Birth rape (1 Viewer)

[maquiscat]

What Is "Birth Rape"?

I can only just shake my head. Now I am not trying to say that there are not doctors who are just bad at their jobs, because there are. However, I find this to be going a little too far. The doctor in the birthing room has two patients; the mother and the baby. Things can happen where there simply isn't time to explain things or even ask permission, especially if the baby's life/safety is at stake, and sometimes even the mother's. This is what every mother should know when she goes in to give birth. Yes ideally, there will be time for the doctor to let the woman know what is happening and needs to happen, maybe even get permission. But things don't always go ideally and the doctor has to make the split second decisions. Now looking at the Skol example, I will say that the doctor should have had been hit with a malpractice suit and fined a lot more than he was. Skol and her baby should have been the focus. But I really can't see how the term "birth rape" can really come into play here.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What Is "Birth Rape"?

I can only just shake my head. Now I am not trying to say that there are not doctors who are just bad at their jobs, because there are. However, I find this to be going a little too far. The doctor in the birthing room has two patients; the mother and the baby. Things can happen where there simply isn't time to explain things or even ask permission, especially if the baby's life/safety is at stake, and sometimes even the mother's. This is what every mother should know when she goes in to give birth. Yes ideally, there will be time for the doctor to let the woman know what is happening and needs to happen, maybe even get permission. But things don't always go ideally and the doctor has to make the split second decisions. Now looking at the Skol example, I will say that the doctor should have had been hit with a malpractice suit and fined a lot more than he was. Skol and her baby should have been the focus. But I really can't see how the term "birth rape" can really come into play here.

You tricked me into visiting Jezebel, home of crazy. :2mad:

:inandout:

 

[maquiscat]

You tricked me into visiting Jezebel, home of crazy. :2mad:

:inandout:

Buwahahahaha! :devil:

 

[WCH]

Get a mid-wife and have it at home.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

What Is "Birth Rape"?

I can only just shake my head. Now I am not trying to say that there are not doctors who are just bad at their jobs, because there are. However, I find this to be going a little too far. The doctor in the birthing room has two patients; the mother and the baby. Things can happen where there simply isn't time to explain things or even ask permission, especially if the baby's life/safety is at stake, and sometimes even the mother's. This is what every mother should know when she goes in to give birth. Yes ideally, there will be time for the doctor to let the woman know what is happening and needs to happen, maybe even get permission. But things don't always go ideally and the doctor has to make the split second decisions. Now looking at the Skol example, I will say that the doctor should have had been hit with a malpractice suit and fined a lot more than he was. Skol and her baby should have been the focus. But I really can't see how the term "birth rape" can really come into play here.

I have heard of this before, and it has nothing to do with necessary medical procedures that have to be performed in moments of crisis. I think most women talking about this have no trouble accepting that sometimes these things happen, and there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it.

I know a woman who advocates all pregnant women giving birth in a hospital have a third party -- neither herself nor the father -- present to be medical proxy and liaison to the doctors. The reason is this.

She was one of many millions of women who had unnecessary and damaging procedures performed on her, while she was too medicated to protest and the father was too panicked to assess the situation. And this happens a lot.

Unnecessary episiotomies and C-sections that are pushed on women are rampant, largely because they bring in more money. But these can leave lasting damage for the woman.

Women are often prohibited from giving birth in a more favourable position, because the doctors find it inconvenient. The position they're often forced into increases their risk of injury during birth, and drags out the labor.

I find it perfectly reasonable that women might experience a traumatic reaction to things like this -- to their birth being turned into something torturous when it didn't need to be. Yes, it is rather rape-ish to have someone cutting your genitals above your protests simply to make money off you, or holding you down because they find your need to move to be annoying.

Birth doesn't have to be torture for a lot of women, even if it is painful. Hell, some women orgasm. And yet there are so many aspects of how we force women to birth in hospital settings that make it so much more difficult than it needs to be in so many cases.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the only way women can escape this is by birthing at home, where they have no immediate access to medical treatment if it becomes necessary. There is no valid medical reason why these things have to be forced on women in a hospital. It is simply inconsideration towards women by the medical establishment, prioritizing making money or not wanting to provide appropriate facilities above her well-being.

 

[roguenuke]

I have heard of this before, and it has nothing to do with necessary medical procedures that have to be performed in moments of crisis. I think most women talking about this have no trouble accepting that sometimes these things happen, and there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it.

I know a woman who advocates all pregnant women giving birth in a hospital have a third party -- neither herself nor the father -- present to be medical proxy and liaison to the doctors. The reason is this.

She was one of many millions of women who had unnecessary and damaging procedures performed on her, while she was too medicated to protest and the father was too panicked to assess the situation. And this happens a lot.

Unnecessary episiotomies and C-sections that are pushed on women are rampant, largely because they bring in more money. But these can leave lasting damage for the woman.

Women are often prohibited from giving birth in a more favourable position, because the doctors find it inconvenient. The position they're often forced into increases their risk of injury during birth, and drags out the labor.

I find it perfectly reasonable that women might experience a traumatic reaction to things like this -- to their birth being turned into something torturous when it didn't need to be. Yes, it is rather rape-ish to have someone cutting your genitals above your protests simply to make money off you, or holding you down because they find your need to move to be annoying.

Birth doesn't have to be torture for a lot of women, even if it is painful. Hell, some women orgasm. And yet there are so many aspects of how we force women to birth in hospital settings that make it so much more difficult than it needs to be in so many cases.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the only way women can escape this is by birthing at home, where they have no immediate access to medical treatment if it becomes necessary. There is no valid medical reason why these things have to be forced on women in a hospital. It is simply inconsideration towards women by the medical establishment, prioritizing making money or not wanting to provide appropriate facilities above her well-being.

You don't have to have your baby at home to use a midwife instead of a doctor for birth.

Honestly, maybe the civilian hospitals should go get some tips and training from the military hospitals. My first was born in a military hospital while my second was born in a civilian hospital. It was two different experiences, with the first being much better than the second, as far as care went. At 5-6 months, we had a hospital tour with the first. It took hours, but was well worth it. They went over the many different options, including using a midwife, who could use the hospital. They discussed having a proxy and multiple birth options, including setting up rooms for mothers who wanted other options, even a water birth. They had rooms equipped to accommodate fathers or partners and every new parent had to have a class before leaving the hospital to talk about postpartum depression.

I will say a couple of things though about your post. First, sometimes those things mentioned are medically necessary. I needed something with the birth of my first, which was quite obvious after 2 hours of pushing getting him nowhere and reaching exhaustion not to mention the risk of infection since my water had broke 18 hours earlier. An episiotomy allowed me to push him out within two pushes of it being done, finally. Second, I personally feel way too many women nowdays choose to have an epidural or other medication that they really don't need. Some do, but many don't. Sure, it is painful to deliver a baby, but there are advantages to having that pain as well as to not being medicated. And it isn't just doctors pushing that medication.

I will say that this is another reason to implement a UHC, to avoid having doctors working to make more money rather than thinking of what is best for their patients.

 

[Gathomas88]

What Is "Birth Rape"?

I can only just shake my head. Now I am not trying to say that there are not doctors who are just bad at their jobs, because there are. However, I find this to be going a little too far. The doctor in the birthing room has two patients; the mother and the baby. Things can happen where there simply isn't time to explain things or even ask permission, especially if the baby's life/safety is at stake, and sometimes even the mother's. This is what every mother should know when she goes in to give birth. Yes ideally, there will be time for the doctor to let the woman know what is happening and needs to happen, maybe even get permission. But things don't always go ideally and the doctor has to make the split second decisions. Now looking at the Skol example, I will say that the doctor should have had been hit with a malpractice suit and fined a lot more than he was. Skol and her baby should have been the focus. But I really can't see how the term "birth rape" can really come into play here.

Ehhh... On the other hand, however, you've got crap like what happened to my mother, where a lazy, curmudgeonly doctor went straight for the surgical scissors "just 'cuz" in spite of their being absolutely no pressing medical emergency requiring it, wound up causing some fairly traumatic bloodloss in the process (basically sending her into shock), and then stitched her up without using painkiller afterwards, telling her to "just shut up and do your breathing" when she complained. She wound up with "lady issues" that lasted for months afterwards (both of my parents have also said that their sex life was never quite the same), and to this day - almost thirty years later at this point - she still gets emotional talking about the experience.

If it's life or death, that's one thing. However, historically, and even today to a certain extent, I think a lot of doctors jump the gun, and wind up causing unnecessary damage. They often give their patients little choice in the matter when they do.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Ever watch how other primates have babies? They don't lay on their backs; they either stand in a squatting position or lay back at an acute angle, and let gravity help as much as possible.

The two biggest concerns with childbirth are breach birth (the baby is in the wrong position, i.e. feet first not head first), and the possibility that the umbilical cord is wrapped around the baby's neck.

I agree that there might be a problem with our growing over-dependence on hospital births rather than natural births due to fear of these types of problems. We all know hospitals and doctors over-charge by adding all the "safety measures" humanity did without for most of our existence. Still, it is always a good idea to at least go through regular examinations prior to childbirth to ensure no major problems exist before the actual time arrives to deliver a baby.

P.S. I didn't read the article. The garish title "Birth Rape" told me it would be a bit of sensationalized tripe.

 

[sangha]

What Is "Birth Rape"?

I can only just shake my head. Now I am not trying to say that there are not doctors who are just bad at their jobs, because there are. However, I find this to be going a little too far. The doctor in the birthing room has two patients; the mother and the baby. Things can happen where there simply isn't time to explain things or even ask permission, especially if the baby's life/safety is at stake, and sometimes even the mother's. This is what every mother should know when she goes in to give birth. Yes ideally, there will be time for the doctor to let the woman know what is happening and needs to happen, maybe even get permission. But things don't always go ideally and the doctor has to make the split second decisions. Now looking at the Skol example, I will say that the doctor should have had been hit with a malpractice suit and fined a lot more than he was. Skol and her baby should have been the focus. But I really can't see how the term "birth rape" can really come into play here.

I object to the term "birth rape" for the same reason I object to the term "jumbo shrimp"

People using terms I don't like is a grave injustice

 

[roguenuke]

Ehhh... On the other hand, however, you've got crap like what happened to my mother, where a lazy, curmudgeonly doctor went straight for the surgical scissors "just 'cuz" in spite of their being absolutely no pressing medical emergency requiring it, wound up causing some fairly traumatic bloodloss in the process, and then stitched her up without using painkiller afterwards, telling her to "just shut up and do your breathing" when she complained. She wound up with "lady issues" that lasted for months afterwards (both of my parents have also said that their sex life was never quite the same afterwards), and to this day - almost thirty years later at this point - she still gets emotional talking about the experience.

If it's life or death, that's one thing. However, historically, and even today to a certain extent, I think a lot of doctors jump the gun, and wind up causing unnecessary damage. They often give their patients little choice in the matter when they do.

Again, a very good reason to have those doctors/nurses I had at Tripler train the civilian doctors around the country. The doctor who checked me in ended up being one of 5 in there when my son was born (there were some complications with the him not coming out, me getting exhausted and it being a high risk birth with my blood disorder). He had initially asked about an epidural and I told him I would have the baby without any medication unless it was absolutely necessary. He actually stitched me up and congratulated me on having the baby without an epidural (he said I was the first that he had personally seen do it) and before he started, he asked if I wanted medication then, which I gladly accepted. Every step of the way, the doctors asked me what I wanted and talked to me. They kept me well informed.

 

[Gathomas88]

Again, a very good reason to have those doctors/nurses I had at Tripler train the civilian doctors around the country. The doctor who checked me in ended up being one of 5 in there when my son was born (there were some complications with the him not coming out, me getting exhausted and it being a high risk birth with my blood disorder). He had initially asked about an epidural and I told him I would have the baby without any medication unless it was absolutely necessary. He actually stitched me up and congratulated me on having the baby without an epidural (he said I was the first that he had personally seen do it) and before he started, he asked if I wanted medication then, which I gladly accepted. Every step of the way, the doctors asked me what I wanted and talked to me. They kept me well informed.

All I can figure in my mother's case (from what she's described, anyway) is that the whole staff pretty much sucked.

She has fast labors and deliveries, apparently. The longest one being all of about six hours. I was the first, so she didn't know that yet. What she did know, however, was that something was up. The nurses on call simply wouldn't believe her, until I was literally just about to make an appearance.

At that point, the doctor stormed in, visibly in a huff, went right for the scissors, and I was born just a couple of minutes later. After a brief "presentation" period, they rushed the family out the room, started throwing blankets over my mother (a classic method of treating shock victims, which - given the fact that she was told she was critically anemic after the fact - was almost certainly due to excessive blood loss), and then followed it up with the traumatic stitching. The day afterwards, they forced her to attend parenting classes in a wheel chair, in spite of the fact that she couldn't even lift her head under her own power. After that, she'd had enough, and told my father to take her home against doctor's orders.

Again, all I can figure (other than a mandatory epi policy - this was the 80s, after all) is that the staff all-around sucked, and falsely assumed there was an emergency because the timetable was quicker than they would have preferred.

 

[roguenuke]

All I can figure in my mother's case (from what she's described, anyway) is that the whole staff pretty much sucked.

She has fast labors and deliveries, apparently. The longest one being all of about six hours. I was the first, so she didn't know that yet. What she did know, however, was that something was up. The nurses on call simply wouldn't believe her, until I was literally just about to make an appearance.

At that point, the doctor stormed in, visibly in a huff, went right for the scissors, and I was born just a couple of minutes later. After a brief "presentation" period, they rushed the family out the room, started throwing blankets over my mother (a classic method of treating shock victims, which - given the fact that she was told she was critically anemic after the fact - was almost certainly due to excessive blood loss), and then followed it up with the traumatic stitching. The day afterwards, they forced her to attend parenting classes in a wheel chair, i spite of the fact that she couldn't even lift her head under her own power.

That's awful. Again, another good thing Tripler did was ensure that we were taken care of after the birth. I spent 2 and a half days in the hospital after the birth of my first. The class was done the night before you left the hospital. There was an evaluation done to ensure that you were going to be ready to leave and absolutely coherent. My husband and sister stayed with me as long as they wanted, at least til we got to my actual room, but even then my husband could stay the whole time I was there (there was a chair that could be used as a bed). Someone even offered to get me (and him) food, despite it being 0030 in the morning.

Along with this, I had a lactation specialist available to help me with breastfeeding and counselors available for any problems with depression, even just some baby blues. I figured maybe it was simply how hospitals were going at the time, but it seems like the military is ahead of the civilian world, at least part of it, since it wasn't really this way with my second (although it wasn't as bad as what you describe either). Now, my mother had different experiences. She had six of us naturally, no C-sections (although they thought my youngest sibling would have to be due to complications) and no epidurals (although my mother claims after 2 they just slide right out, lol). I however was not an easy birth, nor were the military doctors then as good, from the info of my birth I have, as those I had. They didn't even inform my parents I had a broken collar bone, which was in my medical record as happening during delivery though. My mother found out at the 2 week checkup when they told her it was healing quite nicely and she was asking what the hell they were talking about.

 

[Phys251]

It has gotten to the point in the US where a mother-to-be may well need an attorney before going through the birthing process. Many doctors are very disrespectful of the needs of the mother and the baby, preferring instead to do whatever maximizes income at the potential expense of both.

One of my friends gave birth to her first a couple years ago. She shared with us some of the ways that, basically, the hospital treated her body as if it were not her own, questioning her judgment at every turn. And she is an intelligent woman who has done her homework. I do not remember the details, but I do remember thinking, wow, they treat women like this in the year 2016??

 

[roguenuke]

It has gotten to the point in the US where a mother-to-be may well need an attorney before going through the birthing process. Many doctors are very disrespectful of the needs of the mother and the baby, preferring instead to do whatever maximizes income at the potential expense of both.

One of my friends gave birth to her first a couple years ago. She shared with us some of the ways that, basically, the hospital treated her body as if it were not her own, questioning her judgment at every turn. And she is an intelligent woman who has done her homework. I do not remember the details, but I do remember thinking, wow, they treat women like this in the year 2016??

People are acting like this is some sort of new thing ("gotten to the point") while in fact it has been going on for quite some time, even long ago, just in different ways. Much of it is culture dependent. And the reason we are "seeing" it now is because of, like most things, the internet. There's a whole lot better chance of sharing such stories with a lot more people in the internet age than there was even 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It has gotten to the point in the US where a mother-to-be may well need an attorney before going through the birthing process. Many doctors are very disrespectful of the needs of the mother and the baby, preferring instead to do whatever maximizes income at the potential expense of both.

One of my friends gave birth to her first a couple years ago. She shared with us some of the ways that, basically, the hospital treated her body as if it were not her own, questioning her judgment at every turn. And she is an intelligent woman who has done her homework. I do not remember the details, but I do remember thinking, wow, they treat women like this in the year 2016??

People are acting like this is some sort of new thing ("gotten to the point") while in fact it has been going on for quite some time, even long ago, just in different ways. Much of it is culture dependent. And the reason we are "seeing" it now is because of, like most things, the internet. There's a whole lot better chance of sharing such stories with a lot more people in the internet age than there was even 20 or 30 years ago.

Yup, this is true, Phys. Believe it not, things have actually improved in the last couple decades.

It's still not good enough, but from what women have told me, giving birth in the 80's was absolute hell. That would be when Gath's mother had her experience, and also the women I mentioned in my post who recommends all women have a third party there.

Still not good enough. But the festival or horrors from the 80's beggars belief.

 

[Gathomas88]

People are acting like this is some sort of new thing ("gotten to the point") while in fact it has been going on for quite some time, even long ago, just in different ways. Much of it is culture dependent. And the reason we are "seeing" it now is because of, like most things, the internet. There's a whole lot better chance of sharing such stories with a lot more people in the internet age than there was even 20 or 30 years ago.

Exactly. You can look up reviews for doctors, and even find sites that list the Epi/C-section percentage for any given OBGYN or hospital these days. That simply didn't exist a few decades ago.

I actually got curious and looked up the doctor that delivered me (his name was on my birth certificate). He's apparently still practicing - or was, as of 2013. Pretty much every review for his practice was negative, in the one star range or worse, usually for a lot of the same things my mother listed thirty years ago.

It's crazy.

Yup, this is true, Phys. Believe it not, things have actually improved in the last couple decades.

It's still not good enough, but from what women have told me, giving birth in the 80's was absolute hell. That would be when Gath's mother had her experience, and also the women I mentioned in my post who recommends all women have a third party there.

Still not good enough. But the festival or horrors from the 80's beggars belief.

In fairness, the 1950s and 1960s were probably worse. They simply sedated a lot of women before they gave birth back then, and barred any relatives from entering the delivery room, so no one would really know what was going on back there.

I don't know how common it was, but I've read that at least a few OBGYNs back then were big fans of doing double episiotomies, one on either side of the vagina, simply so that they could pull the whole thing open like a "trap door," and wouldn't have to bother with anything as blasé as "pushing."

 

[roguenuke]

Yup, this is true, Phys. Believe it not, things have actually improved in the last couple decades.

It's still not good enough, but from what women have told me, giving birth in the 80's was absolute hell. That would be when Gath's mother had her experience, and also the women I mentioned in my post who recommends all women have a third party there.

Still not good enough. But the festival or horrors from the 80's beggars belief.

Exactly. And further back than that, it wasn't better. The only thing about further back that could be said that might be considered less harsh is there were fewer procedures for a doctor to do the further back you go. But even an article I read said that there are still few decisions given to a mother giving birth when she isn't in a hospital, using a midwife or familial/local women to help her depending on the culture (some cultures are actually much better).

The best and worst places to give birth - CNN.com

As with so many things, it seems to be a matter of balance, and culture.

 

[Phys251]

People are acting like this is some sort of new thing ("gotten to the point") while in fact it has been going on for quite some time, even long ago, just in different ways. Much of it is culture dependent. And the reason we are "seeing" it now is because of, like most things, the internet. There's a whole lot better chance of sharing such stories with a lot more people in the internet age than there was even 20 or 30 years ago.

Yup, this is true, Phys. Believe it not, things have actually improved in the last couple decades.

It's still not good enough, but from what women have told me, giving birth in the 80's was absolute hell. That would be when Gath's mother had her experience, and also the women I mentioned in my post who recommends all women have a third party there.

Still not good enough. But the festival or horrors from the 80's beggars belief.

Wow. Looks like a woman's right to bodily autonomy is infringed in yet another deeply personal way.

 

[roguenuke]

Exactly. You can look up reviews for doctors, and even find sites that list the Epi/C-section percentage for any given OBGYN or hospital these days. That simply didn't exist a few decades ago.

I actually got curious and looked up the doctor that delivered me (his name was on my birth certificate). He's apparently still practicing - or was, as of 2013. Pretty much every review for his practice was negative, in the one star range or worse, usually for a lot of the same things my mother listed thirty years ago.

It's crazy.

In fairness, the 1950s and 1960s were probably worse. They simply sedated a lot of women before they gave birth back then, and barred any relatives from entering the delivery room, so no one would really know what was going on back there.

I don't know how common it was, but I've read that at least a few OBGYNs back then were big fans of doing double episiotomies, one on either side of the vagina, simply so that they could pull the whole thing open like a "trap door," and wouldn't have to bother with anything as blasé as "pushing."

The doctor that delivered me is no longer a doctor (he wasn't actually an obstetrician, but rather had a specialty in podiatry), which my parents found out before they left. But it wasn't because of me, but because he botched a couple of births of officers' children. My parents knew but more because the military community is pretty good at spreading info within a base, even back then.

Now, that double episiotomy thing got me thinking of C-sections. This seems to actually be a big thing in China, to simply have a C-section, whether needed or not, to get out of having to go through labor. I remember one of the girls going on the hospital tour with me asked about that, if she could have a C-section rather than going through labor. I thought the nurse was going to have a heart attack at such a suggestion. It was pretty much one of those "you've got to be kidding" worthy questions.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Exactly. You can look up reviews for doctors, and even find sites that list the Epi/C-section percentage for any given OBGYN or hospital these days. That simply didn't exist a few decades ago.

I actually got curious and looked up the doctor that delivered me (his name was on my birth certificate). He's apparently still practicing - or was, as of 2013. Pretty much every review for his practice was negative, in the one star range or worse, usually for a lot of the same things my mother listed thirty years ago.

It's crazy.

In fairness, the 1950s and 1960s were probably worse. They simply sedated a lot of women before they gave birth back then, and barred any relatives from entering the delivery room, so no one would really know what was going on back there.

I don't know how common it was, but I've read that at least a few OBGYNs back then were big fans of doing double episiotomies, one on either side of the vagina, simply so that they could pull the whole thing open like a "trap door," and wouldn't have to bother with anything as blasé as "pushing."

Yup. And then after that, they would do "the husband stitch," which often led to permanent sexual pain for the rest of these women's lives. It was horrific.

The reason was essentially because labors can be long, and they didn't feel like waiting. So they just sliced the whole thing open once she hit 10cm and pulled it out.

Some of the things I have heard of being done to women in labor are so horrible I can't help but draw a comparison to FGM.

Along with all of that, even episiotomies for medical reason would be a lot less necessary if we had better facilities for women to birth in a natural position. A significant portion of tearing -- which is what episiotomies are meant to avoid, since a slice heals better than a tear -- only happens because of the position they're forced to give birth in. The vagina tilts backwards into the pelvis, so when giving birth on your back, it puts a ton of strain on the perineum that wouldn't be there if they were upright.

As far as the 50's and 60's, I suspect there's a damn good reason I have never had a single woman tell me her story. I'm not sure if I even want to know. Or at least I want to be given a Valium first.

Every medical procedure we have for birth does exist for a reason. Complications of birth are not uncommon. But the way they're employed is often so abusive. Apart from the psych hospitals, maternity wards may be the most abusive area of medicine still in existence, from what I can tell.

I think it is so sad birth is seen as so torturous these days, for all these reasons. Human birth is certainly not the easiest in the animal kingdom, but a lot of women can and do have very positive experiences... if they manage to avoid a scissor-happy doctor.

That is getting easier these days, but as you say, the jerk your mother wound up with is still practising...

 

[Gathomas88]

The doctor that delivered me is no longer a doctor (he wasn't actually an obstetrician, but rather had a specialty in podiatry), which my parents found out before they left. But it wasn't because of me, but because he botched a couple of births of officers' children. My parents knew but more because the military community is pretty good at spreading info within a base, even back then.

Now, that double episiotomy thing got me thinking of C-sections. This seems to actually be a big thing in China, to simply have a C-section, whether needed or not, to get out of having to go through labor. I remember one of the girls going on the hospital tour with me asked about that, if she could have a C-section rather than going through labor. I thought the nurse was going to have a heart attack at such a suggestion. It was pretty much one of those "you've got to be kidding" worthy questions.

Yeah. I think people over-hype the whole thing a bit these days, which sometimes unnecessarily psyches women out. In spite of her bad experience, my mother has actually never really complained about any other aspect of the birthing process. She even claims to have not really screamed or anything.

As far as Epi vs C-section goes - in my uneducated, male, opinion - I think the C-section actually sounds preferable. If I had a kidney stone, for example, and the options were, "cut above the base of the penis and snake the sucker out from there," vs "cut the penis in half down the middle, pull it out, and stitch the whole kit and kaboodle back together again, hoping there's no permanent damage to sexual function," I'd go for option A pretty much every time. :lol:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Yeah. I think people over-hype the whole thing a bit these days, which sometimes unnecessarily psyches women out. In spite of her bad experience, my mother has actually never really complained about any other aspect of the birthing process. She even claims to have not really screamed or anything.

As far as Epi vs C-section goes - in my uneducated, male, opinion - I think the C-section actually sounds preferable. If I had a kidney stone, for example, and the options were, "cut above the base of the penis and snake the sucker out from there," vs "cut the penis in half down the middle, pull it out, and stitch the whole kit and kaboodle back together again, hoping there's no permanent damage to sexual function," I'd go for option A pretty much every time. :lol:

Human birth is one of those matters of extremes. Yes, a lot of women can have relatively easy births -- even very enjoyable ones. But, on the other hand, when things go wrong, they go very, very wrong. And things going wrong isn't uncommon.

Re: rogue's link, I think Sweden's got it right. They have good facilities for women with low-risk pregnancies to have comfortable, enjoyable, pressure-free births... which are in a hospital, so that medical help is close at hand if things go wrong.

As far as your Epi v. C-section thing, remember that a C-section requires cutting through the abdominal wall. This both permanently weakens the abdomen, and can result in adhesions in the pelvis, which are quite painful. As someone who has 6 little holes in her abdomen from 3 surgeries, I can tell you that this is not ideal. And my incisions are only a fraction of an inch long. A C-section is several inches.

I have had adhesions from my first surgery to remove a cyst, which were mostly corrected during my 2nd surgery. But the years between the two were not pleasant.

 

[roguenuke]

Yeah. I think people over-hype the whole thing a bit these days, which sometimes unnecessarily psyches women out. In spite of her bad experience, my mother has actually never really complained about any other aspect of the birthing process. She even claims to have not really screamed or anything.

As far as Epi vs C-section goes - in my uneducated, male, opinion - I think the C-section actually sounds preferable. If I had a kidney stone, for example, and the options were, "cut above the base of the penis and snake the sucker out from there," vs "cut the penis in half down the middle, pull it out, and stitch the sucker back together again, hoping there's no permanent damage to sexual function," I'd go for option A pretty much every time. :lol:

Way more potential and likely complications with a C-section than episiotomy. Neither is something that should just be done (at least not without some actually serious medial issue).

As for the birth, I can say that it is quite painful (at least my experiences)(although much of it I'd better describe as extreme discomfort rather than pain, at least the labor part). However, I think way too many women plan to have an epidural than really need one. I realize that there is this mindset to alleviate any pain we can, but I simply can't catch that mindset. I would rather have the experience, even with the pain, than to be drugged or out of it when they hand me my baby. I honestly remember the pain but remember the feelings of seeing and holding my baby much more. Plus, even the small risk to the baby is not worth it for me. (I hate needles as well, bad enough having the IV in the side of my hand, couldn't even imagine having to have one in my back for 20 hours.)

 

[Gathomas88]

Yup. And then after that, they would do "the husband stitch," which often led to permanent sexual pain for the rest of these women's lives. It was horrific.

The reason was essentially because labors can be long, and they didn't feel like waiting. So they just sliced the whole thing open once she hit 10cm and pulled it out.

Some of the things I have heard of being done to women in labor are so horrible I can't help but draw a comparison to FGM.

Along with all of that, even episiotomies for medical reason would be a lot less necessary if we had better facilities for women to birth in a natural position. A significant portion of tearing -- which is what episiotomies are meant to avoid, since a slice heals better than a tear -- only happens because of the position they're forced to give birth in. The vagina tilts backwards into the pelvis, so when giving birth on your back, it puts a ton of strain on the perineum that wouldn't be there if they were upright.

As far as the 50's and 60's, I suspect there's a damn good reason I have never had a single woman tell me her story. I'm not sure if I even want to know. Or at least I want to be given a Valium first.

Every medical procedure we have for birth does exist for a reason. Complications of birth are not uncommon. But the way they're employed is often so abusive. Apart from the psych hospitals, maternity wards may be the most abusive area of medicine still in existence, from what I can tell.

I think it is so sad birth is seen as so torturous these days, for all these reasons. Human birth is certainly not the easiest in the animal kingdom, but a lot of women can and do have very positive experiences... if they manage to avoid a scissor-happy doctor.

That is getting easier these days, but as you say, the jerk your mother wound up with is still practising...

Frankly, even the whole "slice vs tear" thing is looking like junk science these days. Tears actually heal better than epi cuts, from what I've read, because doctors can more easily tell what goes with what when they're stitching things back together afterwards. Epi cuts also seem to structurally weaken the vagina, which causes secondary tearing.

Tears that go all the way through the anus, for example, are virtually unheard of in countries which avoid episiotomies. In countries which commonly use the procedure, however, they happen in a good ten percent or more of all births.

Things do seem to have gotten a lot better in recent decades. However, you're right, it pays to be careful in any eventuality. There are still plenty of "old school" OBGYNs out there.

 

[roguenuke]

Frankly, even the whole "slice vs tear" thing is looking like junk science these days. Tears actually heal better than epi cuts, from what I've read, because doctors can more easily tell what goes with what when they're stitching things back together afterwards. Epi cuts also seem to structurally weaken the vagina, which causes secondary tearing.

Tears that go all the way through the anus, for example, are virtually unheard of in countries which avoid episiotomies. In countries with the practice, however, they happen in a good ten percent or more of all births.

Things do seem to have gotten a lot better in recent decades. However, you're right, it pays to be careful in any eventuality. There are still plenty of "old school" OBGYNs out there.

There are times when episiotomies are needed (I still believe I needed one due mainly to the fact we weren't getting anywhere after 2 hours of active pushing and I was not tearing on my own) but it does seem better to simply allow tearing to occur. It is probably more likely to tear around the weakest areas anyway, rather than potentially cutting otherwise strong muscles, therefore weakening new areas.