Linda if you want to understand why women choose homebirth then you need to take a closer look at what is turning women away from hospitals. Massive unnecessary intervention rates, fractured care, no continuity of care, being attended to by busy strangers at one of the most intimate times of your life, - there are NSW hospitals with 30% episiotomy rates and private hospitals with over 50% caesarean rates. This is why women choose to birth at home with private midwives.

What about the women who have lost their babies due to the actions of doctors and hospital staff? Sadly it happens far too often and when you judge women and the midwives who care for them at home you fail to recognise why there is a global push for homebirth and better access to midwifery care. There was a 30% rise in homebirths in USA between 2004- 2008 - why? Because maternity care in the USA is in a terrrible state - Between 1996 and 2006, the maternal death rate in California tripled, in large part because of unnecessary cesarean sections. I suggest you attend the annual Homebirth Australia Conference on this weekend and meet some of the women who choose homebirth and the professional midwives (and doctors) who support them - more details here:
http://homebirthaustralia.org/

'Hospitals are, after all, centres for 'birth rape''

Hahahaha!

Yeah I'm a long term fan of the Birth Rape.

Good work.

So much analysis and agonising though, when it's all trend based really. Having a baby is a commercialised activity, and every avenue has been marketed.

We live in a society where the middleclass people with no drug or financial issues, that care about their kids and are never going to do them too much damage, are fretting about every little decision and sending 6 month old babies to Gymberoo and Swimming lessons, and breast feeding until 5 years old and having the kids wrapped up in muslin on their chest 24/7 until they're one - Yet refusing to vaccinate them.

They don't want to be left out, or left behind, and be laughed at by the other mothers because their 1 year old isn't learning to speak Japanese yet.

Home birthing is just part of this Yuppie/Hippie fad. Part of the 'Big-Pharma is evil' and doctors are Birth-Rapists who dare to challenge that web site you like with 30 years of medical experience and training.

So, in the end, doesn't matter what you or any other doctor may say, 'Natural' is best these days.

Maybe you doctors should embrace whale songs, to get with the vibe of the new breed of nature loving control freak mothers out there.

The key sentence in this article is: "Who is to blame for these tragedies?"

Why blame?

and

Why a tragedy?

Death is the most natural phenomena, why see it as an enemy?

We all experienced death before we were born and we shall all experience it again - so why make a big deal out of it?

It appears that doctors, and western governments, abuse the scare of death for their own advantage, for their own success. It is clear why THEY do it - it makes them look good, to seem like our "saviours", it gives them energy and a [temporary] sense of meaning, but why should we take part in their career ambitions? why should we sacrifice our souls for the chance of keeping our bodies around a little longer?

The medical persuation makes it their top priority to extend the duration of our bodies, but in doing so, they condemn us to a [longer] life of anxiety, whereby instead of coming to terms with our inevitable death, thus freeing our energies to make the best of the time that we have here, our energies are so caught up in anxiety that we have none left for a meaningful life. We then treat death as "tragedy" and turn to them, to the doctors, for a further extension. And it doesn't end with anxiety - we also get a lifetime where instead of celebrating the inevitable, we feel guilty about it, about our inability to prevent the unpreventable, and when we can no longer contain this guilt, we turn to blame others instead: what a kind of life it then becomes that we are so eager to prolong?

Thus, doctors sacrifice the quality of life for duration.

Natural birth can be a spiritually-transforming experience. When not poisoned by anxiety and guilt, natural birth can be one of life's most magical moments.

Doctors try to make us believe that life is measured in years, but the truth is, that life is measured in moments!

Yuyutsu,

'Doctors try to make us believe that life is measured in years, but the truth is, that life is measured in moments'

Spoken like someone who has already lead a full life.

'When not poisoned by anxiety and guilt, natural birth can be one of life's most magical moments.'

Orgasmic even!

I'll take the benefit of first world medical intervention thanks. Mothers dying during childbirth and high infant mortality are so passé.

i would ask all of you to consider a few salient facts.

the article author is in the minority in being a female specialist obststrician.

52% of graduating medical students have been female (for ages) but they avoid becoming specialists like the plague. Most importantly those few who do specialise avoid obstetrics & other specialities that are considered to be "hard work".

in larger numbers than male doctors, they gravitate towards general practice &/or other areas of medicine that provide for a 9 to 5 job like psychiatry, research, etc.

Think about it, it is sunday morning & mother's day, your husband, children are fussing about organising breakfast in bed while you ly in reading the sunday papers, watch insiders, etc. Do really want that spoiled by your pager going off because one of your customers just went into labour.

survey after survey has shown that women with "high flying careers" sooner or later turn clucky, marry a man whose career is at least equal to or higher than their own, then throttle back to off work or part time at best & making babies, or trying to.

think about it? is it good value for money to put somebody who only ever intends to work part time through at least 2 degrees over 10 years or more?

The main advances for women came from replacing midwives with doctors, better food and better sanitation.

Better food and better sanitation also significantly reduced child mortality rates, together with immunisation programs.

Noted that the majority of this can be attributed to the actions of men, with basically nothing attributed to feminists.

Birth has become so highly medicalised it's costing the healthcare system far in excess of what it should with no demonstrational advantages over past 20 - 30 years.

It earns Doctors, particularly Obstetricians, Medical Imaging and Laboratory businesses big bucks.

Examples: Ultrasound - deemed safe though never actually proven. Some researchers are looking for possible links with increasing prevalence of autism, behavioural disorders and severe allergy. 30 years ago ultrasound was used to investigate suspected abnormality or multiple pregnancy. Now 3 over course of 'normal' pregnancy is routine. Is this necessary? NO! Profitable? YES!

Laboratory Work: It's become routine to test for glucose intolerence, not just women identified or deemed at risk of gestational diabetes. Necessary? NO! Profitable? YES!

The contentious increasing C-section prevalence: Until last 15 years or so breech babies, in otherwise healthy pregnancy were commonly delivered vaginally especially if mother had sucessfully birthed previous infant/s. Nowadays caesarean is the only choice offered by most Obstetricians. Ditto twin pregnancies. Necessary? In many cases, NO! Profitable? YES!

There are other issues. Who pays? We all do through taxes and ever increasing private medical insurance.

Good Dr Linda has written a very biased article which doesn't mention incidence of maternal/neonate death or damage in hospitals. I suggest the horrendous insurance premiums for Obstetricians reflects frequency of such events.

Example: 6 years ago, cousin, late 30s, fourth pregnancy, informed she needed c-section for breech presentation - despite 3 previous deliveries, second also breech. She protested but informed by Obstetrician he didn't deliver breech vaginally. Not a 'pushy' woman, she accepted and had c-section. On the 4th day pronounced 'fit' and discharged. 48 hrs later - readmitted with massive life threatening post-op infection. Outcome: 2 weeks hospitalised, separation from infant daughter, impaired bonding, inability to breastfeed, protracted recovery, depression requiring medication and ugly scarring.

I suggest a more 'natural' or back-to-basics approach would be beneficial for everyone bar "vested interests". Midwives should be the general custodians of normal pregnancy and delivery with Obstetricians backing up and caring for high risk patients.

As a midwife, I have only ever worked in hospital obstetric wards.
However, I have delivered, or been in the delivery suite when a Doctor delivered, pregnant women who have come into hospital after trying to have a home birth.

All these experiences were awful for all involved. The parents were disappointed the home birth 'experience' didn't work out, and then there was guilt for having deliberately put themselves and their babies at risk. Not all those babies came out alive or 'normal'.

The thing to remember is, NO birth is guaranteed to be 'normal'!
Things can and do go awfully wrong, awfully quickly.

Back in the olden days when most women birthed at home, mortality was high for both babies and mums. Hospital births became preferable if you wanted more of chance to have a good outcome.

In Australia, many pregnant women live too far away from any real medical help if something should go wrong. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't (and didn't) like to take any chances with anything going wrong with me or my baby, just so I could feel more 'comfortable' or 'natural' by birthing my baby at home.

And I made this decision, despite being a midwife, and having many midwife friends who would have been happy to help me at home.

I wouldn't want to stop anyone else doing so though, even though I believe they are playing Russian roulette...

Suzeonline - I did not infer by 'natural' or 'back-to-basics' that mothers and midwives should suddenly be delivering the majority of babies at home. While I support the right of any healthy mother with no history of problems to date to choose a planned homebirth with assistance from a well trained attendent, it is most likely the marjority will choose hospital. Experienced Midwives working within the hospital system are the best attendants for women having normal uncomplicated labours and Doctors/Obstetricians for anything else.

You should surely identify with that and also be very cognisant of the issues and examples I raised.

Australia has an enviable record internationally when it comes to maternal safety and infant mortality but there are quite a few things which need improving - and some of these entail a 'backward step'.

I'm pleased you pointed out that no birth is 'risk free' - women and babies die during and soon after hospital birthing. It is rare - as are deaths during well planned home births, but they do happen. For anyone interested check out ABS (statistics).

Dear Divine_msn:

"I support the right of any healthy mother with no history of problems to date to choose a planned homebirth with assistance from a well trained attendent"

- It goes without saying, but why all those caveats?

How could it be anyone else's business whether I am healthy or not and who (if any) I employ to attend me when I give birth?

Incarceration of people in hospitals is not on, nor has anyone the right to tell me who my friends are and who are not. Whether I live or die (and whether my baby lives or dies) is none of the government's business. Just because they fancy maintaining an enviable international record of maternity safety and infant mortality, gives them no rights over my body.

I do of course respect Houellebecq's and Suzeonline's choice to use the hospital system and conventional doctors. I expect the same in return.

Dear Yuyutsu

I could hardly say I support the right of any pregnant woman regardless of serious health issues and/or complications of pregnancy which would almost certainly result in death of mother, baby or both without expert medical & hospital care to give birth at home - it would be highly irresponsible. Then again -'right' is perhaps the wrong word and should have been 'decision'.

In the Nanny State, you may land in a spot of bother if you act in such a way to have failed, in the eyes of the law, to exercise due care with a resulting stillbirth or neonate death. That's because the State considers the welfare of children a social responsibility. If you die instead of or as well as the baby - no probs I guess.

I have some empathy for your obvious dislike/fear of hospitals - not overly keen on them myself. However unless you are an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act of the State in which you reside, hospitals are not places of 'incarceration'. Please feel free to walk out whenever you like.

Dear Divine_msn,

"If you die instead of or as well as the baby - no probs I guess."

I'm afraid that's just the beginning of legal probs for the midwife, or friend that helped, or husband that supported.

Can most women physically walk out in the midst of labor?

Even if they are not physically prevented there and then from walking out, they could still be charged as a result and be incarcerated for years in a higher-security prison for what you named "lack of due care". For every practical purpose, the choice "go voluntarily to a low-security prison - or we'll place you later in a high-security prison" is nothing but incarceration, perhaps even worse, because in a prison there is a limit to what guards are allowed to do with your body, whereas in hospital, the doctors may drug it and cut it against your will.

Obviously, no one expects you to support all women's decisions, some of which you may well dislike and consider irresponsible, but there's a long way from not-supporting to coercion.

Yuyitsu <"...whereas in hospital, the doctors may drug it and cut it against your will."

Gee, is that right?
Which hospital in Australia allows that to happen to pregnant women?

Unless it is a life-threatening situation, NO medical person can drug or cut you without permission in hospitals in this country Yuyitsu.
And even in life-threatening situations, they always try to get permission to operate or give medications to the woman from next-of-kin first.

If you had previously said to the Doctor/Midwife that you are not to be 'cut',or have any drugs, during your labour, and a life-threatening situation occurs involving you and/or your baby, would you or your relatives then be happy to accept one or two deaths?

No, of course not.

I am not saying there are never poor outcomes from some births in hospitals in Australia. But I do know we have one of the highest success rates in the world for positive labour outcomes and healthy mums and babies.

I am sorry you feel that way about hospitals Yuyitsu, and I hope you are never in a position to have to rely on the mainly dedicated medical staff in those hospitals to save your life one day.

Dear Suzeonline,

"But I do know we have one of the highest success rates in the world for positive labour outcomes and healthy mums and babies."

This is the crux of the matter. Here indeed you mentioned the three keywords:

"Success", "Positive" and "Healthy".

You may take the meaning of those words for granted, based on western culture and values, but for me these have a completely different meaning.

Success:

For you it means biological survival.
For me it means the ability to follow spiritual principles without falling into material temptations.

Positive:

For you it means the production of a live baby and a live mother.
For me it means a spiritually-uplifting experience for all involved.

Healthy:

For you it means physically healthy.
For me it means spiritually healthy.

Therefore, regarding "would you or your relatives then be happy to accept one or two deaths? No, of course not.", don't be so sure. If the birth was conducted in a sanctified manner and its results were renounced and left to God, then whatever the results, such a birth is a cause for celebration.

About the legal consequences, I think we need to research further, suppose a mother [goes to hospital but] refuses to be treated, would she be charged with "lack of due care"? Maybe someone here can provide us with a more informed legal advice.

Yuyustu, you crazy kid! What extraordinary experiences or stories have formed some of the opinion you express?

OK - your body, you have the right to choose. When there is another party involved, in this case a viable full term foetus or newborn child, the 'right' is not entirely yours. The State has an interest in the welfare of that child, a reasonable concept developed to protect against adults who fail to adequately provide or are hostile towards the child.

However, for example, if you were a birthing woman who chose to attempt natural delivery devoid of medical assistance - despite advice that your baby was transverse lie and unable to proceed AND you were able to tolerate the agony without begging to be taken to a nasty old hospital until inevitable death from obstructed labour - then you would have no problems. YOU ARE DEAD! Dead folk don't have a lot of troubles. Certainly can't be 'incarcerated'. Probably wouldn't be overly concerned with issues facing the 'Support Team' either.

In any case surely you rugged individualists would have a Plan B. Like in event of death, everyone clears off and when your bloated twisted remains are 'discovered' it's obvious you went through this alone .... or a nice deep hole and claims you left the area without giving a forwarding address ...

There you go - all worked out. No cuttin' or druggin', no coercion or imprisonment from me ... Just a bemused question: Are you for real?

Yuyutsu,

I take it you've never found yourself staring down the barrel in a situation where your unborn baby has suddenly been monitored as heart-stressed. Similarly, I suppose you've never looked on bewilderingly as all hell breaks out in the delivery room in an effort to prepare you for a hastily convened caesarian section.

I can assure you than when I awoke and was told I had a healthy baby boy, I felt most spiritually uplifted and relieved that I'd been in a hospital and had been attended by intuitive and professional nurses and doctors.

Please don't give me that guff about "sanctified manner" and "whatever the results, such a birth is cause for celebration"...there is only one result that could lead to celebration after any birth and that is "life".

Dear Divine_msn,

I must assume that you posted your last message before reading my reply to Suzeonline. If you did, it could clarify some of my views.

"The State has an interest in the welfare of that child,"

Oh, I am sure they aren't the only ones who have such interests. Feel free to substitute "The State" with "The Somali pirates"; "my childless auntie"; or "patients waiting for an organ donor", etc.

Specifically, the state has an interest that the child grows up to become a useful part of "the workforce", a tax-payer and a positive statistic (of course, the hard part of achieving their ambition is dumped on the parents while the minister and his department will sleep soundly when the baby cries at night).

"a reasonable concept developed to protect against adults who fail to adequately provide or are hostile towards the child."

Why is it always those with the guns who are at liberty the develop concepts and experiment them on other people's families? As for a "reasonable", I agree -that reason can even be measured, either 5.56, 7.62 or 9mm in diameter. What is it that gives bullies the right to decide what's good for me and my children? (Answer - the bulge on their hip!)

"YOU ARE DEAD"

So are you suggesting that a person should be so selfish as to not care what happens to their friends and family after they die?

"Plan B"

Never heard about forensic science?
Or is life on the run such a fun?
Why should I have to live as a criminal when my actions were true to God, when I did nothing wrong... well, except for being too weak - history is always re-written by the victors.

Dear Poirot,

"when I awoke and was told I had a healthy baby boy, I felt most spiritually uplifted and relieved"

Correction: you were emotionally uplifted. Please don't confuse the two.

The only thing worth celebrating is our sincere efforts. That is our sole responsibility - not the results, which are in the hands of God anyway (even in a hospital).

Yuyutsu,

"Correction" you were emotionally uplifted..."

You are an arrogant so and so.

Don't presume to dictate to me the impact of my experience. My son had survived "by the skin of his teeth"....and, if you don't mind, the "result" was pretty bloody gratifying on that particular occasion.

Suze, you didn't happen to work at King Edward in the late 90s did you? If so, you may have assisted in the birth of my kids.

The KEMH has/had an excellent "birthing clinic" staffed only by midwives which is avaliable for use by mothers with no medical complications who deliver within 4 weeks of the 41 week norm. It's equipped with all sorts of things like hot tubs and padded places to squat, lie or otherwise make yourself comfortable. My wife was booked into that suite for the birth of our first child, but she arrived a day too early to qualify for the birthing unit so the birth was transferred to the hospital proper where proper monitoring was undertaken and obstetricians were present.

My son was born in the birthing unit and there were no problems at all, except getting to a room fast enough to prevent him hitting his head on the floor.

The point is that the hospital properly recognises the importance of having physicians handy, as well as midwives. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I used to dream of being a vagrant Yuyutsu. Being part of society isn't optional.

69 (I) Every person committing any of the following offences
shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person within the meaning
of this Part

(a) Every person, not being an aboriginal native or the
child of an aboriginal native, who is found lodging
or wandering in company with any of the aboriginal
natives of Victoria: Provided that if such person
being thereto required by the court gives a good
account to the satisfaction of the court that he has
a lawful fixed place of residence and lawful means
of support and that such lodging or wandering has
been for some temporary and lawful occasion only
he shall be deemed not to be guilty of such oftence;

70, (1) Where any member of the police force has
reasonable cause to believe that any person has no lawful meansof support or has insufficient lawful means of support he may
arrest such person either with or without warrant and bring him
before a court of petty sessions or justices, or may summon him to
appear before a court of petty sessions.

(2) Every person who fails to prove to the satisfaction of the
court or justices that he has sufficient lawful means of support or
that such means of support as he has are lawful shall be deemed to...

As Jim Morison once said. You're all a bunch of fuuking slaves!

Conform.Consume.Obey.

PS: Been there too Poirot. Scary as! Really gave my poker face a workout watching that heart rate monitor and reasuring the missus (Who couldn't see it and was a bit preoccupied at the time).

I suppose the state comes in handy sometimes.

Birth is about life to me too. The means is an irrelevant detail, it's the ends that counts. Having the wrong whale songs playing at the time doesn't really bother me.

Yuyitsu, good luck to you in your 'spiritual' life.
I don't downplay anyone else's birth experiences, and neither should you.
Houellebecq, please don't encourage Yuyitsu...

Antiseptic, no I wasn't at KEMH in the '90's, but did train there in the late 80's, as it happens!
Yes, I am a great fan of the birthing suites you described, as I think they are the best of both worlds.

Naturally, I wanted to deliver the women myself, if all was well.
Many is the time that labouring mums have whispered to me
"Please don't call the Doctor until it is all over, will you Sister?"

However, there are also many times when I have prayed (yes, I prayed back in those days!) for the Doctor to hurry up and arrive, and for very good reason too...

Houellebecq, *please don't encourage Yuyitsu*...yes by all means:) do so, everyone has the right to express the true meanings of life and formations, that anything in stone cant give:)......I just love transitional's:) the Jurassic/fractious periods where always my favorites, however Dino's were not given all due cred's at the same time frame:)

LEAP

Lol Leap, I take your point :)
However, Yuyitsu's interesting take (twist?) on this issue creeps me out a bit!
I don't work as a midwife these days, and am happy to be out of the labour wards now... women these days seem to expect too much from the 'labour experience', and then many are ultimately are left disappointed.

Dear Houellebecq,

Your account of the law regarding vagrants is indeed depressing.

Clearly, this government will persecute all men (and women) of God and all prophets. If Jesus was roaming in the wilderness, or Moses or Elijah, or if Buddha was meditating under the shade of a coolibah tree, then surely this evil government would capture them and bring them before a human judge to be asked about their residence and source of support.

All they could answer is: "God is my abode and my eternal support".

You wrote that "being part of society isn't optional":

- Well, if you do not agree to take part in it, then you are not part of it: they can take your body and shred it to pieces, but they can't touch your soul.

Dear Suzeonline,

I never downplayed anyone's birth experience, I only wish to classify such experiences in the correct category. No doubt that Poirot's experience was genuine and profound, uplifting, relieving and gratifying. However, according to her description, this was an emotional experience and not a spiritual one. There is of course nothing wrong and nothing little about emotional experiences.

Yuyutsu, what is a "spiritual" experience?

Yes, Yuyutsu, it's rather fascinating....perhaps you'd care to enlighten me further on what exactly it was I gleaned from my experience. I had no idea I was quite so confused as to the spiritual/emotional profundity of the situation. Obviously there could be no spiritual enlightenment from such a "close call" - how silly of me.

Btw, aren't you the guy who doesn't post anything that emanates from his own mind (thought processes) - only posting what you deem is channelled through you from God?

Dear Poirot,

The difference is that a spiritual experience is born from the spirit, from within, whereas an emotional experience is a reaction to external events and circumstances.

Yuyutsu,

That's where you and I differ. I don't believe our spiritual dimension is something hermetically sealed and separate from "life". I believe there is a connection between our inner spirit and its interaction with out material being/experience.

Dear Poirot,

"I don't believe our spiritual dimension is something hermetically sealed and separate from "life". I believe there is a connection between our inner spirit and its interaction with out material being/experience."

I agree that there is a relationship between spirit and life: Life is a product of the spirit. However, the spirit is not a product of life. The spirit is independent, life and its circumstances are dependent.

One might be confused by the erroneous, yet common, expression "to break one's spirit". Spirits do not break: what may shatter however in our experience, is our mind and our emotions.

To the extent that your experience comes from within, that it is independent of circumstances (often even despite of the circumstances), that it transcends them, then I consider it to be spiritual.

Yuyitsu, all these 'spiritual' experiences you speak of are merely your' beliefs. They are not a given fact in life, or a fact that can be proved.

You can't say what sort of 'experience' Poirot had, because you don't know her mind, and nor were you at the birth.

How about explaining your' 'birth experience' to us all?

Yuyutsu, with the greatest of respect, you're talking rot.

"Some scientists working in the field hypothesize that the basis of spiritual experience arises in neurological physiology. Speculative suggestions have been made that an increase of N-Dimethyltryptamine levels in the pineal gland contribute to spiritual experiences.[15][verification needed] Scientific studies confirming this have yet to be published. It has also been suggested that stimulation of the temporal lobe by psychoactive ingredients of Magic Mushrooms mimics religious experiences.[16] This hypothesis has found laboratory validation with respect to Psilocybin.[17][18]"

Having tried gold top muchrooms (Psilocybe subaeruginosa) when I was a young man I'd have to agree with the comment above.

My nature is to be quite areligious. I don't get any great uplifting feeling from any of the things that are supposed to be "spiritual" experiences. My philosophy, such as it is, is based very much on observable phenomena and causal chains. However, the use of those mushrooms gave me a real sense of the numinous and a feeling of belonging to something greater.

When the psilocybin wore off, this passed, as did the various swings of emotional state that accompanied them.

IOW, the "spirituality" was no more than an expression of the same types of neurochemicals (dopamine, serotonin, etc) that cause emotional responses. Pretending otherwise is simply silly, no matter how much you'd like to feel special.

Dear Antiseptic,

I do not agree with you that it's "all in the chemistry", but getting into a discussion about the nature of reality would side-track us from the current topic (and frankly I just don't have the necessary time right now to get into that). I would however wonder, if you believe what you claim to believe, that it's all down to chemicals in the brain, then why should you care to go on living, why continue to serve a blob of chemicals?

The topic at hand is about our right to keep away from doctors, for any reason whatsoever, be it perhaps the belief in the value of whale songs, but specifically for the sake of maintaining one's spiritual integrity.

I have no problem with Suze, Beck and Poirot choosing to call on the doctors when they give birth. The question is what right has the state to forbid me to choose otherwise.

Given that government is controlled by secular humanists who consider us to be nothing but a bunch of chemicals and have as their ideology the prolonging of the biological act of breathing at all costs, with no concern to the spiritual/religious implications, and given that they have delegated the powers of the state to the medical profession, who obviously enjoy the fame and fortune that comes with these powers, no wonder that people of God must run for the hills, die as martyrs or go underground. All that is left for us is to cry and pray to our Father in Heaven (a metaphor of course, I have no intent of getting into a full-scale theological debate right now) to save us and uproot this evil government from the face of the earth.

What next are they going to do to enforce their version of spirituality on us and oppress religion and true spirituality? perhaps pump those psychedelic mushrooms, which are no more than emotion-inducing drugs, into our water as they already do with fluoride?

Yuyutsu:"why should you care to go on living"

It beats the alternative for the moment. Why do you need some overarching purpose other than the dissemination of your genes? Isn't life enjoyable for its own sake?

Otherwise, I think we tend to agree on the topic of personal freedoms, even if you are basing your view on a rather nebulous case, I must say.

Worried that there are only books on romantic ideas of home birth available for pregnant women, GO AND WRITE ONE ABOUT HOSPITAL BIRTH OPTIONS. Or better still write an intelligent book about all options.
When I was having my children back in the 70's/80's there were books around about the new ideas, fathers in the delivery room, babies rooming in with the mother, Leboyer method birthing even. The ideas were not just "hippy trippy" stuff but based on research.
Unfortunately, I was not a private patient and had an awful time with the birth of my first son. With my second I asked about the practices at all the other hospitals and could not find a good record with any for public patients. I investigated home birth and deciding on this as an option I hit the books and researched. I am not talking about romantic books on home birth and never did I consider giving birth in a tent, or on a boat or anything else as stupid. I even had a doctor rather than a midwife. Everything went swimmingly...
Son no. 3, my original doctor had been de-registered because two babies had died. Again I prepared for a home birth with another doctor. He decided to move me to a hospital birth because he felt I did not have enough support at home. The baby had other ideas and came before anyone was ready and a friend ("Don't go into labour around me, I haven't delivered a baby in 17 years") assisted. Because the labour was so short I began to go into shock and was transferred to hospital. In the delivery room I was told the baby needed vitamin K and before I could question the nurse on that, my research had said it was for over-long or traumatic labours, she went on to tell me that the doctor had lost two babies the previous week so I should let him give my baby the injection.....
I am not going to discuss the appalling number of caesarean births and what that means to women, babies and families.

Jenny H "I am not going to discuss the appalling number of caesarean births and what that means to women, babies and families."

I'll put in another 50cents worth here. C-sections have saved a lot of lives of both mothers and infants since the surgery was developed. However these days the procedure is overused and abused.

There are situations where a Caesarean is basically essential if a live birth and live mother are to result. Conditions include pelvic insufficiency, placenta previa, transverse presentation, fetal distress before or during labour, life threatening maternal complications of pregnancy or labour to name the main reasons.

Then there are situations where a Caesarean may be indicated. Some of these are large foetus with untested (1st birth) pelvis, breech presentation, pregnancy complications not immediately threatening, previous Caesarean, multiple pregnancy and 'slow' labour.
However with trial of labour, patience and the skill expected of highly trained 1st world medics and midwives, one would expect that the majority of these mothers would deliver vaginally. Of course in the hospital setting a C-section is just around the corner if needed.

However in todays reality the vast marjority of those mothers will end up having a Caesarean and a large proportion an elective one. Why? The best answer I can come up with is convenience and profit - mainly for the Obstetrician.

Finally there is the so-called "Social" C-section where the mother makes the decision to have a caesarean regardless of any other factor. This has become a trend in some circles with celebrities often leading the fashion. The phenomenon is most commonly observed in the private hospital setting. Obstetricians, no doubt, have few objections. The patient is booked for a set date & time and of course they will pay ...

Continued ....

Jenny H makes a good point that unnecessary c-section is definately not beneficial to mother or baby and the procedure carries a good many risks to both. It should be the last resort, not a first choice.

Apart from health implications there are the costs to the Health system which I referred to in earlier posts. Caesarean births are expensive, from the moment Mum is on that trolley bound for theatre to the time she has recovered from the insult of major abdominal surgery, and although some of the 'too posh to push' mob claim they are paying so it's no-ones business bar theirs, truth is we all pay. Look at ever increasing costs of health insurance in the private sector. In public health it means funds diverted from research and treatment of disease and an ever increasing demand on the public (taxpayer) purse.

Obstetricians and their cohorts in the 'medicalised pregnancy and birth' industry however are quite happy with the status quo. After paying their hefty insurance premiums to protect them against lawsuits when things do go horribly wrong - as happens occasionally, they still have enough of a profit margin to afford the good life.

As stated earlier, I believe a backward step to a more 'natural' approach to birthing would be very much a step in the right direction.

In a day and age where boob jobs and face lifts are just another choice, when fertilised eggs are installed in other women's uteruses, who's business is it to say that a woman should not be able to choose a caesarian?

I resent, very much the intrusion of midwife politics into my life, my body and my choices when it comes to birthing my baby.

Why should women be told they are NOT to have a caesarian if they request it, and have the means to pay for it?

As a matter of fact, all of my children were born completely naturally, and drug free. It hurt a great deal indeed, and I often joke that I would prefer the (theoretical) removal of my arm using a teaspoon as the cutting device.

I required a lot of stitches, which took many, many months to heal. I believe that for many women, the pain involved in childbirth would have longterm psycholocial effects.

The commonality of childbirth means the real physical and mental trauma suffered by women in childbirth is diminished, and overlooked.

I believe this is a cause for research. Post Natal Depression may actually be linked to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Yes childbirth is natural...but so is death by childbirth. And what a dreadful way to die that must be!! The midwife 'side' of the debate needs to be more measured, realistic, and more responsible.

Dear Antiseptic,

"Why do you need some overarching purpose other than the dissemination of your genes?"

To keep slaving away for those silly little buggers (did you know that a large part of them is not even human DNA, but of parasitic viruses?), is not different in essence than slaving away for life in the fields for some cotton-growing master.

Personally I don't care about the dissemination of those, but if I could think of one reason to serve them anyway, it would be to make my parents happy. However, I asked them and they said that they don't particularly care, so why should I?

Whatever they did, they did for themselves, not for us, so do we owe them anything? I suppose this should be the subject of a new topic.

Yuyutsu:"is not different in essence than slaving away for life in the fields for some cotton-growing master."

huh? There's no compulsion to do anything at all for your genes. If you want to have sex and propagate them, do so, if you don't, don't. Where's the "slavery"?

I enjoy my life for what it is (most of the time) and I try to make as much of the time I have as I can, not because of some "spirit in the sky", but because it's all I've got.

The phrase that I try to live by is "life is not a dress rehearsal". Once the curtain closes, the show's over. Make it a good show.

My more recent experiences with childbirth are those of my daughters. I've been surprised to note the controlling, lack of listening, and resulting mistakes/lengthy labours that arise because of female staff in the labour rooms either not listening, or deciding that they know best. That's not such a good development in birthing practice. I wonder why it's happening?

Hi ruthie, interesting post.

I actually found the opposite in my own personal experience, in that the midwives were very happy to follow my lead on most things, and were very supportive...but then, I was already going in the direction they wanted to go:
active birth, walking and standing as long as possible into the birth, no pain relief.
so there was no conflict with their values.

Many of my friends have scarcely planned at all for their births, and have no real coherent approach to their labours. Some of them have had a dreadful time in labour, and I wonder if this lack of planning and mental prep is the cause.

Haha. I love the phrase too posh to push!

Why not man who wants to go through labour.

Tell you what, next time I have a splitting headache, I'll not take any codeine I'll just breath deeply, play whale songs and try to have an orgasm out of the pain while enjoying my spiritual life-affirming experience.

Then I'll tell horror stories to anyone who will listen how bad my headache was and how I was so tough and 'natural'.

I mean it was fine to romantisize the guteral vomit inducing pain of child birth like it was some virtuous spiritual right of passage or womanhood when that's all there was on offer, but a pain free alternative makes redundant the need for those kind of comforting justifications.

This all seems a bit gender-political. I wonder if the same agonising over this would eventuate if doctors were mostly women rather than Birth Rapists.

For mine, midwives have a sneering antagonism towards especially male doctors based on envy, sexual tension and a belief men shouldn't really be interfering with secret woman's business int he first place.

Only a woman knows...

It is the same situation as men soldiers fighting under a female with no combat experience.

Anyway natural birth is only the start, wait 'til the Breast Feeding Nazis come into action!

Yeah, I agree H.,
a lot of the 'keep calm' and 'it's natural' brigade are over-compensating for the intense and confronting pain of it all.

It IS very painful. It IS very frightening.
What adds to the fear is the knowledge that only the mother is experiencing and risking... it is a peculiarly isolating experience.

I personally feel I was in a state of shock for some months following each of my births - particularly my first and second.

It's not often you confront your own mortality so graphically.
Is this a spiritual experience? Well, I guess.

There is a strong traditionalist crowd that would say the pain is 'worth it'. But what does it prove, really? Does the pain increase a mother's love towards their child? I think not.

I felt my pain was expected and accepted by others, my injuries were downplayed and accepted by others, including my own family, and that I was meant to be overwhelmingly concerned with the wellbeing of my newborn at a time when I had literally gone through a nightmare.

In any other circumstance, we would say that pain increases stress and other negatives...

"Why should women be told they are NOT to have a caesarian if they request it, and have means to pay for it?" - floatinglili

Reason #1: If unnecessary it poses far greater risks to mother and child than vaginal delivery.
Sale of narcotic painkillers, eg. morphine is restricted. You may REQUEST and have means to PAY for it but without a Doctor having very good reason to PRESCRIBE, you're not going to get it (legally). That's because of risks involved with these substances.

Reason #2: The only time a patient pays full cost for c-section is if they're a foreign national residing in Australia and have no or inadequate health insurance.
Otherwise, in the Public system taxpayer foots the bill. In the private system where almost all patients have health cover same principles apply as all forms of insurance. The greater the volume and value of claims, the higher premiums become - for everyone. No insurance? Medicare will still pay a proportion of Surgeons, Anaethetists, Paediatricians fees.

BTW - Cosmetic surgery simply for aesthetic purposes is purely personal expense.

Labour and birth are painful! Some women suffer more than others obviously, dependent on factors like duration of labour and individual pain tolerance. Plus any woman who's had 2 or more will tell you each was different. The skill and patience of attendents can help enormously along with medication to take the edge off. Epidurals can be used if tolerance is exceeded. HOWEVER, the more 'intervention' during normal labour, the greater risk of complications developing. Best possible scenario is a healthy mum at full-term delivering without drugs or mechanical assistance.

Caesareans cut out pain of labour, but post-surgery pain lasts a hell of a lot longer with recovery far more protracted. Plus a demanding baby to care for .. There are initial restrictions on many aspects of everyday life and post surgical complications include potentially fatal bleeding and infection, nerve damage, adhesions down to 'minor' issues like scar sensitivity.

Women deserve every care and support during pregnancy and birth however I don't believe in automatic 'right' to choose surgical delivery.

divine, I don't necessarily think you are responding from the only medical position on the relative safety of caesarians.

The risks posed by vaginal birth are real, and the effects can be felt years after the birth, for example stabbing, searing pain in sex.

The risks of surgery and incision can be minimal, are minimal, to the point where elective surgery is a commonplace occurence.

Why are these common results of vaginal birth not considered by midwives when discussing their position?

Why is facelift under general 'okay' when a caesarian under epidural not?

I agree that the recovery time after major abdominal surgery is a problem, but then, I couldn't sit straight for at least a year after my natural labour...why is the pain and trauma of natural labour not considered in its true light?

My guess is that every body expects women to 'know' that it is their fate to pass a watermelon. Unfortunately, the mind does not 'know' this apparently self-evident truth, and the experience can be rather a shocking one. No doubt meat cows (who are'born and bred to be killed') and soldiers also feel the same way, when their own times of challenge come.

floatinglili - I never said vaginal birth was risk free. All births entail an element of risk. I am assuming, correct me if wrong, that you either tore badly or had a large episiotomy? I'm also thinking there's distinct possibility that the injury was poorly repaired? Whatever the problem I do sympathise. No woman ever gave birth, then rose from the position and proclaimed a fervent desire for immediate re-impregnation, to scale Everest or even suggest a nice game of tennis. However you seem to have suffered far more than the norm and I hope that time and/or treatment has relieved the situation.

I merely stated facts on safety and best outcomes. Pregnancy and childbirth entail varying degrees of suffering - much is simply unavoidable. Natural is best. If it's not working then one moves to Plan B. Elective caesareans without valid indications are significantly more costly in both health and economic outcomes. This is fact.

Caesareans performed for valid reasons save mothers and babies. This is fact.

My argument is about the overuse and abuse of surgical delivery for the wrong reasons which is on the increase, the over medicalisation of birth - a natural physiological process by the way which would occur in the vast majority of cases completely unaided by a third party, and the cost we as a society are paying.

A facelift is non-essential cosmetic surgery fully funded by the person undergoing it.

A caesarean section with epidural may be essential surgery to preserve the life of a baby and mother and is rightfully funded by taxpayers, health insurance and to far lesser degree, the patient.

A non-essential c-section performed for 'social' or non-valid reasons is a waste of health resources and poses additional risks to the wellbeing of both mother and baby.

Yeah, I get that 'elective' caesarians should be paid in full, similarly to face lifts or other operations.

In reality, natural childbirth will never go out of style...many of us wish to avoid drugging our children at birth.

However, the primal experiences of pain and trepidation - not to mention the possibility of delivery mishap - should also not be disregarded when discussing the pros and cons of drug-free vaginal birth.

I was born through an emergency ceasar with the cord around my neck. My own son was born blue, not breathing, having expelled meconium.These type of events are fairly common, even in apparently 'low risk' patients.

While I am proud that I have had all three of my babies 'the natural way', I'll never forget a documentary on birth that I happened to catch on the ABC one night, shortly after the birth of my second child.

The French lady in question was sitting up in bed, having a cup of tea, while in labour!
'What the hell is she doing?' I begged my husband. On the TV, the lady was handing the cup to the nurse, so she could push.

'She's had an epidural,' replied my husband.

Ain't progress, and choice, a wonderful thing.

Dear Antiseptic,

I am glad that you do not consider slaving for the dissemination of genes to be a worthwhile purpose to life. It seemed so from your earlier post, so I stand corrected.

I am sad that you believe that all you've got is this little bit of temporal enjoyments, but that is a logical conclusion of the belief that one is merely a human body.

---

Considering the issue of C-sections:

I'm certainly not in favour of unnecessary operations, but it should be anyone's right to request any part(s) of their body to be cut, for whatever reason (however stupid), provided of course that someone is willing to provide him/her that service. It is imperative that they pay for such services.

Regardless whether a caesarian is required, why should the public fund child-birth in the first place, which is a matter of choice (except in the case of rape) rather than health? Surely bringing more babies to an already overcrowded planet that is running out of resources does not benefit the public! I do not propose leaving pregnant women who want to go to hospital but cannot pay out in the street, but rather to grant them a compassionate loan until such time they can repay it.

Interesting concept, Yuyutsu!

A complication with cesars is that the scar can only be cut into a few times...three children is the general accepted max for ceasar (yikes, how to spell!) mums.

There is a degree of growth that comes with doing it 'naturally'.

for me some of the personal advantages were:
* a sense of coming through a great personal challenge
* a far greater respect and concern for women in parts of the world without access to medicine, and (unbelievably, perhaps) on my part, also greater respect and compassion for birthing cows and other animals.
* a greater respect for the powers of the brain and body.
* and not forgetting a greater respect for the journey of medicine and the incremental gains of science.

are these valuable things? I think so. Many women will always want to birth naturally for these 'empowerment' values.