ACOG will start keeping track of all transfers from a HB.
Cause of course they are curious and concerned..and just wanna help.
They sure dont want the public to know THEIR stats and their issues....
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Walk for Midwives
www.alabamabirthcoalition.org
On October 3, I will be joining citizens from across our state in the Alabama Birth Coalition’s Walk for Midwives. This special statewide event will raise awareness and funds to help us work for greater access to midwives and better maternity care in Alabama.
You know first-hand how important midwives are to healthy mothers, babies, and families. You know the benefits of care with a midwife:
• Individualized education, counseling, and prenatal care
• Continuous assistance during labor and delivery
• Support of natural, physiologic birth
• Respect for your birth choices
• Postpartum and breastfeeding support
This holistic, evidence-based care is why midwives consistently have such good outcomes for the mothers and babies they serve.
But did you know that not all Alabama families have access to midwives?
Alabama families who wish to deliver out-of-hospital are often surprised and distressed to learn that while they may legally birth out-of-hospital, any midwife they hire to attend them risks prosecution. Families are forced to choose among difficult and limited options. Some find a midwife who is willing to risk prosecution to attend the birth. Some choose to birth in the hospital though they would prefer a midwife. Some travel to birth in states that license midwives. Some give birth unassisted.
Alabama families deserve better birth options than this. That’s why I am walking for midwives.
Will you join me?
There are two ways you can help:
• Come walk with me and many other committed citizens in the Walk for Midwives on October 3. There will be walks in Huntsville, Cullman, and Birmingham – check out ABC’s website for locations and starting times.
• Please sponsor me for the walk by sending a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more today. The Walk for Midwives is part of ABC’s campaign to raise $55,000 to support our vital public policy and educational work. Can you help us reach this goal?
P.S. One generous family has offered to donate $25,000 in matching funds for donations to the Walk for Midwives. That means every dollar you give will be matched, dollar for dollar if you give now!
Please note that donations to the Alabama Birth Coalition are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
On October 3, I will be joining citizens from across our state in the Alabama Birth Coalition’s Walk for Midwives. This special statewide event will raise awareness and funds to help us work for greater access to midwives and better maternity care in Alabama.
You know first-hand how important midwives are to healthy mothers, babies, and families. You know the benefits of care with a midwife:
• Individualized education, counseling, and prenatal care
• Continuous assistance during labor and delivery
• Support of natural, physiologic birth
• Respect for your birth choices
• Postpartum and breastfeeding support
This holistic, evidence-based care is why midwives consistently have such good outcomes for the mothers and babies they serve.
But did you know that not all Alabama families have access to midwives?
Alabama families who wish to deliver out-of-hospital are often surprised and distressed to learn that while they may legally birth out-of-hospital, any midwife they hire to attend them risks prosecution. Families are forced to choose among difficult and limited options. Some find a midwife who is willing to risk prosecution to attend the birth. Some choose to birth in the hospital though they would prefer a midwife. Some travel to birth in states that license midwives. Some give birth unassisted.
Alabama families deserve better birth options than this. That’s why I am walking for midwives.
Will you join me?
There are two ways you can help:
• Come walk with me and many other committed citizens in the Walk for Midwives on October 3. There will be walks in Huntsville, Cullman, and Birmingham – check out ABC’s website for locations and starting times.
• Please sponsor me for the walk by sending a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more today. The Walk for Midwives is part of ABC’s campaign to raise $55,000 to support our vital public policy and educational work. Can you help us reach this goal?
P.S. One generous family has offered to donate $25,000 in matching funds for donations to the Walk for Midwives. That means every dollar you give will be matched, dollar for dollar if you give now!
Please note that donations to the Alabama Birth Coalition are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Ignorance abounds
birth at home
The ignorant statements this dr makes is sad.... there is no research to back her stupid thoughts up like babies drowned and how dirty a waterbirth is...
The ignorant statements this dr makes is sad.... there is no research to back her stupid thoughts up like babies drowned and how dirty a waterbirth is...
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Big Push
will be in Birmingham. It is a concentrated summit to bring ideas and action to getting midwifery passed as legal in this state.
How to bypass the good ole boys, the religious dogma, the medical misogyny and passive submissiveness of the women in the state. Too often I hear " well my Dr is a Christian so......... In this pause it is a given that ALL is allowed because of a persons religious beliefs. As if being a Christian prevents a dr from EVER emotionally manipulating a woman into giving consent, or that he does not give CS, or episiotomies or inductions unless GOD himself says its ok..... its a copout of being responsible for KNOWING and ACCEPTING how ones birth goes.
Will this Summit help?? I dont know but I think the camaraderie will be nice and a few days with other radical and like minded women WILL be rejuvenating.
How to bypass the good ole boys, the religious dogma, the medical misogyny and passive submissiveness of the women in the state. Too often I hear " well my Dr is a Christian so......... In this pause it is a given that ALL is allowed because of a persons religious beliefs. As if being a Christian prevents a dr from EVER emotionally manipulating a woman into giving consent, or that he does not give CS, or episiotomies or inductions unless GOD himself says its ok..... its a copout of being responsible for KNOWING and ACCEPTING how ones birth goes.
Will this Summit help?? I dont know but I think the camaraderie will be nice and a few days with other radical and like minded women WILL be rejuvenating.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Pit to distress
The "newest" assault being made on laboring women has been outed. Cranking up it until the baby is stressed in order to get that CS the Drs is antsy to do is now being made aware of.
SO how many babies must suffer? or women suffer? before Drs STOP abusing us? Or even further we stop allowing MEN to control out births? When do we as women say..WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH ABUSE!!!!
Check out these sites:
Keyboard Revolution
2006 Article
“Pit to distress” appears on page 182 of the textbook Labor and Delivery Nursing by Michelle Murray and Gayle Huelsmann. In this example, the onus is on the nurse to defend the patient from the doctor if he or she sees the order “pit to distress” by immediately notifying the supervisor or charge nurse."
""Pit to distress was mentioned in the comments of the post My Rant on Pitocin on Knitted in the Womb after the blog’s author, a former chemist and doula, was scolded by an anonymous OB nurse for not understanding the difference between microunits and milliliters when it came to dosing Pitocin.
I’m a trained chemist. I hold a bachelors degree in biochemistry, did some course work towards a masters in chemistry, and worked for 6 years in an R&D lab in the specialty chemicals industry. I probably know WAY more about different units of measure than you do. I used “microunits” and “milliliters” in my discussion appropriately.
I’m not sure why I have to resuscitate a newborn to have “been there,” but since it seems to be very important to you, I’ll talk about it. 90% of the time labor should go just fine, with no need for resuscitation—this according to the World Health Organization. Of the other 10%, not all of them would require newborn resuscitation. If you’ve found that a large percentage of the births you’ve been at have required resuscitation, perhaps you should look at the medical interventions that might be causing that. From my end, the only clients I’ve had who had babies who required resuscitation were cases where there had been “Pit to distress.”
SO how many babies must suffer? or women suffer? before Drs STOP abusing us? Or even further we stop allowing MEN to control out births? When do we as women say..WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH ABUSE!!!!
Check out these sites:
Keyboard Revolution
2006 Article
“Pit to distress” appears on page 182 of the textbook Labor and Delivery Nursing by Michelle Murray and Gayle Huelsmann. In this example, the onus is on the nurse to defend the patient from the doctor if he or she sees the order “pit to distress” by immediately notifying the supervisor or charge nurse."
""Pit to distress was mentioned in the comments of the post My Rant on Pitocin on Knitted in the Womb after the blog’s author, a former chemist and doula, was scolded by an anonymous OB nurse for not understanding the difference between microunits and milliliters when it came to dosing Pitocin.
I’m a trained chemist. I hold a bachelors degree in biochemistry, did some course work towards a masters in chemistry, and worked for 6 years in an R&D lab in the specialty chemicals industry. I probably know WAY more about different units of measure than you do. I used “microunits” and “milliliters” in my discussion appropriately.
I’m not sure why I have to resuscitate a newborn to have “been there,” but since it seems to be very important to you, I’ll talk about it. 90% of the time labor should go just fine, with no need for resuscitation—this according to the World Health Organization. Of the other 10%, not all of them would require newborn resuscitation. If you’ve found that a large percentage of the births you’ve been at have required resuscitation, perhaps you should look at the medical interventions that might be causing that. From my end, the only clients I’ve had who had babies who required resuscitation were cases where there had been “Pit to distress.”
Inductions Not safe or needed??
Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review
E Mozurkewich, J Chilimigras, E Koepke, K Keeton, VJ King, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Correspondence: Dr E Mozurkewich, F4835, PO Box 0264, Mott Hospital, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0264, USA.
Email mozurk@umich.edu
Accepted 2 November 2008. Published Online 4 February 2009.
Background: Rates of labour induction are increasing.
Objectives: To review the evidence supporting indications for induction.
Search strategy: We listed indications for labour induction and then reviewed the evidence. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and April 2008 using several terms and combinations, including induction of labour, premature rupture of membranes, post-term pregnancy, preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM), multiple gestation, suspected macrosomia, diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, fetal anomalies, systemic lupus erythematosis, oligohydramnios, alloimmunization, rhesus disease, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (IHCP), and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). We performed a review of the literature supporting each indication.
Selection criteria: We identified 1387 abstracts and reviewed 418 full text articles. We preferentially included high-quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised trials and observational studies.
Main results: We included 34 full text articles. For each indication, we assigned levels of evidence and grades of recommendation based upon the GRADE system. Recommendations for induction of labour for post-term gestation, PROM at term, and premature rupture of membranes near term with pulmonary maturity are supported by the evidence. Induction for IUGR before term reduces intrauterine fetal death, but increases caesarean deliveries and neonatal deaths.
Evidence is insufficient to support induction for women with insulin-requiring diabetes, twin gestation, fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios, cholestasis of pregnancy, maternal cardiac disease and fetal gastroschisis.
Authors’ conclusions: Research is needed to determine risks and benefits of induction for many commonly advocated clinical indications.
Keywords: Best evidence, indications, induction.
Please cite this paper as: Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King V. Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. BJOG 2009;116:626-636
E Mozurkewich, J Chilimigras, E Koepke, K Keeton, VJ King, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Correspondence: Dr E Mozurkewich, F4835, PO Box 0264, Mott Hospital, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0264, USA.
Email mozurk@umich.edu
Accepted 2 November 2008. Published Online 4 February 2009.
Background: Rates of labour induction are increasing.
Objectives: To review the evidence supporting indications for induction.
Search strategy: We listed indications for labour induction and then reviewed the evidence. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and April 2008 using several terms and combinations, including induction of labour, premature rupture of membranes, post-term pregnancy, preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM), multiple gestation, suspected macrosomia, diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, fetal anomalies, systemic lupus erythematosis, oligohydramnios, alloimmunization, rhesus disease, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (IHCP), and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). We performed a review of the literature supporting each indication.
Selection criteria: We identified 1387 abstracts and reviewed 418 full text articles. We preferentially included high-quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised trials and observational studies.
Main results: We included 34 full text articles. For each indication, we assigned levels of evidence and grades of recommendation based upon the GRADE system. Recommendations for induction of labour for post-term gestation, PROM at term, and premature rupture of membranes near term with pulmonary maturity are supported by the evidence. Induction for IUGR before term reduces intrauterine fetal death, but increases caesarean deliveries and neonatal deaths.
Evidence is insufficient to support induction for women with insulin-requiring diabetes, twin gestation, fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios, cholestasis of pregnancy, maternal cardiac disease and fetal gastroschisis.
Authors’ conclusions: Research is needed to determine risks and benefits of induction for many commonly advocated clinical indications.
Keywords: Best evidence, indications, induction.
Please cite this paper as: Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King V. Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. BJOG 2009;116:626-636
really? REALLY?????? WOW..im shocked...NOT
From Reuters Health Information
Rates of Severe Obstetric Complications Increased Over Last Decade
www.glorialemay.com/blog
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jan 23 - The prevalence of obstetric complications resulting in severe maternal morbidity -- particularly pulmonary embolism and need for blood transfusions -- increased significantly in the US between 1998 and 2005, investigators report in the February issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
During the same period, rates of cesarean delivery rose from 21.1% to 31.1%, Dr. Susan F. Meikle, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and co-authors note. The proportion of delivery hospitalizations involving older women and women on Medicaid/Medicare also increased with time, as did deliveries characterized by multiple births, hypertension, and diabetes.
However, they point out, "comprehensive population-based information on severe obstetric complications remains very limited."
To examine trends in severe labor and delivery complications, the authors used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for more than 32 million delivery discharge records.
The proportion of deliveries with at least one severe obstetric complication increased from 0.64% in 1998-1999 to 0.81% in 2004-2005, the report indicates.
There was a 52% increase in pulmonary embolism and a 92% increase in blood transfusions. Rates of renal failure, respiratory distress syndrome, shock, and mechanical ventilation increased by about 20%.
By contrast, rates of severe complications of anesthesia declined, and there were no significant changes in heart failure, puerperal cerebrovascular disorders, pulmonary edema, deep venous thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and sepsis.
Adjustment for cesarean delivery explained almost all the increases in estimated risk of renal failure, respiratory distress, and ventilation, although the authors note that their results "do not demonstrate causality."
Dr. Meikle's team points out that the UK has established a surveillance system for rare obstetric complications. Development of a similar system in the US "may improve the ascertainment, monitoring, and classification of these complications and potentially identify modifiable risk factors."
Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:293-299.
Rates of Severe Obstetric Complications Increased Over Last Decade
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jan 23 - The prevalence of obstetric complications resulting in severe maternal morbidity -- particularly pulmonary embolism and need for blood transfusions -- increased significantly in the US between 1998 and 2005, investigators report in the February issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
During the same period, rates of cesarean delivery rose from 21.1% to 31.1%, Dr. Susan F. Meikle, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and co-authors note. The proportion of delivery hospitalizations involving older women and women on Medicaid/Medicare also increased with time, as did deliveries characterized by multiple births, hypertension, and diabetes.
However, they point out, "comprehensive population-based information on severe obstetric complications remains very limited."
To examine trends in severe labor and delivery complications, the authors used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for more than 32 million delivery discharge records.
The proportion of deliveries with at least one severe obstetric complication increased from 0.64% in 1998-1999 to 0.81% in 2004-2005, the report indicates.
There was a 52% increase in pulmonary embolism and a 92% increase in blood transfusions. Rates of renal failure, respiratory distress syndrome, shock, and mechanical ventilation increased by about 20%.
By contrast, rates of severe complications of anesthesia declined, and there were no significant changes in heart failure, puerperal cerebrovascular disorders, pulmonary edema, deep venous thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and sepsis.
Adjustment for cesarean delivery explained almost all the increases in estimated risk of renal failure, respiratory distress, and ventilation, although the authors note that their results "do not demonstrate causality."
Dr. Meikle's team points out that the UK has established a surveillance system for rare obstetric complications. Development of a similar system in the US "may improve the ascertainment, monitoring, and classification of these complications and potentially identify modifiable risk factors."
Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:293-299.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
AMA being misogynist once again
AMA has a history of hating women. Especially women who speak out, who say no, who question their godness. And one would think in this enlightened times, AMA would become more aware of its cruelty...but no. White men just dont effin care...
From the ICAN website
AMA Resolution Would Seek to Label “Ungrateful” Patients
Redondo Beach, CA, June 11, 2009 - At the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Annual Meeting next week, delegates will vote on a resolution which proposes to develop CPT (billing) codes to identify and label “non-compliant” patients (1)
The resolution complains:
“The stress of dealing with ungrateful patients is adding to the stress of physicians leading to decreased physician satisfaction.”
“This resolution is alarming in its arrogance and its failure to recognize, or even pay lip service to, patient autonomy,” said Desirre Andrews, the newly elected president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN).
If approved, the resolution could hold implications for women receiving maternity care. For pregnant women seeking quality care and good outcomes, “non-compliance” is often their only alternative to accepting sub-standard care. Physicians routinely order interventions like induction, episiotomy, or cesarean section unnecessarily.
Liz Dutzy, a mother from Olathe, Kansas, delivered her first two babies by cesarean and was told by her obstetrician that she needed another surgical delivery. “My doctor told me that I needed to have a cesarean delivery at 39 weeks, or my uterus would rupture and my baby would die.” She sought out another care provider and had a healthy and safe intervention-free {home} birth at 41 weeks and 3 days gestation.
A recent report by Childbirth Connection and The Milbank Memorial Fund, called “Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve ,” (2) shows that the state of maternity care in the U.S. is worrisome, driven largely by a failure of care providers to heed evidence-based care practices. For most women in the U.S., care practices that have been proven to make childbirth easier and safer are underused, and interventions that may increase risks to mothers and babies are routinely overused. The authors of the report point to the “perinatal paradox” of doing more, but accomplishing less.
The resolution proposed by the Michigan delegation of the AMA could threaten patient care and patient autonomy for several reasons:
• Billing codes that would categorize any disagreement and exercise of autonomy on the part of the patient as “non-compliance” “abuse” or “hostility” could create a pathway for insurance companies to deny coverage to patients
• Use of these labels fails to recognize patients as competent partners with physicians in their own care
• Tagging patients as “non-compliant” fails to recognize that there is not a “one size fits all” approach to care, that different opinions among physicians abound, and that patients are entitled to these very same differences of opinion
• Labeling patients as “non-compliant” may, in fact, be punitive, jeopardizing a patient’s ability to seek out other care providers
The resolution also fails to address how it would implicate patients navigating controversial issues in medical care, like vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). While a substantive body of medical research demonstrates that VBAC is reasonably safe, if not safer, than repeat cesareans, most physicians and hospitals refuse to support VBAC. (3) The language in the resolution suggests that patients who assert their right to opt for VBAC could be tagged as non-compliant, even though their choice would be consistent with the medical research.
“The reality is that the balance of power in the physician-patient relationship is decidedly tipped towards physicians. The least patients should have is the right to disagree with their doctors and not be labeled a ‘naughty’ patient,” said Andrews.
From the ICAN website
AMA Resolution Would Seek to Label “Ungrateful” Patients
Redondo Beach, CA, June 11, 2009 - At the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Annual Meeting next week, delegates will vote on a resolution which proposes to develop CPT (billing) codes to identify and label “non-compliant” patients (1)
The resolution complains:
“The stress of dealing with ungrateful patients is adding to the stress of physicians leading to decreased physician satisfaction.”
“This resolution is alarming in its arrogance and its failure to recognize, or even pay lip service to, patient autonomy,” said Desirre Andrews, the newly elected president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN).
If approved, the resolution could hold implications for women receiving maternity care. For pregnant women seeking quality care and good outcomes, “non-compliance” is often their only alternative to accepting sub-standard care. Physicians routinely order interventions like induction, episiotomy, or cesarean section unnecessarily.
Liz Dutzy, a mother from Olathe, Kansas, delivered her first two babies by cesarean and was told by her obstetrician that she needed another surgical delivery. “My doctor told me that I needed to have a cesarean delivery at 39 weeks, or my uterus would rupture and my baby would die.” She sought out another care provider and had a healthy and safe intervention-free {home} birth at 41 weeks and 3 days gestation.
A recent report by Childbirth Connection and The Milbank Memorial Fund, called “Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve ,” (2) shows that the state of maternity care in the U.S. is worrisome, driven largely by a failure of care providers to heed evidence-based care practices. For most women in the U.S., care practices that have been proven to make childbirth easier and safer are underused, and interventions that may increase risks to mothers and babies are routinely overused. The authors of the report point to the “perinatal paradox” of doing more, but accomplishing less.
The resolution proposed by the Michigan delegation of the AMA could threaten patient care and patient autonomy for several reasons:
• Billing codes that would categorize any disagreement and exercise of autonomy on the part of the patient as “non-compliance” “abuse” or “hostility” could create a pathway for insurance companies to deny coverage to patients
• Use of these labels fails to recognize patients as competent partners with physicians in their own care
• Tagging patients as “non-compliant” fails to recognize that there is not a “one size fits all” approach to care, that different opinions among physicians abound, and that patients are entitled to these very same differences of opinion
• Labeling patients as “non-compliant” may, in fact, be punitive, jeopardizing a patient’s ability to seek out other care providers
The resolution also fails to address how it would implicate patients navigating controversial issues in medical care, like vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). While a substantive body of medical research demonstrates that VBAC is reasonably safe, if not safer, than repeat cesareans, most physicians and hospitals refuse to support VBAC. (3) The language in the resolution suggests that patients who assert their right to opt for VBAC could be tagged as non-compliant, even though their choice would be consistent with the medical research.
“The reality is that the balance of power in the physician-patient relationship is decidedly tipped towards physicians. The least patients should have is the right to disagree with their doctors and not be labeled a ‘naughty’ patient,” said Andrews.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Womens Health Care
What is is about women allowing men to control their healthcare? Men who cut off breasts, cut out babies, remove uterus's, slice perineums, give drugs that are dangerous, use us as lab rats for procedures,show disdain for our emotions and simply see us as non important in the whole scheme of things?
Women have over the last 100 years bought into so many practices that its amazing we havent been exterminated by now. Drugs that damage us and our children, surgeries that are unnecessary except for being the biggest cash cow a hospital has and Women allowing themselves to be used for profit and for experiments.
Its time for women to STOP seeing Men as Experts in their bodies.
Women have over the last 100 years bought into so many practices that its amazing we havent been exterminated by now. Drugs that damage us and our children, surgeries that are unnecessary except for being the biggest cash cow a hospital has and Women allowing themselves to be used for profit and for experiments.
Its time for women to STOP seeing Men as Experts in their bodies.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A new blog
I wanted to create a blog about midwifery in the south. Sadly I am in a state that ignores a law allowing DEM to practice. They simply deny women the right to choose a midwife for their homebirth. Even worse is the state medical system treats CNMs who are practicing in the hospitals little autonomous privileges.
I want to write about my births, the brave women who allow me to attend their homebirths, the amazing assistants who help out AND talk about the incredibly anti woman state i live in.
Enjoy
I want to write about my births, the brave women who allow me to attend their homebirths, the amazing assistants who help out AND talk about the incredibly anti woman state i live in.
Enjoy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
