Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Coconut Flan

Chelsy and John Maxwell 7: Not as Beige as Maxhell - Yet

Recommended Posts

daisyjane1234
Posted (edited)

I find it difficult to read birth stories and know how to respond.  And I don't understand the aversion to c-sections.  I gave birth to my son 20 years ago when the prevailing thought was to avoid a c-section at all costs (don't know if it has changed).  Had a c-section been done in a timely manner, my son would be fine.  But all other options apparently had to be exhausted, including a forceps attempt that led to a cord prolapse, crash c-section,  and finally a "catastrophic birth injury" leading to profound disabilities.  I was unconscious for my son's birth and was barely coherent when they were paging the chopper to airlift him to another hospital in another city.  

I know that my birth story is extreme, and I worry about sharing it because people often turn birth stories into some form of competitive trauma game. My story often brings all conversations to a screeching halt.  I think we need to honour all women's birth stories and understand we all experience trauma in our own way. 

Thank you all for sharing your story.  For those who also experienced difficult births and/or loss, I wish you peace.   And while I disagree with most of the Maxwellian theology/worldview, I am sorry Chelsy found her birth experience traumatic.  I hope she and and Axton are, and remain, well.  

Edited by daisyjane1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foudeb

Home births get something of a bad rep on FJ but they can be done sensibly imho. Maybe avoid them for the first child as you don't know how your body will react to childbirth but if the first birth went OK, you get good antenatal care and it's looking like a low-risk pregnancy, and provided of course you get an experienced midwife to attend, it should be perfectly ok. A good midwife will have oxygen etc. and will be able to recognise anything out of the ordinary and organise a hospital transfer if anything looks dodgy (they don't wait in those scenarios so if you want a natural birth you may be better off in a birthing center, where they'll allow a lot longer before organising a transfer to the labour ward, mostly because it's seconds rather than minutes away).

On studies it did show an increased risk to the baby (not for the mother!) in a home birth if it was a first baby but no difference in outcome if it was not a first baby (source: https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/births-at-home-or-in-hospital-risks-explained/)

The problem with fundies is that they do it from their first birth, their antenatal care doesn't look foolproof, and I'm really not sure the midwives they use are that good. The fact that the hospital transfer took 45 minutes is a big red flag - how to reach hospital and how long it'll take is the number one item they address on a home birth assessment.

Just, you know, use your judgement rather than trust God's plan.

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy
PennySycamore

@daisyjane1234,  I am so sorry  that you did not get the c-section you and your son needed and deserved.  

I can maybe explain a little about the attitudes about c-sections.  About 40 years ago or so, there was a movement to humanize the experience of having a baby by cesarean.  This was related to the natural childbirth movement.  A lot of the natural childbirth movement might seem way out there, but it did not start without good reason.  Women at the time I was born 64 years ago might have general anesthesia even for a vaginal birth.  Women were aloso given scopolamine during labor so they'd not remember the labor.  They'd stay in the hospital for a week with the baby staying in the nursery only to be brought out to mom at 4-hour intervals.  This wreaked havoc with attempts to breastfeed the new baby.  Slowly things began to change.   Some women wanted to nurse their babies and not have hospital protocol interfere with breastfeeding getting established.  There were a few books being written like Childbirth Without Fear by Dr Grantly Dick-Read and the works of Dr Lamaze along with the experience of mothers who birthed in countries other than the US that pointed out that there was another way to birth our babies -another way that might be safer for mother and baby and more satisfying for the mom.  Some women who'd had c-sections felt that even if they could not birth their babies by themselves there was no reason that they could not experience  lot of the characteristics of natural birth:  little prep (no shaving of the pubic area), mom awake for the birth and mom and baby allowed to room-in.  By the late 70s, some of those advocating more humane treatment on c-sections also began to advocate VBAC -vaginal birth after cesarean.  Some of these advocates went to far, suggesting that women have unassisted home births and suggesting that if you have a breech baby then it's your head's own damn fault.  (You might be feeling guilt about a previous abortion was one example given.)  Even one of the authors of the seminal work about VBAC , Silent Knife, felt that a lot of what they wrote was utter bullshit.  

Anyway, by the late 80s-early 90s, there was an effort to lower the c-section rate which was too high among some OBs and also to increase the VBAC rate.  They wanted to decrease the number of unnecessary cesareans.  A c-section is major surgery requiring a longer hospitalization than a vaginal birth and costs way more, among other things.  In the effort to  lower the c-section rate, OBs may -and in your case certainly did- go too far in the other direction.   I think if you're going to have cesareans performed when necessary, you're going to end up with some one that aren't necessary.  I think that's better for mom and baby than doing too few.  

  • Upvote 8
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meee

Idle speculation (since I'm not a fundamentalist Christian and don't pretend to know what they think): is it possible they are stuck in the era of "C-section rates are too high" and go for homebirths so they aren't "subjected" to an "unnecessary" one in the hospital and then potentially have to limit future births? Quotes because I'm trying to indicate that none of this is in any way how I feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spent
ViolaSebastian
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, meee said:

Idle speculation (since I'm not a fundamentalist Christian and don't pretend to know what they think): is it possible they are stuck in the era of "C-section rates are too high" and go for homebirths so they aren't "subjected" to an "unnecessary" one in the hospital and then potentially have to limit future births? Quotes because I'm trying to indicate that none of this is in any way how I feel about it.

I would posit, in addition to this, that finances has something to do with it too. It's typically much cheaper to go the midwife route than to labor in a hospital. Especially if you're going to be giving birth every year. And no potential for "YuCkY PeRVeRt OBgYNs" to look at one's more precious than rubies fundamentalist hooha. 

Edited by ViolaSebastian
  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JermajestyDuggar
15 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I would posit, in addition to this, that finances has something to do with it too. It's typically much cheaper to go the midwife route than to labor in a hospital. Especially if you're going to be giving birth every year. And no potential for "YuCkY PeRVeRt OBgYNs" to look at one's more precious than rubies fundamentalist hooha. 

And Scameritan covers homebirths completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elliha

If you plan a big family c-sections can be a problem because you may end up not being able to have many repeat c-sections. Some people can have large families and have them all born by c-sections but you may be told already by the time you have your second or third that you should not have more babies. Yes, fundies may decide to be martyrs and do it anyway but if mom dies there will be no more babies and some do have the sense to stop at a recommendation like this. Your uterus bursting open is not really a nice way to die really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melissa1977
21 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I would posit, in addition to this, that finances has something to do with it too. It's typically much cheaper to go the midwife route than to labor in a hospital. Especially if you're going to be giving birth every year. 

In Spain, while hospital births are absolutely for free, homebirths are not covered by the public healthcare system. The few women who choose this way are middle class or at least have some earnings to spend. 

The funny thing is that conservative people here would never choose a homebirth, essential oils etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JemimaPuddle-Duck
On 6/19/2019 at 11:43 AM, JermajestyDuggar said:

And Scameritan covers homebirths completely. 

They cover hospital births and sections completely, as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
mango_fandango

I remember when Erika Shupe wrote about the birth of her twins on (I think) the second blog she did. She stated in that story that she wanted to avoid a c-section. C-sections are more popular with twin births (and are pretty much always needed for triplets and more, since they are delivered early and a c-section is the fastest way to get babies out). I think finances probably played a part - she stated elsewhere that Bob was out of work for five months after the twins were born. She used Scamaritan healthcare, I believe. She only wrote about the twins' birth, but I think she may have had all hospital births. I also remember she said that Karen's birth was long and hard and it gave her nightmares for about a year... which didn't stop her conceiving Melanie shortly afterwards (there's thirteen months between Karen and Melanie). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JermajestyDuggar
36 minutes ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

They cover hospital births and sections completely, as well. 

I found this on their website:

7F7FDF2C-5AD1-4AB8-8995-B0ECFAA79189.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tired
Palimpsest
50 minutes ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

They cover hospital births and sections completely, as well. 

Sorry, no they don't.  By a long way!

Scamaritan covers medical expenses only after the Fundie involved explores and uses each and every opportunity and loophole for the indigent to beat back and down the actual bill for their care.  Scamaritan subscribers suck at the public and tax-payers teat all. the. time.  Federal taxes and those of us who pay for our health insurance subsidise Scamaritan six ways to Sunday.  And our health insurance premiums go up as Scamaritan and its subscribers abuse the system.

Furthermore, check the small print.  Scamaritan only covers the remaining bills if they can't find a loophole to deny the individual subscriber coverage.  And they can knock you off coverage on a whim, or if they find you have ever taken anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds.  Because those are ungodly.

And all this is all contingent on other subscribers.  They are not obliged to pay up if they don't think you are Godly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
usmcmom
54 minutes ago, mango_fandango said:

I remember when Erika Shupe wrote about the birth of her twins on (I think) the second blog she did. She stated in that story that she wanted to avoid a c-section. C-sections are more popular with twin births (and are pretty much always needed for triplets and more, since they are delivered early and a c-section is the fastest way to get babies out). I think finances probably played a part - she stated elsewhere that Bob was out of work for five months after the twins were born. She used Scamaritan healthcare, I believe. She only wrote about the twins' birth, but I think she may have had all hospital births. I also remember she said that Karen's birth was long and hard and it gave her nightmares for about a year... which didn't stop her conceiving Melanie shortly afterwards (there's thirteen months between Karen and Melanie). 

Wait. Bob was out of work??? 

Bob was out of work when the twins were born and one of the older girls got up with Erika to care for the twins at night?!? That photo always infuriated me - the one of Karen (?) feeding a baby beside Erika. Now it REALLY makes me mad to know that Bob wasn’t needing to sleep for work the next day. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SassyPants
Posted (edited)

My idea of birth plans has not changed since my first pregnancy 33 years ago.  My idea, healthy mama and healthy baby, that’s it, no more, no less. I got that outcome so that’s all that matters. Now in CM’s case, she wanted a home birth, but, and applaud her here, when the situation changed, she adjusted her plan along the way. She got herself to the hospital, and agreed to both the vacuum and an episiotomy. I have no doubt that she would have also agreed to a C-Section had that been needed or advised. Beyond the healthy mama and healthy baby, the rest is just icing on the cake, and of course, most people like frosting...just my opinion.

ETA- driving in a car for 45 minutes while pushing in active labor would be a nightmare!

Edited by SassyPants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazinga
On 6/18/2019 at 3:46 AM, meee said:

Except vacuum extraction DID fail, and they tried an episiotomy next. At least, if I'm reading her story correctly. Like I said earlier, I'm shocked she didn't get a C-section when the vacuum didn't work.

Sorry, I haven't read through the entire thread so someone may have already said the same thing, but my guess is the baby was responding well (i.e. heart rate was normal, etc.), so they probably had time to try another avenue. I'm super surprised as well, but in the end I guess it saved her from surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosie
1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

Sorry, I haven't read through the entire thread so someone may have already said the same thing, but my guess is the baby was responding well (i.e. heart rate was normal, etc.), so they probably had time to try another avenue. I'm super surprised as well, but in the end I guess it saved her from surgery.

Yes, that is how I read it.  I had a very similar birth to CM's in that it entailed both a vacuum extractor and an episiotomy.  It was no picnic, but to me anyway, it was preferable to surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JemimaPuddle-Duck
Posted (edited)
On 6/20/2019 at 4:53 PM, Palimpsest said:

Sorry, no they don't.  By a long way!

Scamaritan covers medical expenses only after the Fundie involved explores and uses each and every opportunity and loophole for the indigent to beat back and down the actual bill for their care.  Scamaritan subscribers suck at the public and tax-payers teat all. the. time.  Federal taxes and those of us who pay for our health insurance subsidise Scamaritan six ways to Sunday.  And our health insurance premiums go up as Scamaritan and its subscribers abuse the system.

Furthermore, check the small print.  Scamaritan only covers the remaining bills if they can't find a loophole to deny the individual subscriber coverage.  And they can knock you off coverage on a whim, or if they find you have ever taken anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds.  Because those are ungodly.

And all this is all contingent on other subscribers.  They are not obliged to pay up if they don't think you are Godly enough.

I had a planned c-section during our relatively short time on Samaritan and it was covered completely except for the $300 we payed initially. 

I did not have to do any crazy loophole searching. I told the hospital I was cash pay, I sent my itemized hospital bill to Samaritan, and I received shares to cover it in full. 

Now I am not a huge Samaritan plugger, I am just relaying my personal experience during the time we gave it a whirl. For our family, it makes more sense to have insurance through my husband’s work because of one child’s pre-existing condition. 

I personally know (for sure) five other ladies who use Samaritan. Three of them use birthing centers or home birth, one has all sections like me, and one does hospital births because of a medical condition. Their births have also been completely covered. 

Edited by JemimaPuddle-Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snowfootwaltz

I had my second child a month ago (who is now cuddled sleeping peacefully on my chest - 🥰). Anyway, when I had a doctor appointment sometime in the third trimester they gave me “birth plan” paperwork to fill out and bring back...I had it filled out in the two minutes I was waiting for the doctor:

”Get baby out. Baby and self healthy.”

When my OB came in and saw the “plan” she was all I LOVE YOU!! They must get some doozies with all the birth plan stuff nowadays.

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 2
  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JermajestyDuggar
8 hours ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

I had a planned c-section during our relatively short time on Samaritan and it was covered completely except for the $300 we payed initially. 

I did not have to do any crazy loophole searching. I told the hospital I was cash pay, I sent my itemized hospital bill to Samaritan, and I received shares to cover it in full. 

Now I am not a huge Samaritan plugger, I am just relaying my personal experience during the time we gave it a whirl. For our family, it makes more sense to have insurance through my husband’s work because of one child’s pre-existing condition. 

I personally know (for sure) five other ladies who use Samaritan. Three of them use birthing centers or home birth, one has all sections like me, and one does hospital births because of a medical condition. Their births have also been completely covered. 

What I think is interesting about what I posted from their website is that they are pushing for homebirths and vbacs by waving the basic fees that you would pay for a hospital birth or a repeat c-section. I know $300 may not seem like much, but it may be a lot to some poor fundies with large families. So I think it is one of the multiple reasons why fundies are more likely to have a homebirth or vbac. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×