I am sure most list members will be aware of the publication in June 2004 of
the Canadian Association of Midwives' position statement on elective CS
(accessible at
http://members.rogers.com/canadianmidwives/docs/ElectiveCSfinalJune04.pdf).
It is very articulate on the subject of a culture of fear being created by
birth intervention and technology, and deplores the treating of 'childbirth
as a problem to be solved rather than a process to be respected'.
It may be worth another look in the course of this debate. I have referred
to its themes in an article that also centres on childbirth fears due to be
printed in the December issue of MIDIRS Digest.
Elizabeth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Soo Downe" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "(Elizabeth Duff)" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: c - Section and social pathology
> Has anyone considered the following aspects which may have an impact on
> the cs debate?:
>
> 1. Most women when asked antentatally would prefer a normal birth, even
> in countries such as Brazil where the cs rates are very high
>
> 2,. Most births we record as 'normal' are not - they may be a
> spontaneous vaginal delivery, but they are preceded by interventions
> such as induction, augmentation, epidurals, fetal blood sampling, ARM,
> episiotomy &etc.
>
> 3. It may not be suprising then that women hear stories of terrible
> 'normal' births from their friends (or they that experience this
> themselves) and they are made afraid, and therefore request cs as a way
> out of this (aberration of) 'normality'.
>
> 4. this situation arises because many midwives are afraid of birth, and
> cannot support women for their wished for physiological birth.
>
> 5. while negative birth stories are very powerful, so are positive
> birth stories.
>
> The concusion than is that many women may not be afraid of childbirth
> per se, but of the kind of technological birth we are offering them at
> present. I also conclude that, though work such as that you are doing
> Else is vital, we cannot ultimately solve the cs problem by looking at
> cs and womens views of it. In the end, we can only really reduce cs and
> other interventions by maximizing physiological birth and our midwifery
> skills, beliefs, trust and respect of it. Each positive birth we
> facilitate generates stories in the community that infect women
> positively and, maybe, that reduce fear proportionately. This has an
> exponential effect if the women who hear the positive stories also have
> positive births.
>
> A propos of this, at a recent normal birth conference in New Zealand,
> Karen Guilliand presented the following quote which I think provides
> significant food for thought in this area:
>
> There are only two feelings: Love and fear. There are only two
> languages: Love and fear. There are only two activities: Love and fear.
> There are only two motives, two procedures, two frameworks, two results.
> Love and fear.
>
> Michael Leunig's prayers from A Common Prayer
>
>
> Maybe if midwives can move from fear towards love we may change the
> situation from the bottom up? These are the areas I am planning and
> undertaking research in. They may provide additional possibilities for
> insights into your findings Else, which I am sure will be fascinating
>
> Id be interested in everyones views on this!
>
> all the best
>
> Soo
>
> Professor Soo Downe
> Director
> Midwifery Studies Research Unit
> University of Central Lancashire
> Preston PR1 2HE
> Lancashire
> England
>
> +44 (0) 1772 893815
>
>
> tel: 01772 893815
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 11/09/04 03:29pm >>>
> Thanks to all for your reflections and suggestions.
> I thought of another issue: the fact that some pregnant women
> -even those who want to make use of the choise for a c-section,
> inquired, don t like having the choise at all. Because, as someone
> tells me:
> "It complicates everything, I would rather have been without that
> speculation"
> Such opinions don t prove anything, of course, but they might be
> interesting for
> further research.
>
> Else
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patricia Burkhardt" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: c?Section and social pathology
>
>
>> I just sent a reference from Maternity Center Association re the
> issue of c-sections and what women need to know. Pat
>>
>>
>> Patricia Burkhardt, CNM, DrPH
>> NYU Midwifery Program Coordinator
>> Tel: 212 998-5895
>> Fax: 212 995-4679
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Janet Brooks CNM, MPH" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:39 am
>> Subject: c?Section and social pathology
>>
>> > Else,
>> > I think this is a wonderful topic to research. Here in the USA I
>> > see so many
>> > women who are convinced that C/section is the safest way to have a
>> > baby.Even when counseled about ??risks and ??benefits they still
>> > say they have a
>> > choice and that this is their choice. i do not know any papers on
>> > this topic, but
>> > you could research ACOG website (American College of OB/GYN) and
>> > see their
>> > position papers on elective C/section. Also the ICAN webite---
>> > www.ican.org .
>> >
>> > Best of luck, I would love to hear updates on your work,
>> > Janet Brooks, CNM, MPH
>> >
>>
|