn't rebellion. ATI has always had a pants wearing segment. Alyssa marrying into that side of ATI royalty isn't rebellion, though it is lucky for a fashionista like her. 

 

[elliha]

15 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

Can I ask why you are certain it was her choice alone and not something that was "allowed" to her? I'm not saying she doesn't like wearing pants and sleeveless tops, I think it is clear she is enjoying her new wardrobe freedom. But I also believe (until proven otherwise) that someone who grew up in a cult like ATI would defer to their headship, so I feel certain it was something discussed and approved by her husband beforehand. So I guess the difference is you are highlighting her feelings on the matter, which I am not contesting. She probably really enjoys it. But I am saying I believe she wouldn't be wearing them if her husband wasn't okay with it, and that means it isn't rebellion. ATI has always had a pants wearing segment. Alyssa marrying into that side of ATI royalty isn't rebellion, though it is lucky for a fashionista like her. 

 

Well, I didn't say that really. I said that if she has been asked to dress more modern and would have preferred skirts only that would have been totally possible and therefore I don't think that she is wearing pants because it is the wish of her husband/FIL. I have no idea if they suggested it and she just said OK/I would be glad to but if skirts only was a strong conviction she could still do it and be "modern". I am not trying to paint her into some kind of rebel, but I also don't think she wears pants only because of wishes of other people. I agree that I also think her husband has no problem with her wardrobe whether he was asked explicitly to approve of every item or if it was something he agreed to have no views about already before marriage. None of us know for sure because he has said nothing about it.

[OrchidBlossom]

1 hour ago, elliha said:

Well, I didn't say that really. I said that if she has been asked to dress more modern and would have preferred skirts only that would have been totally possible and therefore I don't think that she is wearing pants because it is the wish of her husband/FIL. I have no idea if they suggested it and she just said OK/I would be glad to but if skirts only was a strong conviction she could still do it and be "modern". I am not trying to paint her into some kind of rebel, but I also don't think she wears pants only because of wishes of other people. I agree that I also think her husband has no problem with her wardrobe whether he was asked explicitly to approve of every item or if it was something he agreed to have no views about already before marriage. None of us know for sure because he has said nothing about it.

Well, we don't know for sure what any individual cult member feels or thinks in the privacy of their own heads. But we know Alyssa is a part of a cult where she is expected to follow the wishes of her headship, and we know that although skirts v. pants is supposed to be a choice by the individual woman, it is often explicitly or implicitly decided/persuaded by the husband (see Whitney being convicted to wear skirts after marrying Zach for the most prominent example, but there are stories of it happening in former-fundie circles to other women). So I think at the most perhaps Alyssa said "you know, I don't feel so personally convicted about skirts, it isn't super important to me" and Jon said may have said "yeah, you could wear pants/I wouldn't mind/I don't care/etc". But I guess my point is that she married into a section of ATI that allows women to wear pants. Not only that, but a family that probably prefers she wear pants because they don't want to be associated with any oddities (and probably don't want to be OPENLY associated with Gothardism at this time) on the campaign trail. So I think at BEST Alyssa may have asked to wear pants, but still gotten the headship okay, and at worst, may have been told it was part of the deal to "modernize" in a way that included pants. 

I guess my larger point is that I'm going to assume Alyssa is toeing the party line and following biblical womanhood/submission unless proven otherwise. And part of that is that wearing pants probably wasn't fully her choice so much as it was either suggested or allowed to her.

As a side note though, Alyssa is the closest I have to a pet fundie so I really hope she proves me wrong and drifts off eventually.

[elliha]

7 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

Well, we don't know for sure what any individual cult member feels or thinks in the privacy of their own heads. But we know Alyssa is a part of a cult where she is expected to follow the wishes of her headship, and we know that although skirts v. pants is supposed to be a choice by the individual woman, it is often explicitly or implicitly decided/persuaded by the husband (see Whitney being convicted to wear skirts after marrying Zach for the most prominent example, but there are stories of it happening in former-fundie circles to other women). So I think at the most perhaps Alyssa said "you know, I don't feel so personally convicted about skirts, it isn't super important to me" and Jon said may have said "yeah, you could wear pants/I wouldn't mind/I don't care/etc". But I guess my point is that she married into a section of ATI that allows women to wear pants. Not only that, but a family that probably prefers she wear pants because they don't want to be associated with any oddities (and probably don't want to be OPENLY associated with Gothardism at this time) on the campaign trail. So I think at BEST Alyssa may have asked to wear pants, but still gotten the headship okay, and at worst, may have been told it was part of the deal to "modernize" in a way that included pants. 

I guess my larger point is that I'm going to assume Alyssa is toeing the party line and following biblical womanhood/submission unless proven otherwise. And part of that is that wearing pants probably wasn't fully her choice so much as it was either suggested or allowed to her.

As a side note though, Alyssa is the closest I have to a pet fundie so I really hope she proves me wrong and drifts off eventually.

We don't know but I do think she enjoys her pants and I also think she enjoys the aspect that Kelly doesn't seem to like her wearing them even if she accepts it now that Alyssa is married. Perhaps that is a mini-rebellion against her parents but not likely to mean that she is on the verge of leaving what she was brought up in. 

[OrchidBlossom]

1 hour ago, elliha said:

We don't know but I do think she enjoys her pants and I also think she enjoys the aspect that Kelly doesn't seem to like her wearing them even if she accepts it now that Alyssa is married. Perhaps that is a mini-rebellion against her parents but not likely to mean that she is on the verge of leaving what she was brought up in. 

Possibly. I loved when she showed up to Michael's wedding with dyed hair. You could tell her family didn't like that! I assume because dyeing your hair is likely seen as not being grateful for what god gave you (I think Jana Duggar said she tried to dye her hair once and it went wrong and afterward she decided not to be ungrateful anymore). But she does seem to have some little sparks of rebellion, so it could be. I just am very cynical about the possibility (as much as I want it to be).