Giving birth the "natural" way.

[Admin]

New-age stupidity strikes again.

Like all these practises, they're great as long as everything goes well. But, what happens when something goes wrong?

If a baby was born with the umbilical cord around its neck and got into difficulties, should the (private, new-age) midwife resort to proven scientific methods of resuscitation or use Nature's OwnTM methods like rubbing olive oil into the baby's feet or rubbing herbal remedies into the baby's gums?

Read this: Sunday Mail article (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_headline=pool-birth-baby-agony--&method=full&objectid=18805708&siteid=64736-name_page.html) and weep. :(

It's a sorry lesson to learn, but if the woman had just had her child in hospital she'd have had a perfectly healthy child.

[Physiotherapist]

John,

What happened is tragic and that midwife deserves to be 'struck off' for her actions, however, the rest is just not true.

There is nothing wrong at all with home births or birthing pools, as long as you have a competent and fully trained midwife who knows what she is doing and knows how to get help if things go wrong. In fact, I would probably say that the medicalisation of child birth is the most unnatural and worst thing that has ever happened to women.

I talk from experience with my wife being a fully trained and qualified nurse and midwife, who has been working in the profession for some 20 years now - a combined total.

She has attended many home births during her working life and has dealt with mishaps that have occurred. She used her knowledge and training to make a judgement, such as one situation when she attended a home birth and the baby was a breach. She sent the mother to hospital straight away and all was well and the baby did very well. She works for the NHS as a midwife in a very busy area of London doing clinics, home visits and on call rotas that she shares with her colleagues. She spent sometime working in a natural birthing unit in London, that she very much enjoyed. She went back to the NHS to try and change things a little, but it takes time though.

Anyway, all I am trying to say is that not all midwives are 'woo' as you so elogantly put it and there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with home births outside a hosptial environment, as long as they are well managed by a competent well trained miwife, which my wife most certainly is. I suppose a better place would be a natural birthing centre, where midwives, nurses and gynaecologist are all on hand in the event that something untoward occurs.

[Admin]

Well the point of the story was not to belittle good midwives and the work they do, but to illustrate the point that there are midwives who work outside of the NHS and obviously buy into new-age nonsense.

Also, I’m not just highlighting the point that some midwives work in this fashion but that people (like the mother in this case) also buy into this nonsense. The mother is as much to blame as the midwife in this case. It’s analogous to stories like “psychic stole pensioner’s life savings” stories. Yes, the psychic is disgusting but it’s the beliefs of the people who are harmed by these things that is the root cause of the real harm.


In fact, I would probably say that the medicalisation of child birth is the most unnatural and worst thing that has ever happened to women.

I’m not with you on that one.

It used to be quite common and ‘natural’ for both child and mother to die during child birth. Medical expertise has made that once common occurrence almost unheard of these days.

[Cuddles]

In fact, I would probably say that the medicalisation of child birth is the most unnatural and worst thing that has ever happened to women.

Yes, it's so unnatural to try to stop people dying. Just because people are capable of giving birth on their own does not mean it's a good idea. Do you consider antibiotics unnatural?



If a baby was born with the umbilical cord around its neck and got into difficulties, should the (private, new-age) midwife resort to proven scientific methods of resuscitation or use Nature's OwnTM methods like rubbing olive oil into the baby's feet or rubbing herbal remedies into the baby's gums?

My sister just had a baby and it actually did have the cord around its neck. Fortunately she was in a hospital and she gave birth with no problems (via the highly scientific process of sticking a plunger to his head and pulling him out). If done at home surrounded by woo he would probably have died, or at least suffered sever oxygen deprivation during birth. And yet this was essentially a routine birth with no worries or panic, simply because it was done in a medical setting instead of at home.

[tkingdoll]

The bit of that article that really bothered me was that the indie midwifes operate without insurance.

Staggering. Yes, it's expensive insurance. There's a reason for that, and the reason is precisely situations like the OP.

[Physiotherapist]

Midwives should have insurance. My wife does and is both a member of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives.

What I mean by the medicalisation of childbirth, is that at times, women have their autonomy taken away from them because some midwives want women to give birth at their own convenience rather than the women. In a hospital setting it is for the convenience of the medical staff rather than the woman and she becomes disempowered.

My wife has always tried to make women feel empowered when giving birth. Afterall, it is their birth and they should have some say in how they want to do it, whether this be something as small as not wanting to lie on a bed with their legs in the air and wanting to get up and walk around the room and adapt a squatting position to allow the birth to happen more naturally.

They should have some say in the matter and that is what midwives are for. My wife is scientifically trained and uses this knowledge to the best of her ability to help women give birth in the best way possible. She in no way condones the action of this midwife either having attended home births herself.

[Cuddles]

What I mean by the medicalisation of childbirth, is that at times, women have their autonomy taken away from them because some midwives want women to give birth at their own convenience rather than the women. In a hospital setting it is for the convenience of the medical staff rather than the woman and she becomes disempowered.

Nope. No doubt there are bad midwifes just as there are good ones, but to claim that the entire process is bad simply because some people are busy is just silly. If you have ever been on a maternity ward you should know that the whole point is that the women are catered to hand and foot the whole time. Why should a midwife in your house act any differently from one in a hospital? It is still the same midwife, the only difference is that in a hospital they have lots of other people and equipment nearby if it is needed.

For example, in countries like Afghanistan the women give birth entirely naturally with virtually no medical support. Their neonatal mortality is just over 16%. In the UK it is about 0.5%. (From the 2005 CIA factbook.)Do you really think this is a bad thing?

[Araneus]

What I mean by the medicalisation of childbirth, is that at times, women have their autonomy taken away from them because some midwives want women to give birth at their own convenience rather than the women. In a hospital setting it is for the convenience of the medical staff rather than the woman and she becomes disempowered.

When I see phrases like "women's autonomy" and "disempowered" my Feminist Whinging detector starts going off. Of course some midwives are going to be more friendly and sympathetic than others, this is the case with all medical practicioners, but this doesn't mean that giving birth in a hospital is a "bad thing". Surely the health and safety of the child, as ensured through the application of best medical practices, is more important than some vague concept of "self esteem" in the mother?

[tablemonkey]

My third child was born with the cord around his neck. When the midwife freed him, she handed him over to me and told me to rub him.. it was frightening because it made me think of the pet rescue programmes where they rub the puppies that aren't breathing. But because the midwife was so calm and relaxed I couldn't panic, thank God.

Even though you may have to wait for pain killers and the midwifes are rushed off their feet in the hospital and can't get to you as quick as you like, they know more about it than you do and as Araneus said the most important thing is your baby being safe.

[chillzero]

What I mean by the medicalisation of childbirth, is that at times, women have their autonomy taken away from them because some midwives want women to give birth at their own convenience rather than the women. In a hospital setting it is for the convenience of the medical staff rather than the woman and she becomes disempowered.

When I see phrases like "women's autonomy" and "disempowered" my Feminist Whinging detector starts going off. Of course some midwives are going to be more friendly and sympathetic than others, this is the case with all medical practicioners, but this doesn't mean that giving birth in a hospital is a "bad thing". Surely the health and safety of the child, as ensured through the application of best medical practices, is more important than some vague concept of "self esteem" in the mother?


Also, how 'empowered' should a woman be, over the medical considerations from an expert? For some of my labour, I was made to feel very 'empowered', which left me a bit lost and scared, because I clearly had no idea what I was doing. Thankfully, the various medical staff took over and found the correct level at which to keep me informed and make some decisions, but reassured enough about what those decisions could mean.

Just because you are a woman, does not immediately qualify you as an expert on pregnancy, childbirth, or raising kids.

[Cuddles]

Also, how 'empowered' should a woman be, over the medical considerations from an expert? For some of my labour, I was made to feel very 'empowered', which left me a bit lost and scared, because I clearly had no idea what I was doing. Thankfully, the various medical staff took over and found the correct level at which to keep me informed and make some decisions, but reassured enough about what those decisions could mean.

Just because you are a woman, does not immediately qualify you as an expert on pregnancy, childbirth, or raising kids.

I'm reminded of Monty Python's "Meaning of Life".
Woman : What should I do?
Doctor : Nothing dear, you're not qualified.

Seriously though, this is something that bugs me about almost all of medicine these days. Doctors, and other medical professionals of course, spend many years learning to do what they do, and never really stop learning their whole lives. Of course they should discuss things with patients, but it seems that there is far too much emphasis on letting patients decide everything. When it comes down to it, patients are not qualified. No matter how well a doctor explains things, the patient will never know as much as the doctor. Yes, give them choices, especially with important things like choosing surgery or not, but pretending that the patient's opinions are just as valid as the doctor's is just silly.

[tablemonkey]

To be honest I think they give a woman to much choice when she is about to have a baby. It can be quite overwhelming.

I'm not sure what it's like now but I was supposed to fill in a page in a birthing chart (?) to say how I wanted the birth to go.

I didn't bother. I said I just want the baby out and I'll have gas and air please! ;D

[CatWoman]

What an appalling story. What a foolish mother. It is not only the midwife’s actions that are seriously questionable, but the beliefs of the mother as well. We are not talking about a so-called “New Age” remedy for a wart. Another life was at stake here and one that had absolutely no say in the matter. Because of this shambles a poor child is now brain damaged. Even if the Midwife was insured, the damage has been done and it is irreversible.

At what point did the Midwife realise that it was time to back off when the paramedics arrived and allow them to do their job. She didn’t!!!! Her continued efforts to interfere hampered their critical treatment of the baby.

“She said: "Insufficient evidence has been given to prove that my practice fell below the base standard.”

I would call not being able to properly resuscitate a newborn baby when you are a Midwife acting alone whilst a mother is in childbirth falls well below standard.

[Admin]

What really gets to me about this whole story is that it’s all about people accepting a completely distorted view of the world as being something real.

The new-age movement, as well as the advertising industry, is pushing a view onto us that somehow anything labelled ‘natural’ is automatically ‘good’.

This is known as the ‘naturalistic fallacy’: the idea that nature is somehow inherently good and if something occurs in nature it cannot be bad - so this is how things ought to be: based on ‘nature’.

The trouble is that nature is completely indifferent to the wants, needs, or requirements of living species; which is why life is often a struggle for survival.

This woman, no doubt, thought she was doing something worthwhile in attempting to have a ‘natural birth’ (based on the idealism behind the naturalistic fallacy). And the midwife too probably thought that nothing could go wrong if everything was done ‘nature’s way’.

Unfortunately, ‘nature’ doesn’t care one way or the other and if something goes wrong and appropriate medical action is not taken, the consequences, as in this case, can be tragic.

I see the root cause of the problem in this case to be the willingness to accept as real things that are just not true. Irrational thinking may not harm everyone all the time (hence the naïve “what’s the harm?” quips we skeptics often face) but it does lead to avoidable tragedies like this one.

[Araneus]

I guess if they want to take the "natural" experience to its conclusion, the damaged baby should drowned in a river somewhere or left to die in a cave. After all this is what happens in the "natural" world to damaged offspring that don't develop properly.

[Mongrel]

To be fair to the mother she may have had an idealistic vision of 'natural childbirth', enhanced by the mid-wifes tales. But given that the article doesn't mention her reaction when the ambulance turned up and the tales of child birth I have been told - was she in any fit state to say "let the hippy through - she knows what she's doing!" or was she in a pain addled state realising why we discovered pain killers?

I'd tentatively say the mother was guilty of gullibility before the event, during and after the event she may well have been indifferent to everything but the pain of 'natural' childbirth...

[Allo Allo]

To be fair to the mother she may have had an idealistic vision of 'natural childbirth', enhanced by the mid-wifes tales. But given that the article doesn't mention her reaction when the ambulance turned up and the tales of child birth I have been told - was she in any fit state to say "let the hippy through - she knows what she's doing!" or was she in a pain addled state realising why we discovered pain killers?

I'd tentatively say the mother was guilty of gullibility before the event, during and after the event she may well have been indifferent to everything but the pain of 'natural' childbirth...

My penny’s worth here is that there is the perception in “New Age Thought” that Medical Science treats illness/childbirth in a “violent” way. So (anecdotes coming up) I have seen someone with terminal cervical cancer when eventually persuaded to have a blood transfusion, asking if it could be done in her home with a friend (of the correct blood group) giving her the blood she needed! The “picture” in her mind was one of gentle co-operation in her own space, presumably with a little balmy breeze coming in through the half open window to the sound of birdsong! She had up to that point refused “violent” treatment which would have saved her life…when we eventually got her to hospital she was “amazed” at the compassion she received from the staff there – strangers – perhaps she felt “love” is something confined to the “New Age Healers”, I don’t know.

She kept notes, which I read after she died, on all the healers she visited in her quest for life, and they hardened my mind against “Healers”.

The second anecdote concerns home birthing being a “gentle and loving” experience for both Mum and baby – away from the clinical and frightening hospital environment. I have heard explanations that children grew up “better” if their first experiences were not so “terrifying” and they “bond” better with Mum and the world. I attended a home birth many years ago. I report that the baby who arrived in these “gentle” circumstances (when is childbirth ever gentle??!!) is a behavioural monster and Mum and son are pitted against each other constantly!

And the last point is that I had my children when you weren’t ALLOWED to disobey instructions from the hospital staff – all labour and the final delivery occurred as you lay on your back even though the “natural” inclination might be to pace about, wallow in water, or squat. My children are now having their own babies – in hospital - and although they too are shocked (like I was) by the violence of a “natural” process, they are allowed to follow their physical inclinations. For ordinary women doing something “natural” - in ignorance – very few have had experience of birth/birthing processes – the relief of getting to hospital where someone else can help them control pain or hasten the process with modern technology is really enormous and a great progress in medicine which is just taken for granted.

Home birth dreamers are simply having dreams similar to the dreams of my friend wanting a home blood transfusion….

M

[Physiotherapist]

Try reading Birth Without Violence by Frederick Leboyer MD and Birth Reborn What Childbirth Should Be My Michel Odent MD.

[Allo Allo]

Try reading Birth Without Violence by Frederick Leboyer MD and Birth Reborn What Childbirth Should Be My Michel Odent MD.



I’m not an expert – only in corroborating anecdotes! – but I have read Leboyer. Things are much improved in hospital birth experiences since the time these books were written – they came out of MY time of having babies – and there was a LOT wrong then. Even in my (one) experience of being involved in a home birth – you have to SEE what you’re doing, so darkness is not, to my mind, an option.

Here is my own daughter’s description of the environment in which she DELIVERED. I have her permission to quote this – (errors an all)

“It was more "homely" - Had the usual hospital bed but had a big Jacuzi type bath (birth pool). Telly, table and chairs, En-suit - just "homely". If you want to question if things have moved on you should see the suit they put you in now at XXXXXX. Its called the XXXX suite and it's lovely. Has a full lounge suit, telly - tea, coffee, birth pool and a double bed!”

M

[Admin]

Here's a related story of belief in nonsense: http://www.skepsis.nl/macrobiotics.html

[Admin]

Try reading Birth Without Violence by Frederick Leboyer MD and Birth Reborn What Childbirth Should Be My Michel Odent MD.


"Birth without Violence"? ;D

Yes, I can imagine that that's a good, impartial read.

[Araneus]

What's a "violent" birth anyway? Do they try and beat the baby out of you with sticks or something?

[Allo Allo]

What's a "violent" birth anyway? Do they try and beat the baby out of you with sticks or something?


Quote “Leboyer's focus was primarily on improving the quality of the birth experience for the baby. His message was that a sensitive, unobtrusive style of care which is deeply respectful of the natural process, and a peaceful atmosphere at the time of birth would help the baby to be born with a minimum of trauma. His famous book and film 'Birth Without Violence' inspired mothers all over the world to want to give birth naturally and in a more quiet atmosphere. ”

In one generation we have moved from women struggling through labour in an unnatural position, alone without their husbands (you had to be married–no man was allowed in with you), in stark operating theatre delivery wards, having their babies “removed” to the Nursery (except for feeding times) for nearly all their 10 day! stay in hospital, being treated like “ill” people, and suffering their babies being taken away if “illegitimate”. In fact, mothers now, have no concept of what it was like then! Laboyer’s ideas are very important – but NOWDAYS I would not advise women to have home births because the REASONS for doing so are not there anymore! Well that’s my opinion anyway.

I skyped my daughter with the question “What ENVIRONMENT did you deliver your babies in?” and I have posted her skyped reply. She had no idea why I asked the question so her reply was spontaneous.

In emergency situations,a “homey” environment is not appropriate of course….or if women choose epidurals.

M

[Admin]

Thanks for that explanation Allo Allo. O0

It does make sense when looked at with how things used to be in hospital births.

I still don't get the reference to 'violence' though.

[asthmatic camel]

Here's a related story of belief in nonsense: http://www.skepsis.nl/macrobiotics.html


What a powerful, tragic story, John. Merely reading it made me feel ill and I can only imagine how awful the experience must have been for this man and his family. At least he managed to punch the quack in the face; far more gentle treatment than he'd have received at my hands.

[Mongrel]

Thanks for that explanation Allo Allo. O0

It does make sense when looked at with how things used to be in hospital births.

I still don't get the reference to 'violence' though.


So once again the Woos are basing their 'niceness' on practices that modern medical science\treatment has moved on from...

Colour me unsurprised >:(

[Allo Allo]

Thanks for that explanation Allo Allo. O0

It does make sense when looked at with how things used to be in hospital births.

I still don't get the reference to 'violence' though.


So once again the Woos are basing their 'niceness' on practices that modern medical science\treatment has moved on from...

Colour me unsurprised >:(


Both posts are a bit obscure! What exactly did you mean? That Medical Science took things into consideration and improved the system without input from any other source? In your dreams!

Who is claiming “niceness”?

Getting things “right” in maternity wards will encourage women not to have their babies at home. But they are still having them at home – which is their choice, and on the whole, it is successful all round. The story in the OP is an example of a situation gone wrong. It reported something aberrant.

The violence is because newborn babies were considered (by Medical Science!) to be blind, senseless things, not “aware” really and were treated as such - making being born more violent than it already is. This is really not hard to understand. Mothers had less painful and easier births under all sorts of “woo” circumstances that “reduced the violence of childbirth” and sceptics derided these at the time. But now we know differently because we are beginning to understand how hormones clock in during delivery. Successful deliveries save suffering for the mum and baby, and time and money for the NHS!

It wasn’t long ago that Medical Science taught that the Pineal Gland was of no use!

Seeing where we have come from and what Medical Science USED to preach, should make us more careful about believing everything it says and not to be too skeptical of other ideas.

M

[Araneus]

The violence is because newborn babies were considered (by Medical Science!) to be blind, senseless things, not “aware” really and were treated as such - making being born more violent than it already is. This is really not hard to understand. Mothers had less painful and easier births under all sorts of “woo” circumstances that “reduced the violence of childbirth” and sceptics derided these at the time. But now we know differently because we are beginning to understand how hormones clock in during delivery. Successful deliveries save suffering for the mum and baby, and time and money for the NHS!

I think you must be using a different definition of "violence" to the rest of us. To me, "violence" means kicking, punching or otherwise attacking somebody -- treating mothers slightly less sensitively than desired does not constitute "violence" according to the common definition.

I fully support attempts to provide a relaxed, friendly environment for delivering babies in, but emotive and extreme language doesn't really help.

[Admin]

The use of the word 'violence' is obviously being used to elicit strong emotion in the reader. Perhaps this is why people who read such books develop an irrational fear of conventional medicine which leads to tragedies like the one described in the OP.

The act of separating mother and child at birth may have been the wrong thing to do but to label it an act of violence is stretching credulity.

Of course the word 'violence' is equivocal, but I'd suspect that most people would associate it with doing intentional harm. So I'd say it is a wholly inappropriate term in this instance.


It wasn’t long ago that Medical Science taught that the Pineal Gland was of no use!

Seeing where we have come from and what Medical Science USED to preach, should make us more careful about believing everything it says and not to be too skeptical of other ideas.

We should be sceptical of all ideas - including mainstream ones; however, the fact that medical science was wrong in the past doesn't mean that alternatives are any more likely to be right.

Remember, 'alternative science' preaches things like we can be cured by medicines that contain no ingredients or that cancer can be cured with enemas. Whenever science is shown to be wrong, it doesn't make those sort of claims any more likely to be right. See: Science has been wrong before (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=science_has_been_wrong_before.php).

Remember also, that what we're talking about here is a medical practise that is no longer in use so if people are looking for 'alternatives', it's not an alternative to bygone methods - they're looking for alternatives to modern methods. The question is: why?

[Admin]

And BTW, AA - I was agreeing with what you were saying. You explained it well. O0

It's just the term 'violence' as used in the book title that I took exception too.

[Mongrel]

To clarify my bit :)

Medical practices are constantly evolving to give the best treatment they can to their patients, using the most effective means available when financially possible.

The advocates of sCAM tend to use imagery of practices and treatment that are obsolete, and have often been so for many years, just as you pointed out comparing your experience against your daughters.

What they're doing is a combination of cherry picking the data so they can appear to 'care' more than the 'impersonal Western heath care practitioners' and erecting a large strawman to battle against something that only exists in their heads and old medical dramas.

[Araneus]

Science would never have said "The pineal gland is of no use.". It might have said "The pineal gland does not perform any function we know of" or "As yet, we have not determined the function of the pineal gland" which would have been perfectly accurate and scientific statements at the time.

Science is about investigating observed phenomena and providing the best explanations possible for those phenomena -- if something is unknown, a real scientist will admit it. Just because science doesn't explain everything at once does not make it less valid; in fact this is exactly how science works.

[Allo Allo]

Science would never have said "The pineal gland is of no use.". It might have said "The pineal gland does not perform any function we know of" or "As yet, we have not determined the function of the pineal gland" which would have been perfectly accurate and scientific statements at the time.


True – you are right. I simply remembered seeing this in an old anatomy and physiology book that came in with some second-hand medical books all circa 1985 + -. I can’t remember the actual wording – only my feeling of astonishment….

Thanks

M

[Allo Allo]

To clarify my bit :)

Medical practices are constantly evolving to give the best treatment they can to their patients, using the most effective means available when financially possible.

The advocates of sCAM tend to use imagery of practices and treatment that are obsolete, and have often been so for many years, just as you pointed out comparing your experience against your daughters.

What they're doing is a combination of cherry picking the data so they can appear to 'care' more than the 'impersonal Western heath care practitioners' and erecting a large strawman to battle against something that only exists in their heads and old medical dramas.

Yes. I was trying to say this in my posts – I have seen a big change in the last ten years. Medicine is using what is beneficial from what used to be called “alternative” medicine. I don’t think there is an alternative to orthodox medicine – but there ARE things that do compliment it. Many ideas that are valid have been enfolded into how people are treated when they are ill – I think this is great. Some examples of these are the use of what were once radical ideas on treating the dying or those being born, just to name two.

I think the complimentary medicine movement has not been bad for orthodox medicine, and visa versa, and perhaps, because I am older, I can clearly see how many aspects of both complimentary and orthodox medicine have changed for the better. Its good!


I’d like to ignore your last sentence – so I will! :P

M

[Allo Allo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=446568&in_page_id=1799

M

>:( Remind me - how do I make a short link? I downloaded something from Mozilla I think??? ???

[Admin]

Hi, M.




UK-Skeptics (http://www.ukskeptics.com)



Comes out as: UK-Skeptics (http://www.ukskeptics.com)

[Araneus]

Is it just me, or do all of those featured babies look slightly weird and alien in some way? Perhaps home births aren't such a good idea after all.

[tkingdoll]

ALL babies look weird and alien.

[Mongrel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=446568&in_page_id=1799

M

>:( Remind me - how do I make a short link? I downloaded something from Mozilla I think??? ???


You might have got BBcode for Firefox. Copy the link to your clipboard, type your link words in and highlight them, right click and choose bbcodeXtra > Clipboard > make selection URL
:)
Easy

[Allo Allo]

You might have got BBcode for Firefox. Copy the link to your clipboard, type your link words in and highlight them, right click and choose bbcodeXtra > Clipboard > make selection URL
:)
Easy


It was - <a href="http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban986l.jpg">LOOK</a>
and is!

M

[Allo Allo]

By the way, I should have said thanks for your instructions John and Mongrel.

M

[CalamityKate]

With regard to women feeling "disempowered" blah de blah.... well, I'm not going to say "bollox" because that would be a bit of a sweeping statement but personally, when I had my babies (in a very busy NHS hospital) my every whim was catered for, within reason. I had a birth plan which was consulted at every available opportunity (it went a bit Pete Tong when I had an emergency C section but hey ho) and never once did I feel as if my wishes were second to those of the medical staff/hospital.

Of course, midwives and doctors are busy but I feel that that is more than made up for by the fact that myself and my babies were more likely to stay, you know, ALIVE in hospital. In fact that was proved when I bled all over the theatre while having my C section. If I had been more anxious about staying empowered, and tried to have the baby at home, myself and offspring would have died.

Of course every woman has the right to choose how they bring their babies into the world but personally, I believe that one of the most RESPONSIBLE things you can do is have your children delivered in a place where, if things do go wrong, there are the people and equipment available to try to put things right as soon as possible.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

A couple of weeks ago I saw a mad American woman on Richard and Judy (my wife watches it at the same time I get in from work). She was advocating absolutely no medical involvement in pregnancy from start to finish. Obviously she had a book to promote.

No medical invovlement means no scans no checkups no hospital labour - no nothing!

Her arguement was that medical establishment caused more problems than it solved, and in the past, babies were a lot healthier and happier because they didn't get any trauma caused by interfering doctors. Obviously all those mothers and babies who died in childbirth, or suffered brain damage during delivery etc, it was just hard luck.

I wonder if anyone else spotted this woman while she was over here? My memory of the segment is a bit vague, but I was just in total shock.

It doesn't help that Mrs FarSide was supposed to drop her sprog last Tuesday and we are on tenterhooks waiting for it to arrive...