Make America Weak Again

IMG_2509

I’m not going to lie: I don’t have much respect for Trump voters. It amazes me that anyone with two functioning brain cells could vote for a brutal, stupid, narcissist whose previous career was notable only for his celebrity despite of a parade of bankruptcies, endless evidence of cheating and fraud, as well as personal viciousness. I recognized that many Trump supporters — with the aid of FoxNews, Breitbart and social media — recused themselves from reality, preferring to feast on an endless banquet of “alternative facts” because real facts don’t comport with right wing fantasies.

But even I’m surprised by the level of gullibility and stupidity to which Trumps supporters have sunk. Trump is behaving like a wholly owned subsidiary of Russia. and his supporters don’t seem to register that it appears that Trump is being led around by the nose by Vladimir Putin.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]FoxNews viewers, Breitbart readers, Republican congressmen/women and Trump supporters, are you really so insulated from reality that you can’t see it?[/pullquote]

I realize that we are just in the earliest stages of the investigation into Russia’s undeniable meddling in the US election and Trump’s staff meeting (and possibly Trump himself) with Russian bankers, spies and government officials. But really, people, do I have to spell it out for you?

By far the biggest obstacle for Putin’s plans to make Russia Great Again has been the United States. With our power, prestige, and ideological leadership, the US represents the biggest threat to Putin’s aspirations. In order to make Russia Great Again, he hoped — through the insertion of Donald Trump into American politics — to Make America Weak Again. He has succeeded beyond his wildest imaginings.

Think about it. If you wanted to make America weak again, what would you do? Here are some suggestions:

1. Meddle in US elections to facilitate the ascent of a brutal, stupid narcissist to the Presidency.

2. Encourage chaos, since internal chaos US automatically reduces the US ability to project power, leadership and ideological influence. Trump is nothing if not a source chaos.

3. Promote the election of a party that is incapable of governing. The Republicans now control all three branches of government but they still can’t manage to accomplish anything besides harassing the downtrodden.

4. Promote dissension between the US and its allies. It is not an exaggeration to say the the United States is the leader of the world, but its position is already faltering as Trump manages to offend even our closest allies. Putin must be ecstatic that it has taken Trump only 4 months to degrade US influence in the world. But I’ll bet he couldn’t have imagined Trump would publicly betray the most valuable espionage asset of our ally Israel. Who could possibly be that irresponsible? Donald Trump.

5. Destroy NATO. The US has intentionally been the bulwark of NATO, arguably the biggest barrier to Russian territorial aspirations in Europe. Trump has deliberately, with no obvious benefit to our country, sown dissension with NATO members and incomprehesibly, with no obvious benefit to our country, undermined the deterrent effect of NATO by musing aloud about refusing to stand with out allies.

6. Destroy US leadership in science and technology. By pulling out of the Paris climate accords we have made ourselves the laughingstock of the scientific world. By cutting funding for scientific and medical research we assure that we will soon be ranked second behind China as a leading innovator.

7. Destroy America’s reputation as a wellspring of democratic values. Trump has already expressed his admiration for brutal dictators like Duterte of the Phillipines and Erdogan of Turkey and been slapped down repeatedly by the US courts for his efforts to discriminate against Muslims. But I suspect that even Putin could not have dreamed of allowing Erdogan’s thugs free rein to attack protesters in the US itself. Trump has already managed it.

Despite all this, not a single US job or dollar has been saved.

How exactly does the ranting of a stupid, brutal narcissist on Twitter make America great again?

How does offending our allies make America great again?

How does ceding our leadership role in defense of democracy make America great again?

How does gutting our own science programs make America great again?

How does closing our eyes to the imminent reality of destruction of US business and property by climate change make America great again?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The truth is that it appears that at the behest and under the influence of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump is Making America Weak Again. Tell me FoxNews viewers, Breitbart readers, Republican congressmen/women and Trump supporters, are you really so insulated from reality that you can’t see it?

Facebook kills babies

Halloween image of the death reaper on a black background

I love Facebook; I ought to know since I spend a large portion of every day engaging with it. That’s why it pains me to point out that Facebook kills babies.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Facebook has turbo charged the ignorance of quacks, charlatans and ordinary people.[/pullquote]

How? By allowing users to create communities where access to accurate information is tightly controlled — through deleting, banning and vetting membership — it has empowered purveyors of pseudoscience; and pseudoscience kills babies and children. I’ve have written all too many times about brain injuries and deaths that occur in natural childbirth and homebirth Facebook groups. And don’t get me started about anti-vax groups.

Another potentially deadly situation is playing out right now.

IMG_2490

IMG_2491

TIME SENSITIVE

I went to my appt this morning (42 weeks) and had a cervical exam. Midwife said my cervix is closed and baby’s head is still a little high. She proceeded to tell me that my cervix is not good to have a VBA2C at this point and maybe a repeat C-section is best. I told her I won’t be doing an RCS unless there is a life threatening situation with me and/or baby.

…NST was perfect, however she said that there is basically no fluid around the baby (which is bullshit because I saw the huge amounts of fluid) …

She then brought the doctor down with her (and I know she prepped him) … He asked me why am I against being induced, at this point there is no more benefit being pregnant and both of them tried to tag team me using scare tactics, the usual big baby, baby could die, no fluid to cushion for contractions, over due, baby could get stuck. And basically telling me that my body will fail at a vaginal birth…

…I don’t really know what to do from here. I don’t feel like I can trust them but also feel stuck. Do I go back in for the induction? Do I just take my chances and stay home? Do I say fuck it and birth this baby by myself? (I don’t feel comfortable with that)

Because who you gonna call when your midwife and doctor tell you your baby’s life is at risk? Your Facebook friends, of course. Not surprisingly, she was deluged with suggestions on how and why both her midwife and doctor are wrong and she should just wait it out. Only a few commentors recommended that she listen to her healthcare providers instead of her instincts.

That makes for an interesting juxtaposition with this post from the administrator of a different unassisted pregnancy/unassisted childbirth group.

IMG_2502

IMG_2503

IMG_2504

I’m sorry ladies but I have decided to close this group. I can no longer advocate for not having any medical testing during pregnancy or after birth. I will never knowingly have an unassisted pregnancy again.

My son has many health issues that may have been caught if I had chromosomal testing, an anatomy scan and newborn screening… The guilt is just too heavy …

My instincts were very very wrong…

In other words, calling on her Facebook friends for support in ignoring medical advice end up grievously harming her son and family.

Don’t misunderstand me: each woman has the right to do exactly what she is doing (in the case of the first mother) or did (in the case of the second mother), but both looked to private Facebook groups — where pseudoscience reins supreme, other viewpoints are rare or deleted, and accurate information is in very short supply — to bolster them in believing both that they know far more than they do and that their instincts are more accurate than the knowledge of midwives and doctors.

Facebook, more than any other entity, allows people to recuse themselves from reality and create a carefully curated faux “reality” instead. I’m confident that this was never what Mark Zuckerbeg had in mind; indeed, given that his wife is a pediatrician I suspect that it pains both of them to consider how Facebook has turbo charged the ignorance of quacks, charlatans and ordinary people. But like him I am at a loss for what to do about it.

Free speech is more important than ever and the right to assemble (including in the cloud) with like minded individuals is a precious freedom. But by allowing people to shield themselves from other viewpoints and from accurate information, Facebook facilitates the dissemination of deadly nonsense. Facebook kills babies — but it seems that beyond calling attention to it, there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

Who gets to decide what’s “best” for babies?

IMG_2485

Pregnancy and paternalism go together like peanut butter and jelly, like milk and cookies, like salt and pepper. Where you find one, you almost always find the other.

What is paternalism? It’s the practice of people in positions of authority determining the freedom and responsibilities of others in the others’ supposed best interest. It’s the belief that those in authority know better than mothers themselves what’s best for babies.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Mothers — not doctors, not professional organizations, not activists — get to decide what’s best for their babies.[/pullquote]

Consider the ACOG policy toward alcohol that I wrote about yesterday. According to ACOG president Dr. Howard Brown, since we don’t know the safest upper level for alcohol consumption in pregnancy:

Why tempt harm when all risk can be avoided?

Dr. Brown is clearly incredulous than anyone could even think about accepting a risk in pregnancy, even a theoretical risk. He apparently subscribes to the contemporary view that constant sacrifice is the definitive feature of good mothering.

As sociologist Pam Lowe explains in Reproductive Health and Maternal Sacrifice:

…At its heart, maternal sacrifice is the notion that ‘proper’ women put the welfare of children, whether born, in utero, or not yet conceived, over and above any choices and/or desires of their own. The idea of maternal sacrifice acts as a powerful signifier in judging women’s behaviour. It is valorized in cases such as when women with cancer forgo treatment to save a risk to their developing foetus, and it is believed absent in female substance users whose ‘selfish’ desire for children means they are born in problematic circumstances…

I suspect that Dr. Brown might bristle at the notion that his paternalistic beliefs reflect an assumption that maternal sacrifice is the heart of motherhood. I imagine that he would claim, as he tried to do in his Letter to the Editor, that his admonition is not his personal opinion; it is merely what the science shows. Scientific consensus (therefore doctors) is purportedly the arbiter of what is best for babies. Mothers cannot be trusted to decide what’s best for their babies and themselves when it comes to the risks of alcohol in pregnancy. That’s paternalism.

That’s certainly the justification of The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative and other lactivists organizations. Lactivists might not even balk at the idea that sacrifice is essential to good mothering. That’s why they turn a deaf ear to mothers’ claims of pain, frustration and inconvenience at breastfeeding.

As Michelle, a commentor on the Skeptical OB Facebook page, eloquently put it:

IMG_2484

I care enough to give my kid something that IS natural, than be a selfish heifer and give them something that is meant for a calf. Breastfeeding takes time and you have to sacrifice.

The BFHI and other lactivist organizations are more temperate in their language, but the sentiment behind their mantra “Breast Is Best” is exactly the same. The assumption is that every mother can and should sacrifice to give her child the “best” regardless of the trivial nature of the benefits and regardless of the personal cost to mothers. When confronted they respond, like Dr. Brown implied, that it isn’t personal opinion, it’s what the science shows. In other words, scientific consensus (therefore lactation consultants) is the arbiter of what is best for babies. Mothers can’t be trusted to decide what is best for their babies and themselves when it comes to infant feeding. That’s paternalism, too.

Curiously, natural childbirth, breastfeeding and attachment parenting advocates, who thrill to invoking science as the arbiter in the case of alcohol consumption in pregnancy and breastfeeding are thereafter, are generally horrified when anyone dares suggest that science (therefore doctors) ought to be the arbiter on what is best for babies when it comes to vaccination and homebirth.

The science on the benefits of vaccination is far stronger than the science on the risks of alcohol consumption in pregnancy and the theoretical risks of formula feeding. No matter. Vaccination has become an issue of personal freedom. Forget the scientific consensus! Every mother has to “educate” herself and do her own “research.” Indeed, for anti-vaxxers, explicitly rejecting the scientific consensus is viewed as empowering and a mark of intellectual independence. Only mothers can be trusted to decide what is best for their babies when it comes to vaccination. That’s a rejection of paternalism.

Similarly, homebirth in the US increases the risk of perinatal death. The best statistics we have thusfar, from the state of Oregon, show that homebirth with a non-nurse midwife increases the risk of death by 800%! Over the years, the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the organization that represents homebirth midwives (CPMs, LMs), has been forced to ado it that their own statistic show that homebirth markedly increases the risk of perinatal death. Yet, they, too advocate rejecting the scientific consensus and focus instead on women’s autonomy and personal values.

Homebirth is an expression of a woman’s autonomy … A woman has the right and responsibility to choose the place and care provider for pregnancy, birth, and postpartum and to make decisions based on her knowledge, intuition, experiences, values, and beliefs.

Only mothers can be trusted to decide what’s best for their babies when it comes to place of birth. That, too, is a rejection of paternalism.

Ironically, most anti-vaxxers and homebirth advocates are hypocrites, invoking science when it suits them and ignoring it when it does not. Nevertheless, the issue they raise is crucial: who gets to decide what’s best for babies?

In my view, medical ethics with its emphasis on patient autonomy, requires that mothers — not doctors, not professional organizations, not activists — get to decide what’s best for their babies. Hopefully those mothers will have accurate medical information at hand, but we cannot and should not force people to make decisions that those with accurate medical information prefer. That’s paternalism. The only exception is vaccination since that affects the health of others. The government may therefore choose to make vaccination a prerequisite for attendance at schools and childcare facilities.

That means that women can and should be free to make bad decisions; it is their right. Why? First, science is not always correct in its conclusions. Second, individuals have different values from each other and it is those values that they call upon to determine which risks are acceptable and which are not. As a general matter, people deciding for themselves (autonomy) make better decisions than authorities deciding for them (paternalism).

Women may elect to drink alcohol during pregnancy or they may elect to have a homebirth. That doesn’t mean that either is a good idea; it might be a very bad idea but as long as they are apprised of the risks, it is their choice. Of course they are also responsible for the consequences. The right to make a bad choice doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to approve of it. Very few people are going to applaud a woman’s decision to handicap her child with fetal alcohol syndrome just because she has the right to drink during pregnancy. Similarly very few people are going to applaud a woman’s decision to have a homebirth if it kills her baby.

To the extent that authorities choose to insert themselves in the promotion of one health choice over another, it is entirely appropriate for government to mandate vaccination in order to protect everyone. It is not appropriate for health authorities to mandate breastfeeding through programs like the BFHI since a woman’s decision to breastfeed or formula feed her baby affects no one outside of her family.

Women are people — not incubators, not breastmilk dispensers, not individuals whose only purpose in life is to sacrifice their needs for the theoretical needs of their children. Although “why tempt harm when all risk can be avoided?” might be my personal philosophy when it comes to pregnancy and birth, we cannot and should not mandate that it be everyone’s philosophy. That would be paternalism and that would be wrong.

ACOG, alcohol and the infantilization of pregnant women

IMG_2479

Perhaps this will lay the accusation that I am a shill for ACOG to rest.

The president of the American College of Obstetrician Gynecologists (ACOG) wrote a letter in response to my recent piece in The Washington Post, Five myths about pregnancy, in which he vehemently disagreed with me. He seems to think we disagree on what the science shows; in truth, we disagree on what professional ethics demands of doctors.

I wrote:

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Women deserve to have the same information that doctors have and medical autonomy means that they can decide for themselves whether the risk is worth it to them. [/pullquote]

Studies on alcohol are … ambiguous. Although it is quite clear that large amounts of alcohol can cause fetal alcohol syndrome, the limit of safe consumption is unknown. There are some doctors who insist that if we don’t know the exact limit, women should avoid any alcohol. But most believe that an occasional glass of wine or beer will not cause any problems.

These sentences are undeniably true, yet in a Letter to the Editor, Tom Donaldson, president of the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Haywood L. Brown, president of ACOG, vehemently disagree.

By writing that studies are “ambiguous” in “Five myths about pregnancy” [Outlook, May 14], Amy Tuteur framed the issue of a safe level of alcohol use during pregnancy as an ongoing debate between opposing sides, each with scientific validity. In fact, the science is settled: There is no amount of risk-free alcohol use during pregnancy. This is the position of every scientific and public-health institute and medical and behavioral health association in the United States …

They claim:

[No study] has found any level of prenatal alcohol consumption that is non-toxic to human development.

This is the logical fallacy known as the “argument from ignorance,” often colloquially expressed as “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

According to Wikipedia:

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

Yes, it is true that no study has found a safe level of prenatal alcohol consumption in pregnancy, but that does NOT mean that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, merely that we don’t know what it is.

Why don’t we know? Because the situation is far more nuanced than Mr. Donaldson or Dr. Brown acknowledge and by representing our knowledge as complete and definitive when it is incomplete and uncertain, they infantilize pregnant women.

How?

They write:

Why tempt harm when all risk can be avoided?

But it’s not their decision to make; the decision belongs to each individual pregnant woman.

What do we know about alcohol and FAS?

1. There is no reliable relationship between drinking in pregnancy and FAS. Sure, large amounts of alcohol can lead to FAS, but many women drink moderately without any apparent harm to the developing child. Researchers have noted the “American paradox.” Though alcohol consumption per capita (among women and men) is much higher in European countries than in the US, the incidence of FAS is much lower there. Drinking wine with meals is widespread in Europe, so many women are drinking before they know they are pregnant and when they are pregnant, yet the incidence of FAS is just a fraction of what it is here. Perhaps FAS is more common with some forms of alcohol than with others; we don’t know.

2. The likelihood of developing FAS depends on maternal genetics. Some ethnic groups (like Native Americans) have a much higher incidence of FAS than other ethnic groups even when comparable amounts of alcohol are consumed. In other words, some ethnic groups are “prone” to FAS while others are not.

3. The likelihood of developing FAS also depends on fetal genetics. A study of twin pregnancy in heavy drinkers revealed an extraordinary finding; while there was 100% concordance among identical twins (if one had FAS, the other did, too), there was less than 70% concordance for fraternal twins:

…Sixteen pairs of twins, 5 MZ [monzygotic] and 11 DZ [dizygotic], all heavily exposed to alcohol prenatally, were evaluated. They represented all available twins of alcohol-abusing mothers who were on the patient rolls of the authors. The rate of concordance for diagnosis was 5/5 for MZ and 7/11 for DZ twins. In two DZ pairs, one twin had fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), while the other had fetal alcohol effects (FAE). In 2 other DZ pairs, one twin had no diagnosis while one had FAE. IQ scores were most similar within pairs of MZ twins and least similar within pairs of DZ twins discordant for diagnosis.

Clearly the issue of alcohol in pregnancy is not straightforward.

Unfortunately, Mr. Donaldson and Dr. Brown have transmuted uncertainty into certainty. Instead of acknowledging that the safe limit of alcohol consumption in pregnancy depends on factors that we don’t yet understand, they imply that NO amount of alcohol consumption is safe in pregnancy and that is almost certainly not true for every woman. To maintain such a stance in the absence of concrete scientific evidence is to treat women like children.

I suspect that if a newly pregnant patient worried aloud about her fears of fetal harm from a glass of Chardonnay she drank before she knew she was pregnant, even Dr. Brown would reassure her that it probably caused no harm at all —because that’s what the existing scientific evidence shows. If it is appropriate to reassure women who have already had that glass of Chardonnay, it is inappropriate to tell another women who hasn’t had the Chardonnay yet that a glass of wine could very easily cause harm.

Women deserve to have the same information that doctors have and medical autonomy means that they can decide for themselves whether the risk is worth it to them.

In my view doctors are ethically obligated to be honest with women — to tell them what is true and to acknowledge what we don’t know — and let them decide for themselves. It is infantilizing to make decision for them and counsel them to do what we might prefer.

Guest post: A daughter’s illness, a mother’s anguish

Prayer

A long time reader shared this with me and I found it deeply moving. She graciously gave her permission to let me share it with everyone else.

If I were a painter I would depict: a child huddled in a hospital bed, burritoed into an oversized raspberry-pink coat, topped by a spray of blonde hair, like ripened corn. A woman, the child’s mother, ugly-crying on the bench outside the hospital, gripping elastic cords and zipper pieces. Or maybe I would just show the cords and zippers in a neat pile, so that the painting whispered in a secret code to a world I wish I’d never known.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]“There’s no magic pill” they say. — Yes there is. It’s called “Lithium.” (Or “Ritalin” or “Prozac,” or whatever.)[/pullquote]

Bibi (not her real name) was six years old when the school nurse handed me my blue folder.

“Welcome to the world of special needs,” she told me. “I know it wasn’t what you had in mind, but it is going to be ok.”

Bibi could not read. She was late in many of her motor skills, struggled to work independently, resisted wearing socks, underwear, or sweaters, and reacted in terror to any mild aggression.
Bibi, I was told, had Sensory Processing Disorder.

I cried right there in the nurse’s office. Most of the mothers do.

Neuropsych testing. RTI and Orton-Gillingham. Sensory brushes. Sensory pillows, blankets, and cushions. Gizmos to fidget with, gadgets to rattle and tap. Noise canceling headphones. Years of epically-unbrushed hair.

Autism, no.
Aspergers, no.
Cognitive disabilities, perhaps.
Dyslexia, yes.
ADHD, maybe.
Bipolar.
Yes.

It wasn’t a shock. Well, how can that not be a shock? — But, I know bipolar. I spent my childhood at its mercy — dragged along by the fury, grandiosity and flights of notion of my mother, a woman who needed a screaming fight about something, anything for at least a few good hours every weekend.

Bibi — beautiful, sunny, cosmically smart Bibi — is nothing like my mother. Bibi’s giggles cascade out of her like pink champagne bubbles. Her allowance is gone as quickly as it comes in — spent on extravagant gifts for her siblings or some child who was crying on the playground and deserved a pick-me-up.

When Bibi was seven, her prize hen Rosie — the golden-laced wyandotte Bibi had raised from a hatchling — was snatched by a coyote. The sound was terrible — chicken agony, coyote growls, and Bibi — armed with a fallen tree branch– shrieking her fury at that coyote, who released the hen and bolted for the woods. Bibi gathered up the shredded pieces of poor Rosie and brought her to me, demanding first aid. Dubious, (and grossed-out) I poured warm water and then iodine over the raw, chewed-up chicken flesh. I feared we were prolonging the poor thing’s suffering, but at Bibi’s insistence, I filled a box with soft rags and placed it on our screened porch under a warming lamp and tucked Rosie in for the night, warning Bibi the chicken likely would be dead in the morning.

Bibi snuck out to the porch sometime well past midnight, dragging a heavy camping blanket behind her. She brought Rosie to her chest, stroking her soft feathers and willing the hen back to life with the sheer force of her love. They spent the night that way.

Rosie survived.

But there were other sides to Bibi, and they scared me. She was plagued by graphic nightmares, long periods of elevated mood followed by lethargy and detachment. When the therapy and the routines and the removal of her bedroom closet door stopped keeping the shadows at bay, we found a psychopharmacologist.

Two weeks later, she woke up normal. Yes. It really was that simple. At first.

She was ready for school on time. She ate what we put in front of her. She did her homework and brushed her teeth and skipped happily off to bed. I wanted to track down the inventor of this small beige button of a tablet, send her a fruit basket or maybe a Mercedes, or a villa in the south of France. It was the first time in my life I considered the difference between keeping a person from dying, and keeping a person from living a tortured lifetime.

“There’s no magic pill” they say. — Yes there is. It’s called “Lithium.” (Or “Ritalin” or “Prozac,” or whatever.)

If melatonin and St. John’s Wort work for you, that is just fantastic. You’ve got it good. So do we. Many children and families suffer far worse trying to find the right medication — the one that works, the one that’s available, the one insurance will pay for, the one whose side-effects don’t make life not worth living.

Over time, other drugs were added to Bibi’s regimen, as they inevitably are. We dosed and we tweaked, and Bibi got very good at succinctly answering questions about her sleep, her mood, her energy, her focus. And always — always and forever more — she went to weekly therapy.

She also went to overnight camp.

Here’s what you don’t know if you don’t have a sick child: those annoying HIPAA laws that mean filling out piles of forms and standing behind the line at the doctor’s office? Those laws have meant my daughter has access to life.

You do not go to the camp director and tell her your daughter is bipolar and taking a medication that could, maybe, perhaps, cause kidney failure if administered improperly. You do not tell your child’s counselor, “Hello, nice to meet you, please make sure she wears sunscreen and a hat and also it is not out of the realm of possibility that she might start to feel herself slipping into madness. You’ll want to keep an eye out for irrational sadness or fear, or a strangely elevated mood … are you writing this down?”

You do not tell them these things because then they will not like your daughter — much less head-on adore her, like she deserves. They’re not bad people. But the power they have over your child is horrifying. If Bibi were diabetic, the way people responded to her insulin pump would have absolutely no impact on the outcome of her illness.

How people interact with the mentally disordered has everything to do with whether they get worse or better. People with mental illness are often subject to shaming and rejection that reinforce their own worst terrors about themselves and the world. Enter HIPAA, and the right of patients to strict confidentiality from their care providers, even if those providers work for a private summer camp.

That hot July morning I waited in line for about twenty minutes, listening as a parade of anxious mothers gave the infirmary nurse detailed instructions on their daughters’ Claritin or Lactaid or Gummy vitamins or even — I am not making this up — her absolute need to 24 hour access to Tylenol. I can’t judge — I don’t know their stories — but when I entered the nurses’ office, I closed the door that had enabled me to overhear the prior conversations, and dropped two large Ziploc bags filled with orange prescription bottles on the desk.

How about some psychotropics, bitch?

She never flinched. She took detailed notes. She organized the dosages and had me check and recheck them. She reassured me repeatedly that she knew what lithium poisoning looked like and that she would do a proper psych triage on my daughter every day.

With careful management, love, luck and more than a few angels, Bibi has been imbued with self-worth, acceptance and an abiding faith that her life will be good. But she also understands that she will never be free of the burden of this disorder, and the suffering it brings her will always be part of her life.
All of her descents carry similar elements — elevated mood and creativity, followed by lethargy and disinterest. The nightmares return. She resists all sensory discomfort including showers and hair brushes.
This leads to more visits to the psychopharmacologist, consultation with the therapist, careful emails to the school nurse and her classroom teacher. Generally, the descent is followed in fairly good time by an ascent.

And then it wasn’t.

She was sleeping less and less, waking at all hours, wandering the house, writing stories, making elaborate presents for people she barely knew. I begged her to get on the school bus and she cried and asked if she could wear my coat — my new, luscious, raspberry colored down parka. “It smells like you, Mama,” she said softly. For weeks, she didn’t take that coat off. It gathered stains: toothpaste, dribbled hot chocolate, a faint hint of vomit.

Bibi was not getting better. And so we went to the Emergency Department of our local hospital, which is where mental health patients in crisis are triaged. Pediatric emergency cases can spend up to several days or even weeks in the Emergency Department. While there, they receive no treatment. They cannot leave their rooms, the doors to which are left wide open to the corridor at all times, a hospital security officer is stationed outside it. When mental health patients in the ED need to use the bathroom, they are escorted by their security officer and a nurse, and they must leave the door open.

Eleven year-olds are no different.

And so Bibi shuffled to the john, trailed by her mother and a nurse and a cop, peeing with the door open because she had committed the crime of being born with a chemical imbalance in her brain.

She was in the Emergency Department about five hours when a social worker led her dad and me to the “Quiet room.” Easy chairs. A box of tissues. A cheesy picture of a waterfall. Some day I will be a millionaire and I will donate to hospital quiet rooms boxes of soft kleenex because it just sucks to have a chapped nose on top of everything else.

The social worker walked us through the options. Bibi was in trouble. And they wanted to find a bed for her on the psych ward, if we would consent to it. We did.

Bibi was alone in her room, the door open to the hall, the security officer watching. I suppose to everyone else she was an unwashed, odd-smelling, confused little girl. To me, she was sweet Bibi-of-the-cascading giggles, and I climbed in beside her, pulling her close to my body, to the body we had shared, to her nose against my collerbone, and mine against her warm hair.

“I have to stay, don’t I?” she asked.

“No,” I said. “I will take you home right now if you want me to. But the thing is,” I stare at the styrofoam tile ceiling, willing the words to come. “I’m scared. I can bring you home, and I will if you ask me to. But I’m afraid I can’t take proper care of you. I am afraid you will get sicker and you will end up back here and it will be worse because we waited.”

“And you can’t stay with me?”

“No. I can’t. You’d have to do it alone.”

We clung to each other, my little girl and I, awash in the rawness of life.

We were lucky. A bed opened less than 24 hours later. The officer escorted us up to the psych ward, where he buzzed the security door for admittance. Bibi’s little chubby hand gripped the handle of the overnight duffle, her back straight, her chin set. So help me she walked herself in to the psych ward.

They searched her bag. She could not keep the ceramic mug, her scarf, or the knitting project. No sneakers or laced shoes of any kind. No belts, no nail clippers, nothing with an edge. They stuffed the banned items into a garbage bag which they handed to me to take home. And then they turned their attention to the coat, to its zippers and elastics and knobbies and all the pretty little things such coats have.

“Just cut it,” I said.

The nurse made quick work of it, ripping and slicing. Bibi put it back on and managed a slight giggle at how deflated it looked.

And then we were gripping each other and sobbing.

“These are not your people,” I tell her. “This is not your world. Your world is at home with me. So get it done and get out of here and come back to me.” We grip harder and sob more because we both know there is a lie there.

As of now, these are Bibi’s people, these hollow-eyed girls in flip flops and sweat pants, angry red divots along their arms where their fingernails have ripped at the flesh– their outward release of an inner pain no one has been able to soothe. They share Bibi’s disordered world, a world I have to abandon her to if I want to get her back.

And so there I am, on the bench outside the hospital, a garbage bag at my feet, elastics and zippers clenched in my fists and I think how maybe if I dug my nails into my arms it would distract me from all the unbearable bearing down on me. I can’t scratch my arms, but I want to wreck something, or damage myself or — no, not damage. Mark. Claim. Own this identity that will be part of me forever. So I send a text. I send it to anyone I think might be my friend.

“Bibi has been admitted to the psych ward. I need childcare coverage in the afternoons during visiting hours. I need a dog walker. Please text back if you have any availability.”

“I can do Tuesday and Wednesday after school to 8:00.”

“I’m going to send you my dog walker, she’s great.”

“What do your kids eat? I can drop a meal or two.”

Someone cleaned my kitchen, and someone brought food, and I claimed my place as the mother of a child who will need hospitalizations on and off throughout her life.

Thankfully, Bibi’s stay this time was short. Her medications kicked in, she was sleeping normally, and the bright gentleness I love so much was returning to her face. On the fourth night, they released her for home. Leaving, she was like Nixon boarding Marine One. She turned to her medical team and said, “SEE YOU NEXT TIME!”

In the car on the way home she asked me what we would tell everyone.

I said, “Why not tell them you were in the hospital?”

And she said, “Why not just go ahead and tell them I was in the loony bin and see how fast I make new friends?”

It was bitter and funny and awful and true.

“How about you just tell them the truth — you have a chronic condition. You need medication and sometimes hospitalization. Why don’t you let them give you the love and sympathy and support a hospitalized child deserves?”

We are silent. We know I am dreaming of a world we want to exist, that does not exist, that could only exist if we march forward believing in it. But what 11 year old wants to make that march?

“There are two kinds of people in the world, sweetheart,” I tell her. “Those who understand and feel compassion and sympathy for you and those you don’t need in your life. Why should you have to pretend to be something you’re not for people who aren’t nice to sick people?”

“Ok,” she said.

She wore her hospital bracelet for more than a month. A mark of her own, I think. A decision that she was done hiding a very vital — and sometimes very painful — part of herself. We are still navigating this world, Bibi and I, where we understand that the stigma is real and dangerous and that she must be kept safe. But we also know that the stigma thrives on people like us acting like we have something to hide.
I have this amazing daughter, with a wicked sense of humor and giggles like champagne bubbles. She likes to draw and cook and play softball.

She has a chemical imbalance of the brain called “bipolar.” Sometimes it blows through our life destroying everything it touches until we think the sun will never shine again. During those times, we rely on each other, and we ask for help, and we tell bad jokes, and we love the friends who send us dog walkers and clean our kitchen and repeatedly tell Bibi “You’re a bad ass, darling.”

Because she is.

Sheena Byrom and the moral bankruptcy of UK midwifery

36275662 - handprint with dripping paint

Once again I have written a blog post about my revulsion at the deadly behavior of UK midwives, and once again a prominent midwife has rushed to demonstrate the truth of my words to the entire world: professional autonomy is more important to midwives than whether babies live or die.

It was only 4 days ago that I wrote about the latest Stunning indictment of UK midwives. According to The Guardian:

[perfectpullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Sheena Byrom is the poster child for moral depravity in the face of preventable infant deaths.[/perfectpullquote]

The number of claims for brain damage and cerebral palsy has tripled in a decade, amid widespread monitoring failures …

The cases – often linked with a failure to monitor babies’ heart rates, to detect risks of oxygen starvation – fuelled maternity negligence claims of more than £1.2bn in 2015/16 [$1.5 billion].

The proximate cause is that UK midwives are not adequately trained in fetal monitoring, but the real cause is that UK midwives place process (“normal birth”) above outcome (live, healthy babies and mothers).

Just in case you thought I was exaggerating the immorality of a group of medical providers who place their personal philosophy above the lives they are ethically mandated to protect, midwife Sheila Byrom rushes to prove me right.

Byrom is the poster child for moral depravity in the face of preventable infant deaths. She has the unmitigated gall to defend the unethical behavior of midwives in privileging process over outcome by arguing that it is more important to preserve “normal birth” than human life.

In my piece I asked: how many babies have to die and how many billions of pounds have to be paid out before the morally repugnant, incompetently trained, self-dealing, deadly UK midwives are held to account?

Sheena Byrom, writing in conjunction with another deadly midwifery enabler, Soo Downe, answered: as many as UK midwives damn well please.

In Normal birth – a moral and ethical imperative, Byrom and Downe are attempting to rebut a piece in The London Times, Midwives told to stop pushing own agenda for natural births, which notes:

Midwives will be told not to use language that could push women into “normal” birth amid fears that babies are at risk because of a reluctance to ask for medical help…

A review into the deaths of 11 babies and one mother at the Morecambe Bay trust warned that a desire for normal birth “at any cost” was a contributor.

Outgoing head of the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) Cathy Warwick has met every new midwifery scandal with weasel words but no action. Speaking of the most recent scandals, Warwick offered more weasel words:

[I]f there were midwives who were pushing normal birth then we must have good governance process in place which will pick up that and make sure it doesn’t continue to happen.

Byrom and Downe also use weasel words:

Promoting normal birth while also maximising the wellbeing of mother and baby is therefore not a cult, or a professional project, or a conspiracy. It is a moral and ethical imperative, that should be supported by all of those with any interest in the wellbeing of mothers, babies and families, in the short and longer term. This includes professionals, journalists, politicians, health service managers, childbirth activists, and lawyers.

But no one is talking about promoting normal birth while maximizing wellbeing of mother and baby; the issue is promoting normal birth above maximizing wellbeing of mothers and babies.

Byrom and Downe present a graph that demonstrates a slowly rising C-section rate and ask:

And if there is a widespread problem where midwives ‘pursue normal birth at any cost’, why are the statistics below so stark? Surely, the opposite would be the case?

Which words in “claims for brain damage and cerebral palsy has tripled in a decade” and “maternity negligence claims of more than £1.2bn in 2015/16 [$1.5 billion]” are they having trouble understanding?

Byrom and Downe insist that “normal birth” is a moral and ethical imperative.

Really?

Medical ethics rests on four principles:

Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.

Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient.

Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm…

Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment …

Do you see normal birth — or any specific procedure — among these? I don’t either.

The key to understanding midwives’ insistence on a procedure instead of an outcome is to recognize that when midwives say “normal birth” what they really mean is “anything midwives can do and nothing they cannot.” Promoting normal birth is really about promoting midwife autonomy.

In their first paragraph Byrom and Downe make it clear that this is really about midwives and their desires:

Yes, there needs to be learning from incidents, and development where needed. But blaming one professional group, or a particular type of birth, does little to improve any situation.

Actually, insisting that a professional group take responsibility for their own deadly mistakes does A LOT  to improve any situation.

I regularly spend time with student midwives from around the UK and beyond. They tell me they are worried about practising as qualified midwives, as, during their training, they hardly ever see women who have had a normal, physiological, straightforward pregnancy, labour and birth.

Midwifery is NOT supposed to be about meeting midwives’ needs; there is a moral imperative to meet PATIENTS’ needs.

Recent press reports add to the fear already embedded in maternity services. This fear is real in high income countries, and influences the decisions of women, mothers and families alike.

But the ethical provider SHOULD feel fear at the thought of preventable deaths. It is only the morally bankrupt who would counsel otherwise.

Byrom, Downe and Warwick have blood on their hands and the reason is very simple: they continue to promote THEIR interests — the process of “normal birth” (or, more accurately, midwife autonomy) — above safe outcomes for mothers and babies.

As long as UK midwives are allowed to indulge their desire to serve their own interests, babies will continue to die and the NHS will continue to pay out billions of pounds to grieving parents. That is truly immoral and unethical.

Gwyneth Paltrow, queen of the quacktresses

Vector illustration - Queen gold text

Apparently, I wasted 8 years in medical training. Four years of medical school and four years of residency were over-kill (pardon the expression). It seems that in 2017 the most important requirement for a medical authority is to be a quacktress.

A quacktress is a actress who has monetized her celebrity by giving pseudoscientific medical “advice,” often selling books, supplements and other products to the credulous.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Who is gullible enough to believe steaming your vagina and filling it with jade balls makes any sense at all?[/pullquote]

Quacktresses have been with us for years. Homebirth advocate Ricki Lake is a quacktress; anti-vax loon Jenny McCarthy is a quacktress; and, for many years, Suzanne Somers was the queen of quacktresses, peddling dubious cancer “cures.” But Suzanne Somers has been dethroned. Gwyneth Paltrow is the new queen of the quacktresses.

What has Paltrow done to deserve this honor? Perhaps it is because she is young and beautiful. Perhaps it is because she is a better actress than most quacktresses. But I suspect that Paltrow now represents the acme of quackery because so much of her nonsense centers on the vagina.

Through her lifestyle website Goop, Paltrow has proven that women are gullible enough to put anything in their vaginas.

Writing about a high end spa, Paltrow shared:

The real golden ticket here is the Mugworth V-Steam: You sit on what is essentially a mini-throne, and a combination of infrared and mugwort steam cleanses your uterus, et al…

It is an energetic release — not just a steam douche — that balances female hormone levels …

What does that gobbledygook even mean?

The spa’s site provides a history of the steam, explaining that it has been utilized in Korea “for hundreds of years” and helps to “maintain internal health” and keeps “skin looking young and healthy. The procedure involves the placement of boiled leaves and flower buds on a “specific area of the body” for “detoxication.”

So much stupid in so few words!

Claiming that you can clean your uterus by steaming your vagina is like claiming you can clean your colon by steaming your mouth. Why would your uterus need “detoxification,” even assuming such a thing were possible? And how does it balance your female hormones when nearly all of them are made in your ovaries and head (pituitary gland)? Obviously it doesn’t.

But it does boost traffic at her website. As Paltrow explained:

If I find benefit to it and it’s getting a lot of page views, it’s a win-win.

It’s not her fault that people are gullible, right?

Paltrow’s vagina fetish doesn’t end there. According to the Washington Post:

Most recently, Paltrow’s lifestyle website Goop, which promoted vaginal steaming, is at it again with another advice for women: putting a jade egg — yes, a solid object about the size of a golf ball — in your vagina, and keeping it there all day or while you’re sleeping.

For $66 a piece, the jade eggs, once “the strictly guarded secret” of Chinese queens and concubines to please their emperors, would help boost your orgasm and “increase vaginal muscle tone, hormonal balance, and feminine energy in general,” reads the beginning of an article titled “Better Sex: Jade Eggs for Your Yoni.”

But gynecologist Jen Gunter, had this to say:

My issue begins with the very start of your post on jade eggs specifically that “queens and concubines used them to stay in shape for emperors.” Nothing says female empowerment more than the only reason to do this is for your man! And then the claim that they can balance hormones is, quite simply, biologically impossible…

Gunter deftly and hilariously debunks Paltrow’s nonsense and there is a great deal of it.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s goat milk therapy for parasites is stupid and dangerous

Gwyneth Paltrow doesn’t have adrenal fatigue because it doesn’t exist

As well as this delightfully scathing takedown:

Dear Gwyneth Paltrow we’re not f**king with you we’re correcting you, XOXO Science

Why would anyone believe Paltrow’s quackery?

In part it’s because of our obsession with celebrity. We worship celebrities and even the idea of celebrity. People are desperate for the opportunity to be humiliated on reality TV shows just so they can become famous. We trust celebrities even when they give us no reason to do so or plenty of reasons not to.

In part it’s because of bizarre form of racism that imagines that “orientals” and indigenous (read: black) peoples are in possession of exotic knowledge that white people can use.

But mostly it’s because of the dismaying strain of anti-intellectualism that has longed plagued our country, including the idea that doctors know so little that quacktresses actually know more.

Why? How can anyone claim with a straight face to believe that Ricki Lake knows anything about childbirth? How could anyone possibly believe that Jenny McCarthy knows about immunology simply by dint of having a child who she thought was autistic. And Suzanne Somers? Does anyone seriously believe that the purveyor of the “Thigh-Master” just happened to discover the cure for cancer in her spare time?

And who is gullible enough to believe steaming your vagina and filling it with jade balls makes any sense at all?

A lot of people, apparently, and they’ve made Gwyneth Paltrow queen of the quacktresses.

Why are we wasting money promoting breastfeeding?

IMG_2436

Public health initiatives, by definition, are meant to improve public health.

[pullquote align=”right” color=””]We waste millions on a public health campaign that produces no discernible return on investment.[/pullquote]

They are usually based on solid scientific evidence, their implementation saves thousands if not millions of lives, and they pay for themselves many times over in lives saved, earnings preserved and medical expenditures averted.

Consider the classic public health campaigns to promote vaccination and to reduce tobacco smoking.

This graph from E&K Health Consulting shows the dramatic drop in incidence of vaccine preventable disease after the introduction of the vaccine for the specific disease:

IMG_2431

Notice that the y-axis is logarithmic, which means that the actual changes were far more dramatic than a glance at the graph would indicate. For example, there were approximately a one hundred thousand cases of smallpox per year prior to the introduction of the vaccine. In 2012 there were no cases at all. For each and every vaccine, the number of cases decreased by several orders of magnitude after the introduction of the vaccine.

The public health campaign to reduce tobacco smoking has had similarly spectacular results.

IMG_2432

This graph originally published in the National Cancer Institute Bulletin shows that in the wake of the Surgeon General’s report of 1964 warning about the link between smoking and lung cancer, per capita cigarette consumption dropped dramatically. After a lag period, lung cancer deaths began to drop dramatically, too.

We have spent millions of dollars promoting vaccination and reducing smoking and it has paid off in both lives and money saved.

How about breastfeeding?

In the past 20 years we have spent millions of dollars promoting breastfeeding despite scientific evidence that is weak, conflicting and riddled with confounders.

An entire industry, the lactation industry, has arisen to promote and profit from efforts to increase breastfeeding rates. For example, lactation consultants did not exist prior to the mid 1980’s. Now they are everywhere, in hospitals, in doctors’ offices and in private practice. There have been multimillion dollar health campaigns and there is now a certification costing hospitals more than $10,000 each to be designated as breastfeeding friendly.

Breastfeeding initiation rates have risen in response. But the breastfeeding rate appears to have had no impact on the infant mortality rate. The graph below illustrates the steep drop in infant mortality over the course of the 2oth Century. I’ve added markers for the breastfeeding rate at various points. As you can see, the precipitous drop in breastfeeding rates did not have an impact on infant mortality and the rising rate of breastfeeding initiation does not seem to have an impact, either.

IMG_2435

Breastfeeding initiation rates have tripled since 1970 rising from 25% to over 75% today.

So where is the return on investment?

Where is the evidence that thousands of lives have been saved? Where is the evidence that millions of cases of disease have been prevented? Where is the evidence of millions of dollars in healthcare expenditures averted? Where is the evidence that the dramatic rise in breastfeeding has had any impact at all on infant or child health?

The only evidence for the beneficial effects of breastfeeding on infant mortality come from premature infants, not term babies.

Sure there are papers making claims about theoretical health and spending benefits of breastfeeding for term babies, but I haven’t found any evidence of actual health and spending benefits. If it exists, I invite anyone who has seen such information to share it with the rest of us.

In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that the aggressive promotion of breastfeeding is harming babies through an increased incidence of dehydration and starvation due to insufficient breastmilk (affecting up to 15% of first time mothers) as well as smothering in mother’s hospital beds or falling from them because of mandated 24 hour rooming in policies in hospitals.

That doesn’t mean that breastfeeding is a bad thing. It’s a good thing, but the benefits for term babies in first world countries are trivial. If those benefits were anything other than trivial, we should have seen a dramatic impact on infant health and pediatric care expenditure in the past 45 years when breastfeeding initiation rates rose by 200%, but we haven’t seen anything of the kind.

No doubt the lactation industry has benefited. The number of lactation consultants in the US has increased from 0 in 1980 to 3.5/1000 live births in the 2013 (14,000 lactation consultants). Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on public health campaigns, and tens of millions of dollars are spent by mothers themselves.

What do we have to show for it?

Nothing.

Unless, of course, you count the soul searing guilt and feelings of inadequacy among women who can’t or choose not to breastfeed.

Going forward we should dramatically scale back spending on breastfeeding promotion. In an era of scarce healthcare dollars, we can’t afford to waste millions on public health campaigns that produce no discernible return on investment.

Breastfeeding should be a private choice. There is no reason, scientific or economic, to spend millions promoting it.

 

Adapted from a piece that first appeared in August 2015.

Alternative health, Dunning Kruger and the Tuteur Corollary

IMG_2430

I’ve spent the last few days wrangling with anti-vaxxers on the Skeptical OB Facebook page. I wasn’t arguing with them since a doctor can no more argue immunology with anti-vaxxers than a mathematician can argue calculus with a four year old. Neither knows enough to come to grips with the actual subject.

Most four year olds would be quick to tell you that they don’t understand calculus, but most anti-vaxxers aren’t nearly so self aware. As victims of the Dunning Kruger effect, they actually think they know what they are talking about.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The Tuteur Corollary: If they don’t understand it, it must be a plot to harm them.[/pullquote]

The Dunning Kruger effect explains why those who know the least about a particular topic — health, for example  —actually believe they know the most. They simply don’t know what they don’t know. According to Dr. Dunning:

What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.

But it seems to me that there is a corollary to Dunning Kruger — I’m going to call it the Tuteur Corollary — that applies to advocates of alternative health in general and anti-vaxxers in particular.

I’ve noticed that when bad things happen to people, they can be roughly sorted into two groups: those who look at the untoward event they don’t understand and ask, “How did this happen?” and those who look at the exact same event and ask, “Who did this to me?” In other words, those with a modicum of knowledge want to understand — and assume they will be able to understand — what happened; in contrast, those who lack basic relevant knowledge (and often basic logic as well) assume that if they don’t understand something bad, it must be because someone, generally a corporation or government entity, is trying to harm them.

Simply put, the Tuteur Corollary to Dunning Kruger as is this:

Those who lack relevant knowledge look at what they don’t understand and imagine nefarious deeds.

For example:

Those who don’t understand basic immunology obviously don’t understand how vaccines work. Dunning Kruger leads them to conclude that vaccines don’t work; the Tuteur Corollary impels them to explain the world-wide consensus of immunologists, pediatricians and epidemiologists on the efficacy of vaccines as a world-wide plot to boost the fortunes of Big Pharma.

Those who don’t understand basic statistics obviously don’t understand that the apparent increase in the incidence of autism can be attributed to better diagnosis and expanded classification. Dunning Kruger leads them to insist that autism is an epidemic; the Tuteur Corollary leads them to conclude that corporations, with the blessing of government, are deliberately causing autism.

Those who don’t understand basic chemistry obviously don’t understand that a chemical that is dangerous in its elemental form, like mercury, is not dangerous when a component of a chemical compound, thimerosal. Never mind that there are many examples in every day life: elemental sodium is exposive; sodium chloride (table salt) is beloved as a seasoning for food. That’s Dunning Kruger. The Tuteur Corollary is responsible for the nonsensical belief that Big Pharma once added an expensive chemical to its vaccine preparations for no therapeutic reason and intended to poison children.

Those who don’t understand the scientific method obviously don’t understand that a single scientific citation (or even a dozen) that they’ve never read is not an argument against vaccination, especially when compared with the literally tens of thousands of papers that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Dunning Kruger leads them to assume that they are more educated about vaccines that those with PhDs in immunology. The Tuteur Corollary forces them to conclude that the entire scientific, medical and public health communities are deliberately ignoring all the fascinating data on whale.to and NaturalNews that seems so compelling to them.

Dunning Kruger explains why those who know the least are most likely to fall prey to alternative health charlatans. The Tuteur Corollary explains why they abandon common sense to conclude that quacktress Suzanne Somers is more dedicated to curing their cancer than their own oncologists, that people peddling worthless miracle diets and cures and less interested in profit than doctors, and that the vaccine conspiracy is so massive and so dastardly that doctors, pharma execs and public health officials are willing to inject their own children with vaccines in order to maintain the deception.

It’s bad enough that we live in Dunning Kruger nation where variety of very loud “confident idiots” actually think they know more than the experts in their respective fields. What’s worse it that we appear to be living in a nation where such ignorance is enshrined in our values.

As Dr. Dunning explained:

Some of our most stubborn misbeliefs arise … from the very values and philosophies that define who we are as individuals. Each of us possesses certain foundational beliefs — narratives about the self, ideas about the social order—that essentially cannot be violated: To contradict them would call into question our very self-worth.

When it comes to healthcare, large groups of Americans now rest their self worth on the twin delusions that stupidity is knowledge and if you don’t understand it, it must be a plot to harm you.

A stunning indictment of UK midwives and their rising death toll

Multiple coffins for sale in a row

I’ve been writing for years about the fact that UK midwives are running amok promoting “normal birth” and babies are dying. For years, the British media and the British population seemed uninterested, but now the death toll has become so high that even they cannot look away.

The Guardian reports in Exclusive: Baby deaths linked to lack of basic midwife training:

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]How many babies have to die and how many billions of pounds have to be paid out before the morally repugnant, incompetently trained, self-dealing, deadly UK midwives are held to account?
[/pullquote]

The number of claims for brain damage and cerebral palsy has tripled in a decade, amid widespread monitoring failures…

… Since 2004/5, the value of claims against NHS maternity units for brain damage and cerebral palsy has risen from £354m to £990m, official figures show.

The cases – often linked with a failure to monitor babies’ heart rates, to detect risks of oxygen starvation – fuelled maternity negligence claims of more than £1.2bn in 2015/16 [$1.5 billion].

Why? Among other reasons, it appears that UK midwives don’t know how to diagnose fetal distress.

Babies are dying and being put at risk of major brain injury because it is “commonplace” for British midwives to qualify without training in use of basic equipment, a senior coroner has warned.

The regulator for midwives has been told to reform the sylllabus for all trainees after a string of deaths of newborns following monitoring failures.

Hospital trusts have been advised to stop recruiting newly qualified midwives until they can prove they can perform foetal heart monitoring.

For example:

Baby Delilah Hubbard died two days after her birth at Leicester General Infirmary in March 2015. Although her mother Clara Bassford was classed as a “high risk” pregnancy, having had two previous babies prematurely, midwives failed to monitor her properly. After Ms Bassford warned that the baby was not moving, midwives tried to carry out checks. But they positioned the monitor wrongly – so that the child’s heart rate was not properly recorded. The NHS trust last year admitted that Delilah would have survived if staff had acted more quickly.

Baby Rupert Sanders died on Christmas Eve in 2012 after midwife Carol Marston switched off a heart monitor alarm 16 times during his birth. The midwife admitted to making “catastrophic” mistakes, failing to realise how severe the abnormalities were. Fellow midwife Anne Mather also failed to detect the gravity of the situation during the labour of first-time mother Lauren Sanders, at Stafford Hospital, the Nursing and Midwifery Council heard.

An investigation into maternity care at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust is examining the deaths of 15 babies and three women, including at least five cases involving foetal heart monitoring failures. The cases involve twins Ella and Lola Greene, stillborn in 2014, Graham Scott Holmes-Smith, stillborn in December 2015, the death of Kye Hall, at four days, in August 2016, and that of Ivy Morris, who died in May 2016, four months after her birth.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

What, you might wonder, do UK midwives have to say about this?

Absolutely nothing.

As I recently explained, social media, particularly Twitter, allows UK midwives to recuse themselves from reality and reward themselves with a never ending round of dopamine-releasing self-congratulation. That rewarding feedback loop is infinitely more gratifying than facing the injuries and deaths that occur because of UK midwives overweening self-regard. Twitter allows them to customize their surroundings by blocking anyone who might intrude (laypeople and professionals) with distressing stories of babies and mothers who were injured or died because of midwives’ unethical promotion of “normal birth.”

As far as I can determine, neither Cathy Warwick, head of the Royal College of Midwives, nor Sheena Byrom, a leader of UK midwives, nor any other midwifery leader has even bothered to mention the story thusfar. Instead their Twitter feeds are filled with self-congratulatory messages to each other on their promotion of “normal birth”.

What about their blogs?

Today’s RCM blog post is about the upcoming election and what the various political parties are promising to do for midwives and the NHS.

The post currently featured on Sheila Byrom’s blog is a guest post entitled — what else? — All this push for ‘normal birth’ – why I keep pushing:

As a consumer of the media, I see this – or some variation on this theme – so often. In a somewhat sinister twist, I occasionally see this one:

“Midwives endanger lives with their stubborn insistence on pushing for normal birth.”

I’m a third year student midwife, and a birth addict. In October last year, I attended the International Normal Labour and Birth Conference in Sydney, Australia. Seeing so many esteemed, brilliant and passionate people assemble to protect and promote normal birth was somewhat overwhelming, and possibly even more so was trying to keep up with it all on social media! Thousands upon thousands of tweets, Facebook posts and #normalbirth16 hashtags flooded the web, drawing many comments from people near and far…

Her response:

Because the move to protect normal birth is not, and has never been, about trying to conscript women into accepting less intervention, less Caesarian section, less pain relief in birth. The purpose of such advocacy is never about blaming women for their choices and experiences. The point of the exercise is NOT to make mothers feel like failures if their birth did not meet the ‘optimum’ recommendations. Birth is not, and should never be, a competitive sport.

Advocating for normal birth is NOT about holding women accountable.

Advocating for normal birth IS about holding birth workers accountable.

Surprise, normal birth is about midwives.

So don’t be fooled – advocating normal birth is not some crazy, midwife-led agenda to keep obstetricians out of work and see women suffer through difficult labour without pain relief (although that’s what some outspoken critics might have you believe). It’s true that many of the most articulate advocates for normal birth are midwives, but are midwives really that vicious?

But they ARE that vicious. At the same time the the NHS paid out £1.2bn in compensation for injuries and deaths, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMS) paid £240,000 to lawyers to keep the truth about baby Joshua Titcombe’s preventable death from his father James:

Now new documents reveal that the watchdog spent £240,000 on laywers – paid from subscriptions by nurses and midwives – on advice about how to respond to his attempts to uncover the truth.

The bereaved father sought information from the regulator, after the NMC refused to supply him with details of a review it had carried out, and correspondence to other regulators.

They also subjected James to a campaign of harrassment on social media.

For example:

IMG_2419

Highlights include:

oh James-don’t let’s get on that roll again …

and:

getting out of bed in the morning has risks

Yes, James, how could you be so tiresome, always going on about the risks of childbirth and the babies who die as a result? Sheena is so over that.

Byrom ought to be ashamed of herself for the chilling way that she dismissed the father of a baby who died as a result of midwifery incompetence. But that would involve insight, compassion and a sense of responsibility, something in woefully short supply among UK midwives in general and Byrom in particular.

The latest revelations are hardly surprising given the appalling behavior of UK midwives in the past. All of which leads me to ask:

How many babies have to die and how many billions of pounds have to be paid out before the morally repugnant, incompetently trained, self-dealing, deadly UK midwives are held to account?

Dr. Amy