<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.8.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:49:38 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Navelgazing Midwife Blog</title><subtitle>Navelgazing Midwife Blog</subtitle><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/atom.xml"/><updated>2009-11-07T02:49:38Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.8.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Hospital Birth In Progress on the Web</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/11/6/hospital-birth-in-progress-on-the-web.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/11/6/hospital-birth-in-progress-on-the-web.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-11-07T02:47:21Z</published><updated>2009-11-07T02:47:21Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://twincities.momslikeme.com/members/JournalActions.aspx?g=916351&amp;m=8373439"><strong>Lynsee</strong></a> is streaming her birth. I am not sure, but at 6:45pm PT, it looks like she's about 5cm. I'm sure they will say soon again.</p>
<p>It's obviously a progressive hospital (as hospitals go).</p>
<p>I wonder how long I'll watch. (I'm acting like I've never seen a birth before!)</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Avoid H1N1 with Vitamin D Supplementation</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/10/12/avoid-h1n1-with-vitamin-d-supplementation.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/10/12/avoid-h1n1-with-vitamin-d-supplementation.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-10-12T14:06:07Z</published><updated>2009-10-12T14:06:07Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>I know, I know. You're tired of hearing about the H1N1 (swine) flu. The more I hear, the more confused I become, but I keep reading and learning and trying to decide whether to vaccinate myself; I am in a high risk category because of my past Disseminated Coccidiomycosis. My lungs have scar tissue that looks like lace on them. Sarah, too, is high risk; she had lung cancer when she was three-years old, having a third of her lung removed.</p>
<p>I've heard whispers of the Vitamin D Theory, but this is the first organized article that explains why and even dosages. The advised dose by our government is 400 IU every day. However, we continue being deficient, sometimes extremely so, in Vitamin D. Our indoor culture and sunscreen use when outside contributes to the cause of the deficiency. I take 8000 IU every day.</p>
<p>The article <strong>Swine flu deaths: </strong><a href="http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Disease/swine_flu_deaths_what_you_need_to_know_111020090534.html"><strong>What You Need to Know</strong></a> will share a good deal of information regarding our children, but this is the very important part I want to make sure people read:</p>
<p><strong>Can we use vitamin D to prevent H1N1 flu or H1N1 flu death?<br /><br /></strong>"...Cannell has reported on Sept 16 in his newsletter that two physicians, one in Wisconsin and the other in Georgia, suggested that vitamin D supplementation can be the key to H1N1 flu prevention.<br /><br />"Norris Glick, M.D. of Central Wisconsin Center in Madison told Cannell in his email that 274 residents at his health care facility took vitamin D supplements and were monitored regularly for their plasma vitamin D levels; as a result, only two residents developed influenza-like illness and had positive tests for H1N1 during a period of observation. This compares to 103 of 800 staff members during the same period who were not required for the supplementation. This huge difference may be due likely to use of vitamin D supplements.<br /><br />"Dr. Ellie Campbell, who also responded to Cannell's vitamin D theory, told Dr. Cannell in an email of a similar observation.&nbsp;&nbsp; She said she <strong>told her patients to take 2,000 to 5,000 IU of vitamin D regularly and monitored their serum levels to make sure her patients had sufficient Vitamin D in their blood.&nbsp; Campbell shared office with another physician. Her office mate did not do the same thing to his patients.&nbsp; When H1N1 hit George, none of her patients came to see her for H1N1 virus infection while the other physician was seeing one to 10 cases per week of influenza-like illness</strong>."</p>
<p>Please, please supplement yourself and your children. Even if you choose to vaccinate, Vitamin D supplementation could very well save your life.</p>
<p>I write this because one of my on-line doula friends lost her sister-in-law... sick one day and dead two days later. I don't want to know any more.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>MedFake: Hospital Birth Gone Awry: Is This Typical?</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/30/medfake-hospital-birth-gone-awry-is-this-typical.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/30/medfake-hospital-birth-gone-awry-is-this-typical.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-10-01T03:05:18Z</published><updated>2009-10-01T03:05:18Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>(This is in response to Medscape's article, "Homebirth Gone Awry: Is This Typical?" [the post before this one]. Writing was the only way I could answer the absurd accusations in that ridiculous article.)</p>
<p>Barbara E. Herrera, LM, CPM</p>
<p><strong>Case History</strong>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Being a homebirth midwife who sees women throughout their pregnancies, births and on into postpartum, I am familiar with the way these experiences and how they affect women and their families.&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, when I was asked to assist a woman choosing obstetric care with a doctor and, once labor began, to deliver in the hospital, I never knew what lay ahead.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Starting at the beginning of her care, Myrtle&rsquo;s (not her real name and the details are slightly altered to protect her privacy) vitals were taken by a nurse and she only saw her doctor for five to seven minutes at each visit, although for her initial appointment, she saw him for ten. And, at that first appointment, she met the doctor naked! Myrtle was covered by a paper drape, but, not having met this man before, she felt vulnerable and very uncomfortable. After that visit, she was sent to the lab for blood work and was called two weeks later telling her she was extremely anemic and needed to take prescription iron supplements. She learned through reading on the Internet that her constipation was from the supplements and waited for five days for the nurse to call her back to tell her what she could do to help with the problem.&nbsp;</p>
<p>At visit number one, Myrtle was told she had to have chorionic villi sampling and was scheduled for the next day. She was not told the risks of miscarriage after CVS, but was excited to know if the baby had any birth defects. When she presented the next day, she first had an extensive ultrasound (unexpectedly!) and then had the procedure which caused her discomfort and, again, she had to disrobe for a stranger. When the results came back normal, she breathed a sigh of relief.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But when she was sixteen weeks, Myrtle had her blood drawn again (by another stranger; this time, a lab technician) for the Quad Screen, a screen to determine a woman&rsquo;s risk of delivering a baby with either Down Syndrome or neural tube defects. When she told the nurse at her prenatal appointment she&rsquo;d had CVS, the nurse couldn&rsquo;t find that information in her chart and told her to go to the lab appointment anyway. The Quad Screen came back showing her risk of having a baby with neural tube defects was 1:25 and she was scheduled for the diagnostic testing, both a Level 3 ultrasound and an amniocentesis. At the prenatal appointment when she learned she would need further testing, she told both the nurse and the doctor she just met that &nbsp;she&rsquo;d had CVS and it came back normal, they both said it was important to have the test, so she followed the orders and had both the ultrasound and amniocentesis.</p>
<p>The ultrasound showed problems with the kidney and heart, but did show there was no problem with the baby&rsquo;s spine &ndash; so far, they said. Myrtle worried every day that her baby was severely deformed and she and her husband debated keeping the baby or terminating the pregnancy. Waiting for the amniocentesis results was excruciating, both physically and emotionally. The procedure caused internal bleeding and she was put on bed rest for the two weeks she had to wait for the results. She lost time at work and, therefore, income for her already strapped family. The results were normal for Down Syndrome and neural tube defects, but she still had the heart and kidney problems to contend with.&nbsp;</p>
<p>At 28 weeks, Myrtle was sent to the lab after her appointment (where she met another doctor in the practice) to do the Glucose Screen, checking for Gestational Diabetes. When she drank the 50 grams of glucose, she became extremely dizzy, fainting in the bathroom where she was found 45 minutes after she drank the glucola. Taken to the emergency room in an ambulance, she was given a lengthy ultrasound and an MRI to check the baby and her brain, had an IV put in and remained overnight to make sure she did not have a concussion. While she was in the hospital, she had to drink the glucola yet again, felt extremely dizzy and nauseated, but was told if she threw up she would have to drink it again, so she forced the liquid to stay down. She felt horrible for two days afterwards. No one had asked her how her diet was before sending her to the screen, did not talk about any alternatives to the glucose drink, but did tell her if the screen was positive, she would have to drink twice that amount and have her blood drawn four times. Terrified while she waited, she did not hear that her results were normal until her next prenatal appointment two weeks later.&nbsp;</p>
<p>At Myrtle&rsquo;s 34-week appointment, she saw yet another doctor and he measured her fundal height two centimeters larger than her dates, so was sent for an ultrasound. The amniotic fluid volume was slightly elevated, so was scheduled to have an ultrasound each week to watch the problem. At this sono appointment, the baby still had the heart and kidney problems; she was told the baby might need surgery after the birth and to be prepared to have a scheduled cesarean if the baby was still showing dangerous signs near birth. The OB explained that sometimes when the baby has defects, there is more amniotic fluid; she was sick to her stomach with worry every waking moment, having to leave work on early disability because she could not focus and do her job.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Myrtle saw the doctor she&rsquo;d chosen originally at her 36-week prenatal visit and even though he measured her fundal height as size equal to dates, he said it wouldn&rsquo;t be a bad idea to keep going to the sono appointments, becoming Biophysical Profiles after 38 weeks. The technician who strapped her in never shared information about the testing she was doing, causing her to wait in agony for someone to call. Often, she called the office herself to see how the baby was doing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>When Myrtle was 39 weeks, the OB she saw told her she had to be induced in one week if she didn&rsquo;t go into labor before then. The female OB said, &ldquo;We&rsquo;ll just put a little pill inside and you&rsquo;ll have your baby that day!&rdquo; Myrtle was excited and scared all at once. She was going to have her baby! But what if he needed surgery.&nbsp;</p>
<p>A week later, she entered the hospital at 5:30am but had to wait until 11:00am to be checked in and get a bed. She changed into a hospital gown, naked underneath, was strapped to the fetal heart monitor, had an IV inserted, and then the nurse (who she had just met 25 minutes earlier) did a vaginal exam. Myrtle was told she was &ldquo;long, closed and posterior.&rdquo; What did that mean? she asked. The nurse told her it didn&rsquo;t matter and left the room.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The nurse came back an hour later with the little pill (Cytotec), did another vaginal exam and pushed the pill onto Myrtle&rsquo;s cervix. Within the hour, she was writhing in pain and the nurse asked her if she was &ldquo;ready for her epidural&rdquo;; she said she was, but the anesthesiologist had two cesareans to do first. He arrived two and a half hours later. Myrtle was in excruciating pain, but the nurse kept telling her, &ldquo;This isn&rsquo;t anything yet! Wait until you are <em>really</em> in labor.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The external monitor showed the contractions were barely peaking above early labor contractions, but because Myrtle was screaming so much (still waiting for the anesthesiologist), the decision was to begin pitocin instead of inserting another pill. She kept saying the contractions were one on top of the other, but because the monitor said they were erratic and mild, the nurse ignored the request to hurry and get the anesthesiologist. Repeatedly, she was told he was busy and she would have to wait.&nbsp;</p>
<p>When the doctor finally arrived, he tried to get the catheter into Myrtle&rsquo;s spine five times before hitting the right spot. He told her she would feel relief in 15 minutes or so and complete relief in 30. She waited and waited, but the pain never abated, the anesthesiologist having to come back and try again. When he was successful with the placement, the epidural only took on half her body; hardly any relief at all.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The nurse told her she was really complaining a lot about the contractions so she felt her fundus and left to go get the doctor. When he came in (a doctor in the practice she had yet to meet), he inserted an internal monitor so the contractions could be read more closely. The monitor showed Myrtle&rsquo;s contractions as tetanic &ndash; extremely hard and extremely long &ndash; exactly what she had been saying for two and a half hours. The pitocin was turned off immediately and the doctor told her she was now three centimeters dilated and she had to have her baby by 10:00pm or she would have a cesarean&hellip; that women cannot be on pitocin that long.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It didn&rsquo;t take that long to have the baby because the fetus could not tolerate the tetanic contractions, his heart rate going down into the 90&rsquo;s. She had an oxygen mask put on and moved to her left side, where she remained until the birth. We watched as the baby&rsquo;s heart rate went from 70 to 90 before, during and after contractions. No one seemed alarmed. The OB had just stepped into a cesarean, but said he would check back when he was done in 45 minutes or so. All she could do was wait.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The nurse started bringing more paperwork for Myrtle to sign, telling her it was &ldquo;just in case&rdquo; she had a cesarean. Worried, she asked if that was what was happening and the nurse told her, &ldquo;Not yet.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The baby&rsquo;s heart rate never got above 100 and when the doctor came back an hour later, he said it was time to &ldquo;get the baby out of there.&rdquo; I was told to leave, but Myrtle told me what happened next. She was wheeled down a hallway and told it was an emergency to get the baby out. Because her epidural only worked halfway, she was going to have general anesthesia and wouldn&rsquo;t be awake to see her baby. Her husband also wouldn&rsquo;t be allowed in the operating room. She said she cried and the nurse told her to stop it, she had to get control of herself or the anesthesia could go the wrong way and cause problems.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Once Myrtle was in the operating room, she had another mask put over her face and went to sleep. When she awoke, she was very groggy and didn&rsquo;t know where she was. A nurse injected something in the IV she had in her hand and she went to sleep again. By the time someone told her she had had her baby, he was already eight hours old. One of the medications she was given during the surgery caused an allergic reaction &ndash; a medication she&rsquo;d repeatedly told the nurses and doctors she was allergic to &ndash; so she was sedated and intubated until the reaction wore off.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Her son was 15 hours old before she saw him. He was in the NICU being tested, checking his heart and kidneys because of the prenatal testing&rsquo;s findings. He was hooked up to several monitors, had an IV in his head and Myrtle wasn&rsquo;t permitted to hold him until the testing was complete. She was told she might upset him and that would make testing harder for them to do. 30 hours after the birth, all the test results showed there was nothing wrong with his organs and Myrtle was finally permitted to breastfeed her baby. He&rsquo;d already gotten bottles for more than a day, so her attempts failed and she cried because she&rsquo;d wanted to nurse so badly. The nurse in the Nursery told her it was easier to bottle feed anyway, that her baby would sleep more and &ldquo;not bug her at night.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Case Outcome</strong>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Myrtle left the hospital six days after her cesarean, taking with her a staph infection that required cleaning and packing for three months and a colicky baby who, she later learned, was allergic to most formulas. She was in pain for a year and didn&rsquo;t have sex for 14 months because of her fear of getting pregnant again. She seriously considered tying her tubes.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This story haunted me for years. How could the doctor miss a normal pregnancy, labor, birth and postpartum period? How could he pathologize such a normal part of a woman&rsquo;s life? How could so many things be missed, incorrectly diagnosed, over-diagnosed and, dare I say, negligent? Is there anything we can do to help women see the path where medical care leads? &nbsp;How do those of us who work with natural birth every day tolerate such things? Is there an avenue of discussion where we can process our experiences together?&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do we even want to?</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Medscape Article - 9/29/09 - Slamming Homebirth -again-</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/29/medscape-article-92909-slamming-homebirth-again.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/29/medscape-article-92909-slamming-homebirth-again.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-30T02:04:47Z</published><updated>2009-09-30T02:04:47Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div><strong>Home Birth Gone Awry: Is This Typical?<br /></strong><br /><strong>Maria I. Rodriguez, MD<br /><br />Case History<br /></strong><br />Often, it is an especially busy night in Labor and Delivery when a patient with a disastrous clinical circumstance presents to the service. One call night, during my internship year, proved to be no exception. Although the events that follow happened many years ago, the encounter is indelibly etched into my memory. Hazel and her partner were brought in by their midwife "for pain medication." (Identifying details of the patient and midwife have been changed to preserve confidentiality.) Hazel had broken her bag of water 7 days earlier but had not started to feel any contractions until 5 days ago. She had been evaluated by the midwife when her water broke. Once labor began, someone from the birth center remained with her. Three days later, 2 days prior to presentation to the hospital, she developed a fever, and the contractions became stronger.<br /><br />The midwife was a direct-entry midwife who had apprenticed and then practiced at a popular birth center in town. [Note to reader: Discussion section that follows explains the different types of midwifery trainings.] She indicated to us that she was one of their most experienced midwives. The midwife and I had actually met the month before when another patient from her practice was brought in hemorrhaging. That patient had attempted a home birth after a prior cesarean section but instead wound up having a cesarean hysterectomy, 12 units of blood products, and a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit.)<br /><br />The moment I heard we were expecting another transfer from this center, my adrenaline surged and we started preparing for the worst. The expected patient (namely, Hazel) had been seen at our hospital early in her pregnancy; while waiting for the transfer, I reviewed the available hospital records. She was of advanced maternal age and had undergone in vitro fertilization (IVF) to achieve this pregnancy. She had an early ultrasound that put her at 2 weeks overdue the night of the awaited transfer.<br /><br />When Hazel arrived, the nurse took her vital signs while I listened to Hazel and the midwife relate the rest of the history, placed the fetal monitoring belts, and prepared to do a cervical exam. Hazel was incoherent from exhaustion and pain; most of the history came from the midwife, who explained that the patient's cervix had last been examined yesterday, it was a "dynamic 8," and the baby was in occiput posterior position. My pulse climbed even higher; this was sounding worse by the moment.<br /><br />The patient had been asked to start pushing 9 hours ago because the midwife was concerned about fetal heart rate decelerations that she was auscultating intermittently with a fetoscope. I interrupted her elaborations on the various positions the patient had been pushing in to ask about the monitoring. I was nervous as I watched our nurses having a hard time getting the baby's heart rate on the monitor. The midwife explained they had been listening to heart tones using a fetoscope every hour for a minute and that the fetal heart rate had been around 100 to 120 beats per minute for the last 3 days. By report, the fetal heart rate had been 140 when labor had started. Hazel was herself tachycardic to the 120s with her fever of 39 degrees Celsius, and the nurse had quietly called my attention to purulent amniotic fluid she noted on the pad.<br /><br />More people were called into the room and an intravenous line was placed, type and cross sent, antibiotics ordered, cervical examination performed, anesthesia and obstetrical attendings paged, and the ultrasound set up. The operating room was on stand-by. Hazel was working hard not to push with contractions, and her partner was engrossed in supporting her. I had barely been able to talk directly to her, other than to introduce myself. Her pain and fatigue made it difficult to establish any kind of rapport, and the midwife was standing between the 2 of us, repeating what I said to the patient. I tried to change positions so I could at least make eye contact with Hazel, and the midwife changed, as well. I knew she wanted to maintain a role in the process, but her desire to do so was obstructing my ability to connect with our patient, and I needed to do so immediately.<br /><br />I finally just pushed past the midwife to sit down on the bed next to Hazel and told her what we had learned. She was only dilated to 4 cm. Her cervix was swollen, and she was bleeding briskly from a tear in her cervix. Her baby was in frank breech position, edematous, and molded in her pelvis. The umbilical cord had prolapsed past the breech and was palpable; there was no pulse. No cardiac activity could be seen on the monitor or the ultrasound. They had likely been listening to Hazel's heart rate for the last 3 days. "Hazel," I said as gently as possible, "I am so sorry, but your baby did not survive this labor." This was Hazel's first pregnancy.<br /><br />(PAGE 2)<br /><br /><strong>Discussion: Controversy of Home Births<br /></strong><br />Home birth is common throughout the developing world, where resources are scarce, and maternal and neonatal death rates are high. In certain developed countries, such as Great Britain, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, home births are a fairly well integrated option in their healthcare systems.[1] In the United States, however, home births are controversial, both medically and socially. For many women, choosing to give birth at home is an important personal and philosophical decision that reflects their unique values.[2,3] In addition, given that the United States is actively evaluating healthcare expenses and how best to curb them, the question of the legitimacy of home births may be raised from an economic perspective, as well. According to some sources, an uncomplicated vaginal birth in a US hospital costs, on average, 68% more than an uncomplicated vaginal home birth by a midwife.[1,4]<br /><br />National census data show that approximately 1% of all births are home births, with rates highest in Oregon and Washington.[2] Research in this area is inherently challenging. A randomized controlled trial would not be ethical or feasible. Women who elect to have home births self select, and they tend to be white and better educated than average.[2,5,6] This introduces significant confounding and bias into the observational studies conducted to date. In addition, most states do not record place of birth on death certificates for neonates, which further limits the ability to compare home birth with hospital birth outcomes. California is an exception.[1]<br />Midwifery Training and Certification<br /><br />The wide variation in midwifery training and local regulatory practices also makes rigorous evaluation of home birth in the United States difficult. Midwives may be trained as part of a certified nursing program (ie, nurse midwives) or as a direct-entry midwife through apprenticeship. Direct-entry midwives may come from any type of educational background and may or may not be certified through an organization such as the North American Registry of Midwives. The term "direct entry" refers to midwives who enter the profession of midwifery directly without earning a nursing degree. The North American Registry of Midwives was developed in 1987 as a way to certify and credential midwives involved in home births who are not nurse midwives.[1] Not all nonprofessional, direct-entry midwives in North America choose to participate in the Registry by becoming certified; those who do represent a subset of direct-entry midwives in North America. The certification process for nonnurse, direct-entry midwives is quite variable as well; there are 2 main processes -- certified professional midwives (CPMs) and certified midwives (CMs). CPMs are trained primarily through apprenticeship; CM training is much more extensive, involving 3 years of university-affiliated training, completing the same science requirements and certification exam as a nurse-midwife.[7]<br /><br />As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) explains, CPMs are the least qualified midwives because of their lack of training and lack of collaborative work with hospital-based providers.[7] There are options for use of midwives in a hospital setting, hospital-based birthing center, or properly accredited freestanding birthing center. ACOG warns against using midwives not certified by the American College of Nurse-Midwives or the American Midwifery Certification Board.<br />Evidence For and Against Home Births<br /><br />Multiple observational studies conducted to date do not show an increased risk for adverse outcomes for home births compared with a low-risk hospital-based cohort.[1,2,8] Conversely, other studies, such as a retrospective analysis of all home births in Washington state, showed a statistically significant increased relative risk for [6]:<br /><br />* Neonatal death;<br />* Depressed Apgar scores;<br />* Prolonged labor in nulliparous women; and<br />* Postpartum hemorrhage in nulliparous women.<br /><br />Data for this trial came from the Washington State birth registry between 1989 and 1996. Uncomplicated singleton pregnancies of at least 35 weeks gestation delivered at home (N = 5854) or transferred to medical facilities after attempted home delivery (N = 279) were compared with hospital-born singletons (N = 10,593) during that time period. The same relationship of increased neonatal demise and depressed Apgar scores remained when the analysis was restricted to pregnancies of at least 37 weeks gestation. This study suggested that planned home births in Washington State during 1989-1996 had greater infant and maternal risks than did hospital births.<br /><br />A large, well-designed North American prospective cohort study examined 5418 women who had planned home births in Canada and the United States.[1] Outcomes studied included:<br /><br />* Medical intervention rates;<br />* Patient satisfaction; and<br />* Maternal and infant mortality rates.<br /><br />The study population was women who sought the services of a midwife certified via the North American Registry in Canada or the United States for a birth with an expected delivery date in 2000. In the fall of 1999, the Registry provided the research team with an electronic database of 534 certified midwives whose credentials were current; and the North American Registry of Midwives made study participation a mandatory criterion for recertification.<br /><br />Compared with low-risk women delivering in hospitals, the cohort had a markedly low rate of medical interventions (such as epidural, cesarean, or assisted delivery), no maternal deaths, and a comparable neonatal death rate -- namely, 2.0 deaths per 1000 intended home births and 1.7 deaths per 1000 low-risk intended home births after planned breeches and twins were excluded. Of note, 80 breech deliveries occurred at home with 2 intrapartum deaths. Cesarean section for breech presentation is the standard of care in the United States. No separate analysis of outcomes for breech infants was done. A comparison of neonatal death for this subcohort with hospital-delivered breech would be of interest.<br />Where Do Professional Organizations in America Stand on Home Births?<br /><br />Regardless of the paucity of data, as well as their conflicts and limitations, and despite ACOG's stated opposition to the practice of home births,[9] a few women will continue to choose this mode of delivery. Of note, not all professional organizations in the United States agree; the American Public Health Association passed a resolution in 2001 to increase access to out-of-hospital maternity care services.[1,10] The American Medical Association (AMA), however, supports ACOG in its resolution that "the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate postpartum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers."[11] ACOG and AMA share this position because "an apparently uncomplicated pregnancy or delivery can quickly become very complicated in the setting of maternal hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, eclampsia, or other obstetric emergencies, necessitating the need for rigorous standards, appropriate oversight of obstetric providers, and the availability of emergency care, for the health of both the mother and the baby during a delivery."[11] ACOG explains that "while childbirth is a normal physiologic process that most women experience without problems, monitoring of both the woman and the fetus during labor and delivery in a hospital or accredited birthing center is essential because complications can arise with little or no warning even among women with low-risk pregnancies."[9] They go on to explain that the fact that home births in other developed countries, particularly in Europe, seem relatively safe does not pertain to the United States.[7] The Netherlands, for example, is geographically small and densely populated; therefore, everyone lives within 20 minutes of a hospital.<br />Guiding Our Patients: Why Do Women Choose Home Births?<br /><br />Our responsibility as clinicians is to ensure that our patients are well informed and to advocate for the best possible outcome for both mother and child. Understanding the reasons why women choose to give birth at home is one opportunity we have to address their concerns, reassure them about the hospital birth experience, and help them make a well-informed decision.<br /><br />In a qualitative study of US women exploring reasons they chose to deliver at home, common themes included[2]:<br /><br />* Safety -- patients expressed the belief that home was the safest place for birth and would result in the best health outcomes;<br />* Fear of medical interventions;<br />* Previous negative hospital experience; and<br />* Desire for more control and comfort that they anticipated at home.<br /><br />Narrative surrounding these fears is available from a descriptive study of women having home births in Sweden.[8] Women cited a desire to know the people caring for them and their newborn and feared a loss of control in the birth process if labor and delivery were to take place in the hospital. Understanding the reasons why some women choose home birth can also help facilitate change in hospital settings to better address patient concerns. ACOG cites women's desire for vaginal birth after cesarean or VBAC as another potential reason for seeking home birth delivery.[7,9] But attempted VBAC is all the more reason to deliver one's baby in the hospital; if the uterus ruptures during labor, this is an emergent and potentially fatal situation for both mother and baby.<br /><br />The vast majority of physician encounters with home birth patients comes during a transfer for a problem or complications being experienced at home. In the prospective study by Johnson and colleagues[1] discussed earlier, 12.1% of intended home births were transferred for hospital delivery. The 3 most common reasons for intrapartum transfer were failure to progress in the first stage of pregnancy, pain relief, and maternal exhaustion. The time of transfer is a stressful and difficult situation for all parties involved. The woman does not want to be there and may be in medical distress. The midwife may be anxious or defensive. The accepting practitioner has the responsibility, both medically and legally, of caring for a patient whom they have never met before and who has now developed a potential complication.<br /><br />Both common sense and research in this area suggest that facilitation of the transfer process is a critical way providers can improve outcomes for women.[3,12] Protocols mandating hospital transfer have been used with success in areas where midwifery is regulated. In The Netherlands, which has a high rate of home birth, midwives undergo 3 years of professional training and screen patients for high-risk conditions that merit referral to the hospital.[13] Central to their system's success in providing the best care for each individual's needs is close collaboration and communication between midwives and physicians.[13]<br /><br />Clear communication is essential but is challenging due to the urgency, tension, and differing perspectives of the home birth proponents from the hospital team, particularly at the time of the transfer. Developing strategies to respectfully, efficiently, and safely care for the woman who desired to deliver her baby at home, in the hospital is critical. Dialogue is essential to developing relationships that will enable this. Improving relationships between the hospital and midwives that attend home births by inviting midwives to attend group debriefings following stressful deliveries or hospital educational conferences might facilitate future transfers.<br /><br />(page 3)<br /><br /><strong>Case Outcome<br /></strong><br />Hazel received an epidural for pain management and, with oxytocin administration, went on to have a vaginal delivery of a beautiful, lifeless boy. Her midwife had left shortly after the ultrasound, but the doula, her nurse, and I stayed with her through the night. The tragedy was heartbreaking.<br /><br />Hazel haunted the halls of the hospital that summer. I saw her regularly, crying outside of the nursery, and when I stopped to talk with her, all she could say between sobs was, "Owen didn't make it." Our social worker and counselor worked with her, and I saw her in clinic, as well.<br /><br />We all make choices in life, some of which have consequences we never anticipated. A minority of women in the United States will continue to choose home birth as a reflection of their personal values. Our responsibility as medical clinicians is to educate communities and to strive to provide care that balances respect for an individual's autonomy with the need for safe, efficient quality healthcare. Maintaining open, respectful dialogue with women and midwives that attend home births is essential in facilitating timely and safe hospital transfers. This includes providing balanced information for women interested in home birth and encouraging midwives to consult for help sooner rather than later.</div>]]></content></entry><entry><title>How Homebirth Helps Avoid the H1N1 Virus</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/25/how-homebirth-helps-avoid-the-h1n1-virus.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/25/how-homebirth-helps-avoid-the-h1n1-virus.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-26T01:12:31Z</published><updated>2009-09-26T01:12:31Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>You cannot miss the headlines:&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="newsstorytitle1"><strong><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=a8_2nrwYD1kM">Hospitals May Face Severe Disruption From Swine Flu</a></strong> &ndash; &ldquo;</span><span style="color: black;">Swine flu may hospitalize 1.8 million patients in the U.S. this year, filling intensive care units to capacity and causing &ldquo;severe disruptions&rdquo; during a fall resurgence, scientific advisors&nbsp; to the White House warned.&rdquo;</span>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFluNews/hospitals-ban-child-visits-mom-baby-due-swine/story?id=8640366">Hospitals May Ban Visits to Newborns Due to Swine Flu</a> </strong>&ndash; &ldquo;With a potential outbreak of swine flu on the horizon, many hospitals are becoming more cautious when it comes to protecting newborn babies and their mothers -- fears that have prompted a complete ban of children from areas of one hospital where newborns and their mothers are cared for -- and that have caused more intense deliberations about the issue in other facilities.</p>
<p>&lsquo;For pregnant women, there is a much higher risk associated with H1N1, and they wanted to err on the side of safety for pregnant women,&rsquo; said Mike Green, the chief executive officer of Concord Hospital in New Hampshire, which imposed the outright ban.&rdquo;</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/19/science/sci-flu19 ">81 U.S. healthcare workers found to have H1N1 virus</a>&nbsp;- </strong>&ldquo;At least 81 U.S. healthcare workers have contracted laboratory-confirmed cases of the novel H1N1 influenza virus and about half caught the bug on the job, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said today.</p>
<p>The finding is worrisome because it suggests that hospitals and workers are not taking sufficient preventive measures to limit spread of the virus. If a large-scale outbreak of the virus recurs this fall, a similar infection rate could cause significant problems -- not only because it would limit the number of workers available to care for the sick, but also because the infected nurses, doctors and others could transmit the virus to debilitated patients before their own symptoms become apparent. Already-ill patients would be more likely to develop life-threatening side effects from the flu.&rdquo;<span style="color: #333333;" lang="EN">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>Does this scare you? It should.</p>
<p>While balancing the information you get from medical and holistic sources is crucial and each family needs to make their own decisions regarding vaccinations or nutritional support, the one clear truth is: those that are the sickest with H1N1 (&ldquo;swine flu&rdquo;) will be in hospitals. Considering and choosing a homebirth takes on an urgency not previously needed.</p>
<p>Women who have thought homebirths were for hippies and counter-culture crunchies now find themselves thinking hard about having one of their own. If you are one of the women who have thought a homebirth might be a good idea, but you were not sure of the safety aspects, it is time to fill in the information gaps. Wouldn&rsquo;t it be wonderful to not have to worry that the person holding your newborn might be carrying a virus that can seriously harm you and your newborn?&nbsp;</p>
<p>Having a baby at home is for healthy women having uncomplicated pregnancies. If you fit that description, you are already on your way to taking healthy control of your upcoming birth. But, where do you begin learning about the safety of homebirths, finding a midwife and how to prepare?&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Internet abounds with information regarding birthing in one&rsquo;s own home. Search &ldquo;homebirth,&rdquo; &ldquo;home birth,&rdquo; &ldquo;waterbirth,&rdquo; &ldquo;midwife,&rdquo; add your city to those terms, too, and you will find local resources. If you add &ldquo;safety&rdquo; to the terms, you will find yourself reading study after study that speaks highly of the safety of birthing at home with an experienced/educated midwife. A great place to start is the <strong><a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/164804.php">McMaster Study</a></strong>&nbsp;which, in part says, &ldquo;Almost 6,700 planned home births in Ontario were assessed in the study. Results indicated that newborns and mothers were no more likely to suffer complications than their counterparts in a clinical setting.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is important to have a midwife that is experienced with homebirth and most midwives in the United States are licensed or certified; be sure to ask when you interview a midwife. Midwives are well-prepared for emergencies, carrying medications for hemorrhage, being certified in neonatal resuscitation and being able to repair any tearing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>While pain medications are not offered in the home setting, women are mobile and use a variety of pain coping techniques including massage, positioning and even immersion in water (which is often called the midwife&rsquo;s epidural). Women birthing at home who have also had hospital births will say their homebirth was <em>much</em> more comfortable than the hospital birth, even without an epidural or narcotics.&nbsp;</p>
<p>If a situation arises that moves out of the scope of practice for a midwife, whether it is a non-emergent (such as malposition of the baby&rsquo;s head that does not resolve) or emergent (such as a hemorrhage that does not stop with basic medications), the midwife does not hesitate to move into the hospital. Even when we are trying to stay out of the hospital because of the H1N1 virus, weighing the pros and cons of going in are crucial and, when absolutely necessary, the pros outweigh the cons.&nbsp;</p>
<p>For those women who cannot avoid the hospital during the birthing process, perhaps staying home as absolutely long as possible and then going home as soon as is safe can also help lower the risk of obtaining the virus. The less time you are in the hospital, the less chance of getting ill.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But, when everything unfolds in the natural way birth is designed to do, staying home will definitely lower your risk of acquiring the H1N1 virus. You have control over who comes in your house and if they are sick, they do not come in. You can make sure everyone, including your own family, washes their hands regularly and remind people how to cover their mouths and noses with their sleeves should a sneeze overtake them. You can have your family take nutritional supplements that support the immune system; you will also do this for you and the baby. By taking control over the environment and keeping healthy family and friends close, you are minimizing the places you could get sick.&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, if you have ever thought about a homebirth or if it never even crossed your mind, this might be the time to do so. Over and over, we hear in the news, &ldquo;Stay out of the hospital unless you are extremely ill because there will be so many infected people there.&rdquo; While we do not always believe what we hear, this might be one thing we really need to listen to.&nbsp;</p>
<p>For more information about homebirth and homebirth midwifery, Search &ldquo;Midwife,&rdquo; &ldquo;your state (or city),&rdquo; &ldquo;homebirth&rdquo; and you will find several options. Whoever licenses midwives in your state will also have a list of those that carry certification or a license. In the states that do not have midwifery regulation, perhaps now is the time to get involved to make it possible in your state. Even in un-regulated states, Certified Professional Midwives might be in your area and worth talking to.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Choosing a homebirth is a deeply personal decision and one that needs to be considered seriously and completely. For those that decide staying home and out of the line of the H1N1 fire, their births can be a way to remain well with a large dose of incredible.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>What Doesn't Feel Right, Isn't</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/22/what-doesnt-feel-right-isnt.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/22/what-doesnt-feel-right-isnt.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-23T01:06:48Z</published><updated>2009-09-23T01:06:48Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: #181818;">Zipping around Facebook a couple of weeks ago was the <strong><em><a href="http://myobsaidwhat.wordpress.com/">My OB Said What?!?</a></em></strong> site.&nbsp; It reminded me of an <a href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2004/7/8/birth-rape-and-otherwise.html"><strong>old post I wrote in 2004</strong></a><strong> </strong>right after I learned what birthrape was. I&rsquo;d been quite angered by the women who used the term because, as a woman who has been raped, it was offensive. How could anything in birth be equated with the horrific experience women around the world experience? I could have closed my mind and left myself in anger, but I probed and really pressed the women to explain it so I could understand what they meant.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #181818;">Reading</span><span style="color: #181818;"> around the Net, women have written about birth traumas and abuses, including birthrape.&nbsp; <a href="http://womantowomancbe.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/birth-rape/ "><strong>Kathy shares information</strong></a> from <a href="http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/238755/Born%20Free%20UC%20in%20NA.pdf"><strong>Rixa Freeze&rsquo;s doctoral dissertation</strong></a><strong>&nbsp;</strong>about how some women choose to deliver unassisted because of their past experiences with medical or midwifery care. Interestingly, Rixa and Kathy used my own description of the abuses I participated in as I was learning to be a midwife. I&rsquo;ve written about my sadness and sincere apologies to the women I have hurt (emotionally and physically) and that, in speaking about exactly this, I could find a place of peace inside myself. (Reference the post I wrote in 2004 above.)&nbsp; </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #181818;">Back in 2004, I listened to the words women used to describe their pain and was told about actions that did, indeed, sound extremely coercive, manipulative and even pushing women to do things completely against their will. I went to Sarah who at the time was a Deputy Sheriff and I read through her official code book that defined things like &ldquo;assault,&rdquo; &ldquo;battery&rdquo; and &ldquo;rape.&rdquo; </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Legalese regarding the definition of <strong>assault</strong> includes (emphasis mine and my comments in parenthesis): </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">&ldquo;&hellip; the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. (&ldquo;You need to have a cesarean or I will get a court order to make you have one.&rdquo;)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">The act required for an assault must be overt. Although <em>words alone are insufficient</em>, they might create an assault when coupled with <em>some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat</em>. (&ldquo;Open your legs. I&rsquo;m going to do a vaginal exam.&rdquo; And the woman tells the practitioner that she doesn&rsquo;t want an exam or tries to close her legs before the exam begins.)</span></p>
<p><em><span style="color: black;">Intent is an essential element of assault.</span></em><span style="color: black;"> &hellip; the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. <em>In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.</em> (I&rsquo;m going to give you an episiotomy.&rdquo; &ldquo;No!&rdquo;)</span></p>
<p><strong><em><span style="color: black;">There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.</span></em></strong><em><span style="color: black;">&rdquo;<strong></strong></span></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #181818;">Battery</span></strong><strong><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></strong><span style="color: #181818;">definitions include: &ldquo;</span><span style="color: black;">The act must result in one of two forms of contact. <em>Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim&mdash;such as a cut</em>, a burn, or a bullet wound (episiotomy, cesarean, IV, internal monitors, IV antibiotics, etc.) &mdash;could constitute battery, but <em>actual injury is not required</em>. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; <em>occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable </em>(a post-cesarean infection, systemic yeast after IV antibiotics, etc.). The second type of <em>contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim</em>. Examples include spitting in someone's face or <strong><em>offensively touching someone against his or her will</em></strong>.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Intent</span><span style="color: black;">: <strong><em>Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim.</em></strong> (This allows for the belief of doctors and nurses that the procedure/intervention is helpful, but the woman sees it in a completely different light.)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. <em>Consent may also be assumed if the parties had a prior relationship <strong>unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning</strong>.</em>&rdquo;<em></em></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Still, my biggest quibble is with the term &ldquo;birthrape&rdquo; because most definitions connote rape with sexual intercourse or genital to genital contact. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Among the common definitions of<strong> &ldquo;Rape,&rdquo; </strong>we find this:</span><span style="color: black;"> &ldquo;Forced sexual intercourse; sexual assault; sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. Rape may be heterosexual (involving members of opposite sexes) or homosexual (involving members of the same sex). <em>Rape involves insertion</em> <em>of</em> an erect penis or <em>an inanimate object into the female vagina</em> (gloved hand, speculum, internal monitors, amniohook, etc.) or the male anus. Legal definitions of rape may also include forced oral sex and other sexual acts. </span></p>
<p><em><span style="color: black;">Victims of rape suffer physical and mental trauma. Physical trauma may include cuts, bruises and abrasions in the pelvic area as well as elsewhere on the body. Mental trauma may include overwhelming feelings of humiliation, embarrassment and defilement</span></em><span style="color: black;"> (classic signs of PTSD). <strong>Rape victims should seek treatment at a hospital. There, doctors and nurses can treat the injuries </strong>(eek! Not for birth traumatized women), administer antibiotics to prevent sexually- transmitted diseases, and provide counseling or any other additional therapy (mental or physical) that the patient requires. The hospital team's evaluation and report will help document the condition of the patient for legal purposes.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p>These legal descriptions of rape do not take into account birth trauma/abuse and trying to use these definitions to prove it would be very challenging (I suspect). I know that the majority of people reading the definition of rape and attempting to apply it to birth trauma will feel it is a stretch to do so. It took decades to believe that rape occurred in marriage or that women could be rapists, too, so expanding the definition to include birth might take a very long time and, I am sure, many, many years and a slew of failed lawsuits before anyone in the legal system recognizes birth traumas/abuses, much less birthrape. In fact, I have known of women to talk to lawyers as they consider suing their care provider and the lawyers won&rsquo;t even discuss it. The typical proof of &ldquo;lasting physical harm&rdquo; is even abandoned as some women have had to have reconstructive surgery to repair the damage caused by their doctor or midwife. What is a traumatized woman supposed to do? I think we all know it takes an extremely powerful woman to even think about bringing a lawsuit against a perpetrator and the aftermath of trauma is not the most conducive time to do this.</p>
<p>I believe this is where a support system can take a major role. Women who have been traditionally raped or assaulted, including domestic abuse, have dozens of places to turn to for help and support. The hurt woman may not realize this or know how to find those resources, but they are there. I know the Internet has changed the face of helping hands, although women in domestic abuse situations still have to be careful lest their Net records be looked at. For those who are not in fear for their lives, but for their mental stabilities, the Net can be a haven for the women who need it. One former birth traumatized mom started <strong><a href="http://www.solaceformothers.org">Solace for Mothers</a>.</strong>&nbsp;An organization in the United Kingdom, the <a href="http://www.birthtraumaassociation.org.uk/"><strong>Birth Trauma Association</strong></a>,&nbsp;began at the same time I learned about birthrape/birth trauma in 2004. I&rsquo;ve corresponded with several of the women who keep that organization going and they are just as committed to helping women as the newer groups here in the US.</p>
<p>Look at that. 2004. Only 5 years of the realization of birth trauma. But, how many decades (centuries?) before were women living with the painful and scary memories of their births?</p>
<p>Above, I alluded to the challenge of trying to get anyone to understand the reality of birth trauma&hellip; that people will roll their eyes and think, &ldquo;Why is she being so dramatic? Women have been having babies for eons.&rdquo;</p>
<p>When I began talking to my mom about this a couple of years ago, she told me about my own birth in 1961. She said that when she went for prenatals, all the women went into the bathroom, peed in a cup and put their underwear in their purses. They would then have to sit for hours together in a hot room waiting for their few minute appointments with the doctor. When they went into the exam room, they were put in stirrups and left there until the doctor walked in, did a vaginal exam, listened to the baby and sent mom on her way. When she was in labor with me, there were four women to a labor room and when she started pushing, they moved her to the Delivery Room, put her in the lithotomy position, legs buckled into stirrups, arms put in constraints and left until someone came in to catch the baby. She remembers how horrified she was that a very young man (black, something that was an important factor in that time) kept looking at her perineum to see if I was coming out. My mom is so shy I have never seen her naked. She can&rsquo;t even pee in a public place, so being stared at was, for her, humiliating.</p>
<p>As I asked her how she felt about the birth, she matter of factly told me that that was just the way it was. No one questioned it. She said it was always good to hear other women&rsquo;s stories at baby showers, that it was affirming of her own experience, but she was too busy to consider the experience as much more than having her first child.</p>
<p>Women birthing in the United States have it really easy compared to some women around the world. We don&rsquo;t have 1 in 8 women die at births. <strong><a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/showcase-55/ ">We don&rsquo;t lose our babies like too many other countries</a></strong>.&nbsp;We don&rsquo;t labor on the floor with rats and roaches, sitting in the blood of a hundred other women who birthed before us. We don&rsquo;t give birth as mortar shells explode outside the window. We don&rsquo;t really have to worry that our children probably won&rsquo;t make it to their first year&rsquo;s birthday. Women in other countries can labor for a week before someone gathers the few dollars it takes to get her to a hospital hundreds of miles away, only to know the baby has already died and the mom now at serious risk of dying from hemorrhage or infection.</p>
<p>Do these women have PTSD? Or do they live in some sort of Traumatic Stress every moment of their lives? Do stressors have ratings? The stress of trying to staying alive much higher on the scale than having a mother-in-law that won&rsquo;t allow you to go to the hospital? What would these women think of us who are saying they have PTSD for being touched where we said we didn&rsquo;t want to be touched? Would they think we are absurd? Would they think we are so privileged and take for granted aspects of life they cannot even fathom a woman would be granted.</p>
<p>Is Postpartum Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PPPTSD) an illness of luxury? If we were huddled in a migrant camp, would we really be concerned that the doctor pushed our legs apart to do a vaginal exam? Or would the multi-rape experiences overshadow the minimal intrusion the roaming doctor or midwife does.</p>
<p>Is PPPTSD judged by societal norms?</p>
<p>When I was in sexual assault self-help groups (almost always led by therapists), there was a tendency among the women to rate the abuse, almost always minimizing their own. &ldquo;Well, I was just sexually abused at twelve from the guy next door. <em>She</em> was six and it was her brother. She had it <em>much</em> worse than I did.&rdquo; Over and over, we had to remind each other (and be reminded) that rating the abuse discounted our own. We had to really work to learn that the measuring stick with which we measured was created by our own hearts. Continuing on that path, it is important for women to take their own experiences and not judge them, comparing them to others. &ldquo;I just had my membranes stripped without permission&hellip;<em> she</em> had an episiotomy!&rdquo; Your own trauma is just as valid as the next woman&rsquo;s. I like what Jennifer Zimmerman says: &ldquo;But, rape is rape. One woman may label it that way, one woman may not, but it is what it is. &hellip;if a women has her membranes stripped without her knowledge or consent, that act is a violation no matter what the woman feels about it. If she was not offered informed consent, it doesn't matter whether she is thrilled that she went into labor a day later, she was still not offered informed consent and that makes it wrong for the provider to have done it.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>So do we start telling women who loved their births that their births really sucked? Do we burst the bubbles of those great stories we hear all around us? Were we elected to Name the Abuse of every woman we meet?&nbsp;</p>
<p>When I had Tristan (<strong><a href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2008/4/14/tristans-birth-1982.html">and you can read his story here</a></strong>), I thought the birth experience was so great I wrote a letter to the doctor, nurses and hospital administrator thanking them for the great birth I had in their hospital. When I was pregnant with Meghann, I was talking to a group of Bradley mamas, most of whom had had homebirths. I proudly showed Tristan&rsquo;s birth pictures, all green draped, lithotomy, oxygen masked, baby across the room&hellip; all the things we know now are awful! The women never said a word to me about how horrified they were looking at the pictures. It wasn&rsquo;t until the whole experience was re-framed by Bradley standards that I began to see the experience as sucky and blech. Even today, the feeling of joy far outweighs the supposed-to-be horrible, angry emotions I should have had back then. It was others that used their knowledge, given to me, pulled into my own psyche, that gave the first experience the shadow it now carries. I asked the Bradley moms how come they didn&rsquo;t wince and cringe when I so proudly showed Tristan&rsquo;s pictures off and the Bradley teacher said, &ldquo;We knew you would figure it out yourself when you were ready.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The dilemma, of course, is what <em>do</em> we do?&nbsp;</p>
<p>I say we write and speak our realities. I want women to write in blogs, write articles and get them published, write the hospital, write the doctor, write the nurses. I vacillate between asking women to write filled with their anger and sadness or if they should wait until the anger has subsided and they can write in a voice that will be heard more than a shrill postpartum patient. Angry letters are often dismissed. I think they are fabulous to write and hang onto for awhile before sending them, re-vamping them as time passes, but I&rsquo;m not sure how helpful the highly charged letters are. If it is a serious part of your healing, then I say go for it. But, know that you may not get any response. If you do write, speak as unemotionally as you can. Speak of specific actions, not a blanket &ldquo;She sucked&rdquo; kind of way. Ask someone else to read it to see if it makes sense, flows well and isn&rsquo;t defamatory. Please don&rsquo;t threaten the doctor with, &ldquo;And I&rsquo;m going to tell everyone I know how awful you are&rdquo; because you can find yourself in court for defamation of character.<span class="textexposedshow2">thrilled that she went into labor a day later, she was still not offered informed consent and that makes it wrong for the provider to have done it.</span>&nbsp;</p>
<p>For the women too traumatized to write, draw. If you can read (I could not in my depressions), get Birthing From Within and work through the art suggestions. They can be very telling and very healing. Showing your pain on paper can help those around you &ldquo;see&rdquo; what you are talking about.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Clay is another outlet. I used to do collages. I went to used bookstores and got dozens of magazines and pieced together a collage that spoke my pain in words and pictures. I still have a couple of them. You can also do a collage of what you hope to be/look like after you pass through the storm. Painting&hellip; deep, dark colors&hellip; the canvas holding the pain through brushstrokes and pallet clumps.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Find your own outlet. Therapy, of course. Find a therapist who gets it, though. It really is hard to have to teach a therapist about birth trauma before you can get to the meat of the healing. You shouldn&rsquo;t be the teacher, you are the client. There are many different types of therapy for PTSD. These include talk therapy, medications (temporary or long-term), holistic treatments, dietary changes, acupuncture, hypnosis (although that can be felt as a loss of control to some women &ndash; unacceptable), EMDR (<span style="color: black;">Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing), and more. I wish there were Group Therapy groups, but I haven&rsquo;t heard of any. There certainly are enough women to get dozens going. It really is important in self-help groups to not just be in a place of &ldquo;poor, poor pitiful me,&rdquo; but to actively work towards healing and a whole life with the trauma assimilated into the grand scheme of a woman&rsquo;s life. With the acknowledgement of PPTSD, I believe women are more apt to begin their healing.</span><span style="color: black;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Oftentimes, the therapy includes telling the perpetrator how the woman feels. I&rsquo;ve seen letters, heard of throwing clay/dough around the room (at his/her hands or face), speaking to the abuser as s/he sits invisibly in a chair and, for many, eventually finding the power to be able to speak to the person face to face or through a letter or email that goes beyond the write &amp; burn stage. It can be freeing to tell the perpetrator your feelings, but really, only if the person acknowledges their culpability in the experience. I remind women that most care providers will act defensively and even put some (all?) of the blame back on her. A woman has to be incredibly sure she can withstand a firestorm before she confronts her provider in person. I believe it is much easier to accuse and confront in writing, at least in the early stages of healing.</span><span style="color: black;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">As a healthcare provider, it is imperative for me to listen to women, believe them when they tell me about their abuse/trauma/rape whether it was someone else who did it or even if it was me. And after my 2004 disclosure of the past abuses I participated in, I have been involved in other women&rsquo;s traumas, albeit accidently. It pains me knowing my actions have hurt another. I am definitely more aware of what I do and say, but there are times when situations create a ripe atmosphere for hurt and anger.&nbsp;</span><span style="color: black;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">My wish is that all providers find a place where they can listen &ndash;and hear- those that have been hurt, whether it was us or someone else.&nbsp;Until&nbsp;we all can hear, women </span><em><span style="color: black;">must</span></em><span style="color: black;">&nbsp;keep talking, writing, photographing and screaming about birth trauma. Providers can do the same. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Maybe then, someday soon, we will all&nbsp;be heard.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/storage/amisc%20413smsm.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1253669343348" alt="" /></span></span></span></span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Re-Writing Progress (odd)</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/16/re-writing-progress-odd.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/16/re-writing-progress-odd.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-16T16:56:23Z</published><updated>2009-09-16T16:56:23Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>The revision of two posts earlier has transformed into a loooonnnnggggg piece about birth abuse/trauma/rape. I don't know where it came from or is coming from, but I am being driven to write about this. I haven't in a long time, haven't had anyone come along talking about it necessarily, but it's just coming out of my fingers.</p>
<p>So, I <em>am </em>working on it, but it's taking time. I write a little, stop to think/process, then&nbsp;write some more. I keep sighing and Sarah asks what is wrong. I tell her it's just a heavy piece I'm writing.&nbsp;As I&nbsp;research, I am reading all sorts of yucky things about assault, battery, rape and then birth Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (aka Post-Traumatic Birth Disorder). Not zippy, happy topics, no matter from which angle you look at it. It's hard, sometimes, to remember that birth isn't always so happy.</p>
<p>I'm not on another writing strike; just taking time to write this piece (unnamed at the moment). Thanks for your patience!</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Re-writing...</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/11/re-writing.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/11/re-writing.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-11T14:25:23Z</published><updated>2009-09-11T14:25:23Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>...the last post. Hope to have it finished today or tomorrow. It is similar, but different... discusses assault and battery in the LDR room. I will be using aspects/lists from the last post, but wanted to remove a lot of the anger, replacing it with reasoned thought and new information I've gathered over the last three years.</p>
<p>Hope it's done today.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Just because it's the standard of care...</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/7/just-because-its-the-standard-of-care.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/7/just-because-its-the-standard-of-care.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-07T18:42:32Z</published><updated>2009-09-07T18:42:32Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>... doesn't mean it's ethical.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>(This is part of a post I wrote in May 2006 and it seems appropriate even today. This was right after I learned the term "birthrape.")<br /><br />I worked in hospitals for 15 years before moving to birth centers (there was crossover) and finally now in home and hospital birth. I know what hospital birth looks like. I know what doctors are thinking because I have spent HOURS with them at the nurses station talking to them. Nurses have confided in me, telling me the vile things that come from physician's mouths the moment the door is closed. I have heard vile things with my own ears from doctors and nurses - and midwives.<br /><br />Birth trauma is not a doctor-only proposition. Birth trauma happens with nurses, direct-entry midwives, licensed midwives, certified professional midwives, certified midwives, etc. Some of the most horrid things I've seen have come from a midwife's hand or mouth.<br /><br />Here, from an old post and my birth stories blog - and while midwives are specifically addressed (because of the original discussion) it obviously encompasses physicians and nurses as well:<br /><br />Birthrape: The experience of having fingers, scissors, and/or tools put/pushed/shoved inside a woman's vagina or rectum without her direct (or indirect) permission.<br /><br />Being coerced, manipulated, or lied to regarding the health and safety of the baby or themselves so the midwife is able to do something to the mother's vagina, rectum, cervix, or perineum, usually with excuses; rarely with apologies.<br /><br />Some find the definition expanded to:<br /><br />The midwife taking the woman's Power by using disparaging comments, unsupportive expressions, speaking around her as if she is unable to hear or process requests or information.<br /><br />and<br /><br />Even though consent forms are signed in the hospital, birth center, and at home, consent for care does not include the manipulations or coercive words to get women to obey the caregiver.<br /><br />I thought it was time I shared some of the thousands of comments I have personally heard that have facilitated birthrape over the years.<br /><br />I share them and am writing about them and speaking about them and nearly screaming about them in the hopes that midwives will hear what they are saying that is sending their clients into therapy, pushing them to depressions that require medication and alternative therapies, keeping them from coming back to the midwife at all because of her Power Hunger and covert misogyny. Too many women (in my opinion) find Unattended Birth their only acceptable option after their experiences with professional caregivers in birth.<br /><br />You see, most midwives talk a good game. They will say any number of things in pregnancy to lead the woman to believe she (the mom) is in control. I have sat through hundreds and thousands of prenatals with midwives and listened to the party line about how they believe in a woman to know, how they will "let" them labor how they want, how they will limit vaginal exams, etc. And then, when labor is in full swing, I sit by (or participate) in the amazing disregard for the woman's prenatal wishes and dreams of an unhurried, unfettered, un-directed birth. I am not a part of the delusion or lies anymore.<br /><br />Common Beliefs<br /><br />* Women in labor don't really want to use their birth plan.<br />* Women in labor aren't able to verbalize their needs.<br />* Women in labor don't know when they need to pee or drink or eat.<br />* Women in labor don't know when to change positions.<br />* Women in labor can't make decisions.<br />* Women in labor want an epidural.<br />* Once labor kicks in, they all want epidurals.<br /><br />Directives That Disembody Her Being<br /><br />* Lift her leg.<br />* Move her to the bed.<br />* Grab her knees.<br />* Put her feet in the stirrups.<br />* Put her hands on the grips.<br />* Push her head to her chest.<br />* Push her chin to her chest.<br />* Put pillows under her head.<br />* Put pillows under her butt.<br />* Pull her down to the edge of the bed.<br />* Push with her so she knows how to do it right.<br />* Count for her so she knows how to do it right.<br /><br />(while these next phrases end in periods and question marks... almost exclusively, the following words have been shouted at women... an exclamation mark is more appropriate, but there aren't enough in the computer to add them all)<br /><br />Comments That Negate Her Intelligence (spiritual, physical, emotional, and intellectual)<br /><br />* You aren't pushing right.<br />* Push like this.<br />* Get mad at the baby.<br />* Quit making noise.<br />* No, push longer.<br />* Push like you are having a bowel movement.<br />* Push the watermelon out.<br />* Push the bowling ball out.<br />* Don't push in your chest, push in your butt.<br />* Push like you mean it.<br />* What are you doing?<br />* Can't you push harder?<br />* Have you ever been raped? (asked in labor)<br />* Are you an abuse survivor? (asked in labor)<br />* Have you been abused? (asked in labor)<br /><br />Coercive and Manipulative Remarks<br /><br />* I need to get in there.<br />* (pressing knees apart) I need to do a vaginal exam.<br />* C'mon, just let me see what is going on.<br />* I'll do it quick and fast, I promise.<br />* I promise to be gentle.<br />* I just want to feel the baby's position.<br />* I just want to see how dilated you are.<br />* You asked me to be your midwife, now let me do my job, okay?<br />* I'm a woman, too, I know how it feels... I promise to be gentle.<br />* I remember how vaginal exams felt in labor, I promise to be gentle.<br />* Do you want the baby to come out or not? Just open your legs.<br />* Are you sure you are ready to be a mom?<br />* You had no problem opening your legs 9 months ago.<br />* Just let me break your water, it will speed things up.<br />* If I break your water, the head will be applied better on the cervix.<br />* If I break your water, prostaglandins will stimulate things nicely.<br />* Here, drink this. (as Gatorade with cytotec is given to the mom)<br />* You might feel a pinch. (as pitocin is injected into the vaginal vault)<br />* I am just wiping up some stuff. (as pitocin on a gauze is pushed inside the vagina or rectum)<br />* Here, drink this. (as blue and black cohosh are given without consent)<br />* Here, put these under your tongue. (as homeopathics are given without information or consent)<br />* I'm just feeling your cervix... it might hurt a little. (as manipulations to the cervix are done... from stripping the membranes to manual dilation)<br />* I'm just feeling your cervix. (as cytotec is put onto the cervix)<br />* Do you want your baby to die?<br />* You don't know the seriousness of the situation.<br />* You have been a martyr long enough.<br />* Just take the medication.<br />* Just get "your" epidural.<br />* Would you like something for the pain? (in the middle of a contraction)<br />* This will take the edge off.<br />* It doesn't do anything to the baby.<br />* If you were my daughter/sister/mother....<br />* I have had three scheduled cesareans myself! I don't know what you are complaining about. (being wheeled into the OR)<br />* Stop whining.<br />* Why are you crying?<br />* What is wrong with you? Are you trying to hurt your baby?<br />* In this day and age, no one needs to suffer in childbirth anymore.<br />* Mothers and babies died without hospitals 100 years ago.<br />* Let me call the anesthesiologist... just talk to him about your options.<br />* No, you can't eat... just in case you need a cesarean... and your labor is rather slow moving.<br />* No, nothing by mouth after 7 centimeters. (or any number the caregiver randomly pulled out of her ass)<br />* Only ice chips.<br />* Oh, Bradley... they always have cesareans.<br />* You wanted a homebirth? That's child abuse!<br />* Are you one of those La Leche League people who nurse until the kid dates?<br />* Do you vaccinate? (after discussion of no erythromycin in the baby's eyes)<br />* You want your baby to go blind? (after refusal of erythromycin in baby's eyes)<br />* Your baby might bleed to death. (after refusal of Vitamin K injection for the baby)<br />* It's just antibiotics.<br />* God, you have terrible veins!<br />* Where are your veins?<br />* (to the Licensed Midwife during a transport, a nurse asks) Do you know how to take a blood pressure? Did you do any?<br />* Why did you wait so long?<br />* Why did you get here so early?<br />* You aren't in labor.<br />* How would you not know if your water broke or not?<br />* Can't you stop moaning?<br />* Be quiet!<br />* Oops, your water broke! (while using fingernails or fingers to break it on purpose)<br /><br />Whispering to Other Birth Attendants<br /><br />* My god, I wish she would hurry up.<br />* I am so bored!<br />* She is going so slow.<br />* I wish she would let me break her water.<br />* My baby needs to nurse, I need to go home.<br />* My boobs are going to burst if I don't go home and nurse. She needs to hurry up.<br />* I am so tired.<br />* I want to go home.<br />* I am going to talk her into letting me break her water so she will hurry up.<br />* I am going to talk her into letting me manually dilate her so she will hurry up.<br />* I need her to hurry up.<br />* She's holding back. There must be some emotional barrier we haven't found yet.<br />* I bet she was abused. Look how she: keeps her legs together/cries with exams/doesn't want us to touch her/doesn't take her clothes off/won't take her shirt off/won't relax enough to let the baby out/is afraid to be a parent/hasn't worked through her issues/has body image issues/has eating issues/is fat/is thin/lives in her head/isn't in touch with reality<br />* She is so noisy.<br />* She is too quiet.<br />* She needs to let go.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I am exhausted writing this much pain. I know there are hundreds of thousands of remarks that have been said that I haven't been witness to and I encourage women who have had them said to them to email me privately so I might start a list that lets caregivers know what not to say to women during pregnancy, labor, birth, and postpartum.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />This came as an addendum to that blogspot:<br /><br />* There's not much happening here (as the midwife does a vaginal exam)<br />* One woman wanted to stand on her own during her births, but, both times, was forced to do a deep squat or be supported by others, causing vaginal tears and "mad" that she wasn't honored at her own births (her words).<br /><br />* I had a midwife write me thanking me for disclosing what she, too, has seen in her training.<br />Blessed Be! I am not alone!<br /><br />This next series from a nurse friend of mine:<br /><br />* "Stupid Bitch" (said by a Doc before he even left the room)<br />* The same doc (we hated this prick, he still practices) elbowed a woman (hard) in the thigh because she wouldn't open wide enough for him<br />* "Well, the Anesthesiologist is here now for another pt and he wants to go home, this is your last chance for an epidural"<br />* "If you would just stop moving we could get a good tracing on the baby" (and other variations of the same)<br />* "Quit being such a baby"<br />* "Oh come on, it doesn't hurt that bad, you are only ____cms dialated."<br />* "These stupid wetback women just scream and scream, I wish they would shut up" (same prick as above)<br />* "If you don't hurry up we will have to do a c-section"<br />* "No way is that one going to deliver vag, did you see the size of her?" (I personally have never seen a vag delivery of anyone over like 200, that is after preg weight)<br />* "No you can't walk because you are on pit" (everyone I have ever seen in labor was on pit)<br />* "Walking doesn't do anything for labor" (said by a doc, different one than above)<br />* "Oh no, she has a birth plan"<br />* "If you wanted to walk you should have stayed home" (after her IV is in and she is on pit now)<br />* "Give her a sleeper already so she will be quiet and stop bugging us"<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />How can people NOT believe women would consider their experiences traumatic and abusive.</p>
<p>It would be wonderful to demonstrate a completely natural birth in the hospital (NOT a homebirth in the hospital as many would want to call it) and watch all the care providers squirm with discomfort as their jobs became almost useless "just" sitting and observing. It would take an incredibly strong woman to be able to withstand the intense tension brewing, but it would be a great lesson for hospital personnel to witness. I believe it could never be done - and that's just so sad. It's sad that not only could we not even demonstrate a normal birth, but that nothing like it would ever occur in the hospital setting. The closest I have seen is in in-hospital birth centers, but even that is difficult to compare to a homebirth.<br /><br />When I first heard the term "birthrape," I was really offended as a woman who has been raped before. However, talking to police and deputy sheriffs as well as lawyers, the above descriptions of what happens in hospitals absolutely fits the LEGAL definition of rape and assault. It is simply so foreign to our legal system and our mental health system, the designation hasn't yet been given its rightful place. There were times when terms and syndromes or disorders didn't exist even when people carried them in their brains and bodies. This simply is a new one - BECAUSE of our medical system seeing women as THINGS and not people - the pain is catching up to us all.<br /><br />Medical care sees women as a number - as a collection of symptoms to be treated. It is in this disembodiment that abuse can occur without thought or concern.<br /><br />Many, many, many of us are saying NO MORE.<br /><br />No more.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Hibiclens Discussion (for GBS+ women)</title><id>http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/6/hibiclens-discussion-for-gbs-women.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2009/9/6/hibiclens-discussion-for-gbs-women.html"/><author><name>Navelgazing Midwife</name></author><published>2009-09-06T16:50:00Z</published><updated>2009-09-06T16:50:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>This is a letter I share with moms considering the Hibiclens vaginal douche in lieu of antibiotics in labor&nbsp;when they&nbsp;are positive for&nbsp;Group B type of &nbsp;beta-hemolytic streptococci (<em>not</em> Group Beta Strep as it is often mis-named):</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>This is the&nbsp;research information I have found regarding using chlorhexidine wash (Hibiclens) in lieu of antibiotics. I'll share some quotes along with where they came from (more from me at the end):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542430_4" target="_blank">http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542430_4<br /><br /></a>
<h4><strong>Vaginal Cleansing</strong></h4>
<div><strong>GBS Colonization and Infection.</strong> GBS is the major cause of early- and late-onset neonatal sepsis in full-term infants in developed countries. Intrapartum chemoprophylaxis and multivalent conjugate vaccines reduce neonatal colonization and the risk of early-onset sepsis. Costs, shifting serotypes, and lack of skilled personnel, however, have impeded widespread implementation of these strategies, particularly in low-resource settings.<br /><br />Vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine before or during delivery prevents vertical transfer of GBS to the neonate. The Swedish Chlorhexidine Study Group explored the minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations of chlorhexidine, described postcleansing vaginal concentrations of chlorhexidine and its residual effect on GBS carriage, and demonstrated that trace levels of chlorhexidine could be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa. Pilot studies showed that vaginal washing with chlorhexidine reduced newborn colonization with GBS compared with those born to nonwashed controls. These studies prompted a series of large randomized controlled trials with varying vaginal cleansing protocols for further exploration of the potential of this intervention to reduce GBS-related neonatal morbidity ( Table 2 ). <br /><br />Two trials demonstrated reductions in vertical transfer of GBS, admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit, and neonatal infections. A third study confirmed that vaginal disinfection reduced GBS colonization of the newborn, but hospital admissions, cases of probable infection, and mortality were equal between the groups. Conducting vaginal examinations during labor using surgical gloves lubricated with 1.0% chlorhexidine digluconate cream did not provide protection against vertical transfer of GBS compared with the use of nonlubricated gloves.<br /><br />Although these data indicate that vaginal disinfection may reduce neonatal colonization with GBS, the low overall rates of early-onset GBS sepsis has precluded estimation of the impact on newborn infection. None of these studies was conducted in developing countries, and the validity of extrapolating the potential benefit to such settings is problematic. GBS generally has not been identified as a major neonatal pathogen in developing countries, especially in South Asia. In some settings, however, vaginal colonization rates among women are similar to those in industrialized countries. Because the majority of births occur outside of health facilities, the impact of maternal GBS colonization and vertical transfer may be underappreciated, yet further research is required.<br /><br />Vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine reduces vertical transmission of GBS to the same degree as intrapartum antibiotics and may be significantly cheaper and easier to implement in settings where skilled providers are lacking. Additionally, the antibacterial action of chlorhexidine extends beyond GBS to a broad spectrum of potentially invasive pathogens. In developing countries where sepsis rates in general are significantly higher, vaginal cleansing interventions have the potential to affect a wider range of neonatal infections.<br /><br />-----------------<br /><br /><a href="http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:_oI3xt55LPcJ:www.collegeofmidwives.org/GBS_2006/GBSprophylactic-VaginalFlush_07.pdf+chlorhexidine+in+labor+for+GBS+newborn&amp;cd=8&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" target="_blank">http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:_oI3xt55LPcJ:www.collegeofmidwives.org/GBS_2006/GBSprophylactic-VaginalFlush_07.pdf+chlorhexidine+in+labor+for+GBS+newborn&amp;cd=8&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us<br /><br /></a><strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> instead of Antibiotics in Treating Group B Strep at Birth<br />Submitted by Gretchen Humphries, who notes that this alternative treatment in GBS+ <strong>labor</strong> is easily<br />done at home.<br /><br />J Matern Fetal Med 2002 Feb;l l(2):84-8 <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> vaginal flushings versus systemic<br />ampicillin in the prevention of vertical transmission of neonatal group B streptococcus, at term.<br />Facchinetti F, Piccinini F, Mordini B, Volpe A. Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and<br />Pediatric Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.<br /><br />OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of intrapartum vaginal flushings with <strong>Chlorhexidine<br /></strong>compared with ampicillin in preventing group B streptococcus transmission to neonates.<br /><br />METHODS: This was a randomized controlled study, including singleton pregnancies delivering<br />vaginally. Rupture of membranes, when present, must not have occurred more than 6 h previously..<br />Women with any gestational complication, with a <strong>newborn</strong> previously affected by group B<br />streptococcus sepsis or whose cervical dilatation was greater than 5 cm were excluded. A total of<br />244 group B streptococcus-colonized mothers at term (screened at 36-38 weeks) were randomized<br />to receive either 140 ml <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> 0.2% by vaginal flushings every 6 h or ampicillin 2 g<br />intravenously every 6 h until delivery. Neonatal swabs were taken at birth, at three different sites<br />(nose, ear and gastric juice).<br /><br />RESULTS: A total of 108 women were treated with ampicillin and 109 with <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>. Their<br />ages and gestational weeks at delivery were similar in the two groups. Nulliparous women were<br />equally distributed between the two groups (ampicillin, 87%; <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>, 89%). Clinical data<br />such as birth weight (ampicillin, 3,365 +/- 390 g; <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>, 3,440 +/- 452 g), Apgar scores at 1<br />min (ampicillin, 8.4 +/- 0.9; <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>, 8.2 +/- 1.4) and at 5 min (ampicillin, 9.7 +/- 0.6;<br /><strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>, 9.6 +/- 1.1) were similar for the two groups, as was the rate of neonatal group B<br />streptococcus colonization (<strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>, 15.6%; ampicillin, 12%). Escherichia coli, on the other<br />hand, was significantly more prevalent in the ampicillin (7.4%) than in the <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> group<br />(1.8%, p &lt; 0.05). Six neonates were transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, including two<br />cases of early-onset sepsis (one in each group).<br /><br />CONCLUSIONS:<span style="color: #000080;"> In this carefully screened target population, intrapartum vaginal flushings with<br /><strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> in colonized mothers display the same efficacy as ampicillin in preventing vertical<br />transmission of group B streptococcus. Moreover, the rate of neonatal E. coli colonization was<br />reduced by <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>.</span> <br /><br />PMID: 11995801 [PubMed - in process]<br />1: Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999 Aug;12(3):245-51 Vaginal disinfection with <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> during<br />childbirth.<br /><br />Stray-Pedersen B, Bergan T, Hafstad A, Normarm E, Grogaard J, Vangdal M. Department of<br />Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aker Hospital, University of Oslo, Norway.<br /><br />The purpose of this study was to determine whether <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> vaginal douching, applied by a<br />squeeze bottle intra partum, reduced mother-to-child transmission of vaginal microorganisms<br />including Streptococcus agalactiae (streptococcus serogroup B = <strong>GBS</strong>) and hence infectious<br />morbidity in both mother and child. A prospective controlled study was conducted on pairs of<br />mothers and their offspring.</div>
<div>
<hr />
</div>
<div><span style="font-family: arial;"><strong><a name="1213a5f9fe194344_2"></a>Page 2<br /></strong></span>During the first 4 months (reference phase), the vaginal flora of women in labour was recorded and<br />the newborns monitored. During the next 5 months (intervention phase), a trial of randomized,<br />blinded placebo controlled douching with either 0.2% <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> or sterile saline was performed<br />on 1130 women in vaginal labour.<br /><br />During childbirth, bacteria were isolated from 78% of the women. Vertical transmission of<br />microbes occurred in 43% of the reference deliveries. In the double blind study, <span style="color: #000080;">vaginal douching<br />with <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> significantly reduced the vertical transmission rate from 35% (saline) to 18%<br />(<strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>), (P &lt; 0.000 1, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.22). The lower rate of bacteria<br />isolated from the latter group was accompanied by a significantly reduced early infectious<br />morbidity in the neonates (P &lt; 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.06). </span>This finding was<br />particularly pronounced in Str. agalactiae infections (P &lt; 0.0 1).<br /><br />In the early postpartum period, fever in the mothers was significantly lower in the patients offered<br />vaginal disinfection, a reduction from 7.2% in those douched using saline compared with 3.3% in<br />those disinfected using <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> (P &lt; 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.06). A parallel<br />lower occurrence of urinary tract infections was also observed, 6.2% in the saline group as<br />compared with 3.4% in the <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> group (P &lt; 0.01, 95% confidence p interval 0.00-0.05).<br />This prospective controlled trial demonstrated that vaginal douching with 0.2% <strong>Chlorhexidine<br /></strong>during labour can significantly reduce both maternal and early neonatal infectious morbidity. The<br />squeeze bottle procedure was simple, quick, and well tolerated. The beneficial effect may be<br />ascribed both to mechanical cleansing by liquid flow and to the disinfective action of <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong>.<br /><br />Lancet. 1992 Sep 26;340(8822):791; discussion 791-2. Prevention of excess neonatal morbidity<br />associated with group B streptococci by vaginal <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> disinfection during labour.<br /><br />The Swedish <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> Study Group.Burman LG, Christensen P, Christensen K, Fryklund B,<br />Helgesson AM, Svenningsen NW, Tullus K. National Bacteriological Laboratory, Stockholm,<br />Sweden.<br /><br />Streptococcus agalactiae transmitted to infants from the vagina during birth is an important cause of<br />invasive neonatal infection. We have done a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-<br />controlled, multi-centre study of <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> prophylaxis to prevent neonatal disease due to<br />vaginal transmission of S agalactiae.<br /><br />On arrival in the delivery room, swabs were taken for culture from the vaginas of 4483 women who<br />were expecting a full-term single birth. Vaginal flushing was then done with either 60 ml<br /><strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> diacetate (2 g/1) (2238 women) or saline placebo (2245) and this procedure was<br />repeated every 6 h until delivery.<br /><br />The rate of admission of babies to special-care neonatal units within 48 h of delivery was the<br />primary end point. For babies born to placebo-treated women, maternal carriage of S agalactiae was<br />associated with a significant increase in the rate of admission compared with non-colonised mothers<br />(5.4 vs 2.4%; RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.39-3.86; p = 0.002). <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> reduced the admission rate for<br />infants born of carrier mothers to 2.8% (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.94-4.03), and for infants born to all<br />mothers to 2.0% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01-2.16; p = 0.04). Maternal S agalactiae colonisation is<br />associated with excess early neonatal morbidity, apparently related to aspiration of the organism,<br />that can be reduced with <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> disinfection of the vagina during labour.</div>
<div>
<hr />
</div>
<div><span style="font-family: arial;"><strong><a name="1213a5f9fe194344_3"></a>Page 3<br /></strong></span>1: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989 Apr;31(l):47-51 Prevention of group B streptococci<br />transmission during delivery by vaginal application of <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> gel.<br />Kollee LA, Speyer I, van Kuijck MA, Koopman R, Dony JM, Bakker JH, Wintermans RG.<br />Department of Paediatrics, University Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. <br /><br />In a prospective study in 227 parturients, carriership of group B streptococci was established to be 25%. In carriers, transmission of streptococci to the <strong>newborn</strong> occurred in 50%. 10 ml of a <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> gel<br />containing hydroxypropylmethylcellulose was introduced into the vagina during <strong>labor</strong> in 17<br />parturients, who were known to be carriers of group B streptococci from the first trimester of<br />pregnancy. In none of the newborns from these mothers colonization by group B streptococci did<br />occur. <span style="color: #000080;">Vaginal application of <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> may prevent transmission of group B streptococci, and<br />serve as an alternative to intrapartum prophylaxis using antibiotics.</span> A large multicenter randomized<br />controlled study should be performed to confirm this hypothesis.<br /><br />Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1985 Apr;19(4):231-6 <br /><br /><strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> for prevention of neonatal colonization with group B streptococci. III. Effect of vaginal washing with <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> before rupture of the membranes.<br />Christensen KK, Christensen P, Dykes AK, Kahlmeter G.<br /><br />A single vaginal washing with 2 g/1 of <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> was performed before rupture of the<br />membranes in 19 parturients who were urogenital carriers of group B streptococci (<strong>GBS</strong>). Two<br />(11%) of the infants became colonized immediately after birth, in contrast to 16 of 41 (39%) infants<br />to controls (P = 0.02). A significant reduction of <strong>GBS</strong> colonization of the ear (P = 0.02) and<br />umbilicus (P = 0.01) was noted. Taken together, 2 of 57 (4%) cultures obtained at birth were<br />positive in the <strong>Chlorhexidine</strong> group, in contrast to 30 of 123 (24%) among the controls (P less than<br />0.01). These findings raise hope for the design of a simple washing procedure which might prevent<br />serious infections in the early neonatal period with <strong>GBS</strong> but also with other <strong>chlorhexidine</strong>-sensitive<br />organisms.<br /><br />-----------------<br /><a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542430_6" target="_blank">http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542430_6<br /><br /></a>A review of <span style="color: #000080;">topical applications of antiseptics to the umbilical cord noted the strong evidence for reductions in bacterial colonization after chlorhexidine treatment of the cord</span> and highlighted the need for further investigations with 4.0% chlorhexidine in developing-country settings.<br /><br />--------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2386993" target="_blank">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2386993<br /><br /></a>We conclude that maternal vaginal cleansing combined with newborn skin cleansing could reduce neonatal infections and mortality in hospitals of sub-Saharan Africa, but the individual impact of these interventions must be determined, particularly in community settings. There is evidence for a protective benefit of newborn skin and umbilical cord cleansing with chlorhexidine in the community in south Asia.<br /><br />(Me again)<br /><br />So, when we move to the Informed Consent aspects of GBS treatment during labor, it is important to know that the recommended protocol is IV antibiotics given every 4-6 hours (depending on the medication given), with at least two doses needing to have been given before delivery. The protocol can be found here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/guidelines/recommendations.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/guidelines/recommendations.htm</a><br /><br />So, I am offering you the option of IV antibiotics, either with my giving them or your going into the hospital to receive them (and birthing there) OR the chlorhexidine wash (which includes a shallow douche as well as a wash). <br /><br />Either way, there will be extremely minimal vaginal exams since that seems to assist in the transmission of GBS to the baby; with or without rupture of membranes.<br /><br />I encourage you to look over the information I am sending here as well as exploring more on your own. You will also find information saying the wash doesn't work (or rather, more research is needed), but it is also important to know that having the IV antibiotics does not preclude the possibility of infection in the newborn either.<br /><br />The majority of early-onset newborn GBS occurs in the first 24 hours, so no matter what protocol we decide to do (together), I will educate you and your partner&nbsp;on the signs and symptoms of GBS infection for after we leave your home after the birth. I will also return about 24 hours after the birth (or sooner) and will assess the baby as well. It will be <em>vital </em>to take the baby's temperature every 4 hours without fail. A baby cannot regulate his/her temperature&nbsp;very well with GBS infection; not just a fever, but also low temperatures. Please make sure you have a good working thermometer in the baby bag. The forehead ones cannot be used, nor can the ear ones. It has to be taken under the baby's armpit.<br />The other sign is respiratory distress. We will talk about that as well.</div>
<div><br />We will continue this discussion because I want you to be as informed about your decision as possible. I am here to offer what I know and my experience, but I also need your input before your decision is&nbsp;made during your labor.<br /><br />Please ask any questions at all. I am here to answer what I can and what I cannot, we will explore together.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>This is the consent I have them sign:</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<p>Barbara E. Herrera, LM, CPM has informed me of an herbal treatment that is done during pregnancy that has been shown to be effective in eliminating GBS. The protocol is a standard of care in the midwifery community, but I understand it is not in the medical community. After completing the herbal treatment, re-testing can confirm or deny if there is a continued GBS status. If I am negative, I have the option of continuing the treatment through until birth or I can stop the herbal treatments, accepting that I am GBS Negative. I understand that the medical community considers me GBS Positive after a positive result whether or not I subsequently test negative.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Barbara E. Herrera, LM, CPM has informed me of the standard MEDICAL protocol for a GBS Positive woman. The CDC protocol requires a woman to receive IV antibiotics in labor, one dose every four hours after the initial loading dose. I understand that at least two doses must be given in order for it to be effective. I also understand that accepting the antibiotics does not guarantee my baby will not get GBS and that additional antibiotics would need to be given to the baby if s/he is GBS Positive.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Barbara E. Herrera, LM, CPM has also informed me of an alternative to the routine antibiotics in labor: a Hibiclens wash&hellip; 4% Hibiclens to 10% water, put in a PeriBottle to gently wash the lower vagina and vaginal area. She has sent me information showing the effectiveness of the wash and I have also researched the research myself. I understand this protocol is an (alternative) standard of care in the midwifery community.</p>
<p>(in the present again)</p>
<p>So there you have it. I really do prefer this to IV antibiotics; it is easier for the mother and better on the mother's and baby's system.</p>
<p>I hope this helps those curious about this option in midwifery care.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content></entry></feed>