Those who want the very best for their children choose science over pseudoscience.

Of course science is hard, and that means that many people don’t understand it. To cover up their lack of understanding, they whine that science is male and patriarchal and that women have “different ways of knowing.”

Science does not give you “atta girls” for defying authority. Science is about adult behavior, not juvenile antics to impress your friends.

Science doesn’t give you the opportunity to claim that you “did your research” and are “educated.” Anyone who has really done research or has obtained a degree in a scientific discipline would never be found boasting that they are “educated” and would never do “research” on Google.

Science is no fun. There are no grand conspiracy theories, no government organizations trying to make you and your children sick. There’s just reality, as boring as that is.

Science is a killjoy, always demanding evidence, and displaying extreme skepticism about people curing cancer and autism through their own efforts.

Science makes it hard to preen as a Sanctimommy because science offers no guarantees, only probabilities.

It’s easy and so much fun to choose pseudoscience, especially because it allows you to pretend that you are a better mother than others, but being a good mother isn’t about easy and fun.

That’s why choosy mothers choose science.

Two new papers shed light on the appalling outcomes at American homebirth.

The first paper is Apgar Score of Zero at Five Minutes and Neonatal Seizures or Serious Neurologic Dysfunction in Relation to Birth Setting by Grunebaum et al.

The authors used CDC data to assess birth outcomes:

Data from the United States Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics birth certificate data files were used to assess deliveries by physicians and midwives in and out of the hospital for the 4-year period from 2007-2010 for singleton term births (≥37 weeks gestation) and ≥2,500 grams. Five-minute Apgar scores of zero and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction were analyzed for four groups by birth setting and birth attendant (hospital physician, hospital midwife, free-standing birth center midwife, and home midwife).

They found:

Home births (RR 10.55) and births in free-standing birth centers (RR 3.56) attended by midwives had a significantly higher risk of a 5-minute Apgar score of zero (p<.0001) than hospital births attended by physicians or midwives. Home births (RR 3.80) and births in free-standing birth centers attended by midwives (RR 1.88) had a significantly higher risk of neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction (p<.0001) than hospital births attended by physicians or midwives. (my emphasis)

In other words, homebirth increases the risk of an Apgar score of zero by nearly 1000%!!

As the authors explain:

There is an identifiable pattern in these data for the outcomes of singleton term births: home birth is associated with a significantly increased risk of 5-minute Apgar score of 0 and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction compared to hospital birth. When it comes to home birth versus hospital birth, setting is strongly associated with worse outcomes. The increased rate of adverse outcomes of home births exists despite the reported lower risk profile of home birth.13 The pattern for free-standing birth centers is also identifiable: this setting is associated with increased risk compared to hospital delivery, though not as high risk as home birth. When it comes to freestanding birth center versus hospital, setting is strongly associated with worse outcomes.

It is essential to note that these significantly increased risks of adverse outcomes from the setting of home and from the setting of free-standing birth centers reported here may be serious underestimations of clinical complications. (my emphasis)

The choice of an Apgar score of zero and the primary outcome measurement is particularly apt, since severe neurologic injury is particularly likely at homebirth, because homebirth midwives do not monitor the fetal heart rate appropriately. Hence the inordinate number of babies who drop dead or nearly dead into the hands of clueless homebirth midwives. Babies with a 5 minute Apgar score of zero include those that died intrapartum, but also those that were born without vital signs who were subsequently resuscitated by emergency personnel.

Interestingly the authors chose to use the MD group as the reference group despite the fact that it contains high risk women. I typically use the hospital based midwife as a reference since their are fewer high risk patients. Using that standard, homebirth has a risk of 5 minute Apgar score of zero that is 19X higher than low risk hospital birth!

The authors point out that all practitioner are REQUIRED to disclose this information to women contemplating homebirth, midwives as well as obstetricians.

The second paper is Selected perinatal outcomes associated with planned home births in the United States by Cheng et al.

The authors looked at birth outcomes from the year 2008.

There were 2,081,753 births meeting study criteria. Of these, 12,039 (0.58%) were planned home births. More planned home births had 5-minute Apgar score <4 (0.37%) compared to hospital births (0.24%; aOR 1.87; 95% CI 1.36-2.58) and neonatal seizure (0.06% vs. 0.02% respectively; aOR 3.08; 95% CI 1.44-6.58). Women with planned home birth had fewer interventions, including operative vaginal delivery, and labor induction/augmentation.

This is precisely what you would expect when mothers and midwives shun lifesaving interventions.

I’ve used the CDC Wonder data from 2003-2008 to demonstrate that in each year, planned homebirth with a homebirth midwives has a neonatal death rate anywhere from 3-7X higher than hospital birth. These new papers add valuable information by looking at severe neurologic outcomes as well and showing that such outcomes are much more common at planned homebirth.

I look forward to seeing how Henci Goer, Ina May Gaskin, Jennifer Block and other professional homebirth advocates attempt explain these statistics away. I’m guessing that they will be at a loss, and therefore simply ignore these hideous results.

For sale
Cloth diapers
Never worn
Midwife rally Monday

 

*With apologies to Hemingway

On June 14, I wrote about Ank de Jonge’s latest attempt to show that homebirth is safe (No, new Dutch study does NOT show that homebirth is safe). As I mentioned at the time, de Jonge continues to slice and dice the Dutch homebirth data is an effort to somehow prove that homebirth is safe, when the data suggests that it is not.

In the latest paper discussed in that post, Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study,  de Jonge concluded:

Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous women these differences were statistically significant…

In other words, there was no difference in severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM) between home and hospital among nulliparous women and a slightly lower rate of SAMM for parous women at homebirth.

There was just one teensy, weensy problem. de Jonge left out the mortality rates. Severe maternal morbidity is an appropriate measure of safely ONLY when death rate is zero or nearly zero. If the death rate is not zero, that MUST be taken into account in assessing safety. My Letter to the Editor of the BMJ regarding this inexplicable oversight was published the same day. de Jonge and colleagues have finally responded, and what do you know, the maternal mortality was NOT zero.

The reply appears to continue the trend of apparent obfuscation of the results.

The authors claim:

We did not mention maternal deaths in our study, but they were included among the women with severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM). There were two maternal deaths in the planned home birth group (2 per 100,000) and three in the planned hospital birth group (6 per 100,000). The differences between these rates were not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test, P=0.367).

They described 1 homebirth death due to cerebral hemorrhage possibly secondary to pre-eclampsia. The authors try to blame the doctors who evaluated the woman at 37 weeks, at which time she was felt to fine. A lot can and does happen in the last week of pregnancy. To blame the doctors who saw the woman a week before her collapse and absolve the midwife who cared for her at the time of birth is bizarre.

What about the other homebirth death? Funny you should mention that. The authors did not say. They lumped the second homebirth death in with the hospital deaths and reported:

The other four women were referred during labour from primary to secondary care because of meconium stained liquor. One woman suffered from sudden collapse during labour, when she was already in secondary care, and died. Although no definite diagnosis was made at postmortem examination, a cardiac cause appeared to be most likely.

A woman who gave birth spontaneously was discharged after one day. On the fourth day postpartum she was readmitted because of profuse vaginal bleeding and shortness of breath. She had a sudden collapse and died. Postmortem examination showed sinus sagittalis superior thrombosis.

Two women died a few weeks after they gave birth from causes not related to the delivery; one from a severe asthma attack, the other one fell down the stairs, had a skull fracture and died of a subarachnoid haemorrhage.

Since the authors did not specify that either of the woman who died of causes unrelated to delivery was in the homebirth group, it seems safe to assume that they were both in the hospital group.

Therefore, as far as I can determine, there were 3 maternal deaths attributable to pregnancy in the entire study, 2 in the homebirth group and one in the hospital group, for a death rate of 2/100,000 in each group. The only one that appears to have been potentially preventable was the one that occurred in the homebirth group. Therefore, the homebirth group had one death that was potentially preventable in the hospital, while the hospital group had none.

The study is underpowered to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in the death rate between the two groups, but the fact that even one woman in the homebirth group died of a potentially preventable cause means that there is no basis for concluding that homebirth is as safer or safer than hospital birth among the women in this study.

Simply put, the death rate was not zero and until the difference (if any) between maternal deaths at home and in the hospital is determined, we cannot draw any conclusions about the safety of homebirth for Dutch mothers.

A more appropriate conclusions for the study would be:

Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labor with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, but this difference was statistically significant only for parous women. However, there was a potentially preventable death in the homebirth group, while there were no potentially preventable deaths in the hospital group. The study is underpowered to detect a difference in maternal mortality between home and hospital, therefore, no conclusion can be drawn about the safety of homebirth.

Yes, fewer women in the homebirth group experienced severe acute maternal morbidity, but that’s nothing to crow about if one of them died and might have been saved in the hospital.

How big a moron do you have to be to actually pay $450 and attend the Trust Birth Babyslaughterers 2013 Conference?

Evidently, an extraordinarily big moron. Perhaps there is another explanation (and I’d be happy if someone would provide it), but I can’t imagine why anyone would attend a conference staffed by the largest collection of birth criminals in the Southern Hemisphere, besides the obvious reason: terminal stupidity.

What’s a birth criminal (aka babyslaughterer)?

A birth criminal is a midwife who ignores the growing pile of tiny bodies, babies who died preventable deaths as a result of her direct or indirect professional actions.

My view of involuntary babyslaughter is that a newborn death resulting from taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk should be considered criminally negligent babyslaughter.

I suppose we ought to give homebirth advocates credit for intellectual honesty. It doesn’t matter to them whether babies live or die and they don’t care who knows it. Apparently, babies who die are just collateral damage in the fight for every woman to put her birth experience ahead of her baby’s very life. Apparently the woman who preside over those preventable deaths have information to impart that aspiring babyslaughterers are anxious to hear.

There are quite a few birth criminals/babyslaughterers at the upcoming conference in Sydney.

The list is led by babyslaughterer extraordinaire, Lisa Barrett. Barrett is a one woman crime wave, presiding over no fewer than 5 preventable deaths, as well as practicing midwifery without a license and taking her claim that a baby who born only barely alive as a result of her negligence should be ignored as not a person all the way to the Australian High Court (and losing). Ironically, Lisa Barrett has done more to strengthen regulation of homebirth than homebirth opponents ever could have managed; she has convincingly demonstrated the dangers of homebirth, the irresponsibility of many homebirth midwives, and their preference for myth over scientific evidence.

As the person who alerted me to the conference noted:

She has a number of presentations happening. Two pre-conference workshops – one on breech birth (she is very good at losing breech babies) and the other on “Linguistic and Hypnotic Speech Patterns for the Antenatal and Birth Period” so that others can manipulate their clients as effectively as she does.

As you can see she is (most frighteningly) now “a master practitioner of NLP, Hypnotherapy, Time Line Therapy, and a life coach.”

It seems that the more babies that have died under your care the more conference sessions you get. She is also presenting “”Mapping the Pelvis” – Learn more about the pelvis so that you can “see” how it is that the baby navigates it.”

And finally – “”Hanzoutta: Progress without VEs” – Let’s talk about the ways to predict dilatation without a vaginal exam. Learn how to gauge the rhythm of a woman’s progress through labour without putting your fingers in her vagina”.

Claire Hall, who has no profile on the site, is talking about optimal foetal positioning. Claire wins the prize for most creative attempt at fooling the Coroner’s Court for her claim that a baby who was pronounced dead two days after birth was actually stillborn. The Coroner didn’t believe her.

Janet Fraser occupies a special place in the pantheon of birth criminals, because she let her own baby die. She gets extra points for publicly declaring that her dead baby not as traumatic for her as birth rape. Really? Who would have guessed that her personal experience meant more to her than whether her baby lived or died?

In addition to the babyslaughterers, there is a particularly impressive collection of birth clowns including:

Barbara Harper (Waterbirth: Barbara Harper spreads stupidity)

Joy Jones, “consultant on the subject of the Brewer Diet, and the creator of the “Brewer Pregnancy Diet” website,” perhaps the epitome of birth quacktivism.

and, who can forget Carla Hartley, originator of the psychobabble mantra “Trust Birth.”

So let’s see, a lecturer on breech birth who has presided over an extraordinary number of breech deaths, a lecturer on fetal positioning who apparently can’t tell whether a baby is dead or alive, a woman who let her own baby die, a nitwit who made up the principles of waterbirth, a nitwit who promotes the completely debunked Brewer diet, and Carla Hartley, perhaps the biggest nitwit of them all.

To the morons who are actually paying $450 and attending Trust Birth Babyslaughterers 2013:

Please stop by and let us know why you think you will learn anything useful from a conference of birth criminals who have presided over an extraordinarily large number of babyslaughter deaths. Inquiring minds want to know.

‘I’m not a monster,’ says midwife charged with death of Moab newborn.

Really? What should we call we call her?

• 1983 Charged with practicing medicine without a license in California; pleaded guilty to reduced charges.
• 1993 Presided over the death of a baby at a twin VBA2C in Michigan
• 1993 Claims “They’ll have to cut off my hands to stop me [from delivering babies].”
• 2012 Presided over a neonatal death at homebirth of a VBA3C mother in Utah, administered Cytotec to induce or augment labor, delivered the baby using a vacuum extractor; massive postpartum hemorrhage.

El Halta has been charged:

Valerie ElHalta, 71, was charged in Grand County’s 7th District Court with unlawful conduct, a third-degree felony; and negligent homicide and reckless endangerment, both class A misdemeanors.

Her response:

When contacted at her home Wednesday by KSL News, ElHalta said she was unaware of the charges.

“I’m totally in shock,” she said. “I didn’t hurt the baby. I just delivered it.”…

“I’m not a monster. I’m just a grandmother,” she said Wednesday outside her Eagle Mountain home.

Cue the rally:

Tara Workman Tulley: Midwives and supporters. Regardless of the reasons for Valerie’s arrest, realize this is the second investigation of an unlicensed midwife this year, and the impact could effect every midwife and out-of-hospital birth. Two investigations is likely not an accident. We need a legislative watch group, and a united front of midwives. I will be setting up a GoTo meeting link for this meeting, and recording it. We will have an input period and figure out how to get ourselves united. We stand united and fall divided.

I only have one question. Who is more hideous? El Halta or the homebirth advocates who support her?

For someone who is claiming that her case should be dismissed because of the hardship of litigating in Massachusetts, Gina is doing a lot of litigating in Massachusetts.

She and her lawyer are blizzarding us with motions, even without first conferring with my lawyers, as the rules require.

You may remember that in the last such episode, Gina claimed that BlueHost never took down my blog (Lawsuit update #5: Really?) and that Daringhost did not force me to move my blog because of the DMCA violations (Let’s take a look at the documents).

We were able to immediately produce the relevant documents that showed that the claims were false, AND a screenshot of Gina boasting on her Facebook page that BlueHost took down my site.

Now, they’re back again with yet another motion, this one claiming that Gina had no way of knowing that I lived in Massachusetts at the time she filed the DMCA notice with Daringhost, because my address was blocked on the Whois page back in October 2012.

Once again, the documents tell a very different story.

Gina filed her DMCA notice with Daringhost on 1/21/13.

Here’s a screenshot of the Whois page for skepticalob.com on THE VERY DAY.

And here’s a screenshot of Gina’s Facebook page on THE VERY DAY that she claims she was unaware that I live in Massachusetts.

Gina is asking the court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds because it is a hardship for her to litigate in Massachusetts and because she did not know that I lived in Massachusetts.

Gina has made it abundantly clear that she has no difficulty litigating in Massachusetts, filing motion after motion after motion in the past 5 months. In addition, she admitted in print that she knew where I lived on the very day that she insists to the court that she did not know.

Very strange.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27713670/Tuteur-20130620_Defendant%27s_Motion_to_Supplement_Record.pdf

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27713670/Tuteur-20130620_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Supplement_Record_-_as_filed.pdf

Hindsight is especially painful for loss mothers.

Heather at The Destiny Manifest:

Our daughter was stillborn at 42 weeks 3 days. She never opened her blue eyes. She never cried. She never nursed at my breast or grabbed her daddy’s finger with her chubby hand, but she was still born, and she deserves to be remembered forever.

Why was she born at 42 weeks and 3 days? Because her mother wanted to avoid another C-section after 2 previous C-sections (including one with an inverted T incision). She knew women who had given birth at 43 and 44 weeks and those babies were fine.

She started labor at 42 weeks and 1 day. Over the next 2 days she continued to have contractions intermittently.

I woke up on Sunday in real pain. It didn’t feel like the labor I’d been having, and it didn’t feel like the way countless books and birth stories and friends have described labor. It was pain and it was harsh. I couldn’t sit, couldn’t stand, couldn’t lay down, couldn’t make it to the bathroom without help and I felt like “if this is what labor really feels like, I give up”. I told David that something felt wrong, that it hurt too much and I needed to go to the hospital NOW.

At the hospital she was examined and found to be dilated 5cm.

David was sitting by my head, holding my hand, both of us as excited as children at Christmas. We were about to have a baby! The nurses were using a handheld doppler to find the heartbeat, and it seemed odd that it was taking so long. They said that “maybe it’s because she’s so far down in your pelvis” and brought in an ultrasound machine and tech. A couple minutes went by and the tech said (very cheerfully), “we’re going to have the doctor come take a look”…

The doctor came in and began the ultrasound. After a couple more minutes, David and I looked at each other and the realization that there was a problem began to dawn. I said, “can you not find her heartbeat?” and the doctor said “no, here is her rib cage and there is no heartbeat there”.

Heather was devastated:

Time seemed to slow to a crawl. I felt cold, lost in some surreal nightmare. David ran to the bathroom and collapsed to the floor, sobbing. The nurses and tech disappeared from our room. The doctor said “I’m so sorry”. David asked if he could possibly be wrong, that maybe he made a mistake. The doctor said that there are no guarantees in life and that there was a chance he was wrong. I asked “how quickly can you get her out?” and he answered “with a cesarean, we can get her out right now”. I said, “then do it, get her out now”.

All thoughts of my much coveted vaginal birth after cesarean were gone from my mind. If a cesarean can save my daughter, do it and do it immediately. Cut me from stem to stern if that’s what it takes for my baby to be okay. But of course, I realized later that the doctor must have known he wasn’t wrong, that our baby was already gone.

During the surgery:

The smell of infection filled the room when our doctor opened my uterus. David stood and watched as the doctor pulled our daughter from my body…

I began to sob in earnest and the anesthesiologist, with tears running down his own face, gave me “something for anxiety”. The nurse called David over and handed him our beautiful daughter, Clara Edith…

Heather is honest about her regrets:

I did not intentionally put my daughter’s life in danger by going two weeks overdue. I would never have chosen to attempt a natural labor and childbirth if I had known that my daughter was going to die…

I allowed my fear, and my absolute belief that I could have a natural childbirth like so many other mothers do, to color my decisions. I assessed risks, but unwittingly I was only looking at one side of the coin. I worried, questioned myself, asked questions and looked for reassurance on natural childbirth message boards. I was told about women who had gone many weeks postdates, women whose babies had no ill effects from passing meconium, women who had breech babies at home with only their husbands in attendance. I believed, completely and absolutely, that I was doing the right thing by avoiding induction and staying home until I was ready to give birth. I allowed popular birth culture to color my decisions.

And she demonstrates tremendous insight:

The natural childbirth community is full of wonderful people, who mean to empower women into trusting their bodies and allowing their babies to be born into the world peacefully. They don’t mean any harm by advocating these beliefs, but unfortunately, it is all too easy for a pregnant and hormonal mother to become hypnotized by the adrenaline high of other women’s experiences. Too often, the risks are skimmed over, with much focus given to staying positive and avoiding negativity…

The risks of meconium aspiration, postmaturity, uterine rupture, maternal mortality and stillbirth are real, and need to be discussed as openly as the benefits and risks of episiotomy, amniotomy and epidurals are. The feeling that pregnant mamas shouldn’t worry themselves that their babies could die, because it stresses them out unnecessarily, is misplaced. Mothers need to know that it can happen to them, because it does happen to mothers just like them every day, so that they can make informed decisions regarding their health care providers, their birthing facilities and their births.

Her conclusion is incredibly powerful:

If in doubt, get to a hospital and make sure that your baby is fine. Don’t hesitate. Above all else, be safe.

No soapbox or belief is worth the life of your baby. Believe me, I know.

(Please, share this post with anyone you know who is pregnant or trying to conceive. Help get the word out to mamas to be aware of the benefits and the risks of the choices that they make regarding their pregnancies and births. If we can help just one mama to make choices that prevent the death of a baby, than we have made all the difference in the world.)

You will never know who it is and how it happened, Heather, but by sharing your story you will prevents deaths and make all the difference in the world.

Lisa Endlich Heffernan, a British banker, airs her regrets about the years she spent at home with her children.

Because of her regrets, she’s trying to warn young women not to give up their careers for their children. If I’ve learned anything at all from 25+ years as a mother, it’s that there are a lot of different ways to successfully mother children. Therefore, in the interests of presenting the other side to young women, and following the structure that Enlich Heffernan used, I offer my 9 reasons why I have no regrets about giving up medical practice to stay home with my four children.*

I stood on the shoulders of the women who came before me. Although I entered medicine at a time when there were few women doctors and scientists, I was not one of the first. I never questioned my ability to handle college, medical school, internship and residency because other women had done it before me. And although I am grateful that they paved the way for me, I don’t for a moment think that they did it because of me or my generation. They became doctors and scientists because they deeply, fiercely wanted to practice medicine or engage in scientific research. They were willing to make sacrifices that I was not prepared to make (no marriage, no children). My generation wanted something more: they set out to have the careers of their dreams WITHOUT having to sacrifice the rest of their lives. In other words, they set out to be just like professional men.

I did not do this to inspire future generations. I did it because that’s what I wanted. And the fact that I and other women refused to compromise in the ways that the first women doctors and scientists were forced to compromise sets a new standard for professional women.

I used my driver’s license far less than my degrees, but I used it a lot. Yes, I spent years driving my children around. Lots of years doing lots of driving. But I discovered an amazing phenomenon: Children believe that when their mother is driving a car, she cannot hear. Therefore, I learned a great deal by listening to my children talk to their friends about the events of the day, the squabbles at school, and the worries of my children and their friends.

I used my degrees nearly every day and in every way during the years I stayed at home. In the first place, I never stopped being a doctor. I worked at night until my oldest was 8 years old and was home during the day. Even when I stopped practicing obstetrics, I always worked as a writer, both for pay and for my own enjoyment.

Second, I, with my husband, was my children’s first teacher. My education prepared me to give them knowledge and experiences that I had not had. My years as a professional gave me confidence to advocate vociferously for my two children with special needs and I think it made a tremendous difference for both of them. It’s not that I was more committed to their success than any other mother; it’s simply that I had a great deal of experience in how “the system” works and knew how to navigate it.

Third, it’s really convenient for a mother to be a doctor. I was able to diagnose ear infections with my otoscope, chest infections with my stethoscope and to tell the difference between mild and serious illness based on my clinical experience.

My kids think I did nothing. Erdich Heffernan complains that her kids think she did nothing. My kids think I did nothing, too, but not because I stayed home. They were also distinctly unimpressed with their father, even though he worked long hours at a prestigious job.

When my oldest was in the 3rd grade he came home with the results of his standardized tests and we discussed them while his 1st grade brother was present. The 3rd grader had done very well. The 1st grader asked me if I had taken those tests when I was in school and whether I did well.

“Yes, I did do well,” I replied, “but Daddy was an even better student than I was. In fact, when we graduated from college, Daddy was one of the top students in our class.”

My son was shocked.

“Really?” he inquired. “Our Daddy?”

Children, even children who have grown to adulthood, don’t see their parents as people. They see them as parents. It’s the nature of the job. If you think your fancy credentials and long hours of hard work are going to impress your children, you are doomed to be very disappointed.”

My world opened up. The author of the HuffPo piece claims that her world narrowed on leaving the work force. Mine opened up. I finally had time for something else besides practicing medicine. I was able to keep up with current events. I did graduate work in medical ethics. I read — voraciously, and still do.

I did a mountain of volunteer work. It was good for me, good for my children (setting an example for them) and good for my community.

I did not worry more. I am a Jewish mother; I could not worry more if I tried. If anything, I worried less, because I was there to supervise and observe. I spent time in my children’s classrooms, went on field trips and hosted playdates. I always knew what was going on.

My marriage remained exactly the same. Actually it got better, because I had more time for myself and more time for my husband. When I was working, he came after the kids and work and frankly, I was so exhausted I didn’t have much time for him. When I stopped working we had more time simply to be together and that was good for us.

My marriage never changed because I was no longer making as much money as I had earned before.

When my daughter was small, she asked me if I felt bad that Daddy made all the money and I had none.

I gently corrected her. “Daddy makes all the money, but it’s all MY money!”

“How does that work?”, she enquired.

I told her.

“If you marry the right guy, who believes that marriage is a partnership, not a business deal, it works just like that.”

I did not become outdated. If anything I am more up to date on the scientific literature than I ever was when I was practicing. Sure, I couldn’t go back to practicing obstetrics without a period of honing my surgical skills, but I could go back if I wanted (though I have no intention of doing so).

I never lowered my sights and I never lost confidence. Why should I? I have lived my life on my own terms, making the decisions that were best for me and my family without regard for what others thought I should do.

I have no regrets about being a stay-at-home mother. That doesn’t mean that it is the right choice for every woman and her family. As for advising younger women, I would say that the right choice is the one that works for you.

Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.

 

*It goes without saying that having the option to stay home with children is the result of  privilege. That’s a topic for another discussion.

A new article about Dr. Michel Odent has me pondering an interesting phenomenon.

Have you ever noticed that it is old white men who feel they must “mansplain” birth to us womenfolk?

What is “mansplaining”?

According to Wikipedia:

To explain (something) condescendingly (to a female listener), especially to explain something the listener already knows, presuming that she has an inferior understanding of it because she is a woman.

The father of childbirth mansplaining was Grantly Dick-Read, who freely admitted that his claims were intended to get women back into the kitchen and pregnant, instead of agitating for political and economic rights.

He was followed by a string of childbirth mansplainers:

Fernand Lamaze
Frederick LeBoyer
Robert Bradley (“Husband Coached Childbirth”)
Marsden Wagner

And, of course, Dr. Odent.

What are Odent’s qualifications for mansplaining childbirth to us womenfolk?

The self-proclaimed “childbirth specialist” is not an obstetrician. He’s a surgeon. As far as I can tell, he has no qualifications of any kind for issuing childbirth instructions beyond his “fascination (and adoration) of women and the way they have delivered babies since the beginning of time.” In other words, no qualifications at all.

He’s publicizing his latest book, Childbirth and the Future of Homo Sapiens.

But in and among the complex scientific jargon and references, are some light-bulb moments; some absolute gems that you will keep turning over in your mind for days. His book is a tinderbox that will infuriate both the pro-C-section lobbyists (babies born this way are five times more likely to suffer allergies he points out) and the natural birthers (infant death globally between birth and 28 days appears twice as high after planned homebirth than hospital birth).

Odent’s conclusion:

… [M]illennia of evolution has caused women to lose the ability to birth as nature intended (ideally, in his mind, alone except for one “knitting midwife”) and therefore our global priority should be “to rediscover the primary needs of laboring women.”

The newspaper reporter cautions:

But before we dismiss him as a kaftan-wearing loon who likes women to suffer, we should listen.

Okay, let’s listen. Then we can dismiss him as a kaftan-wearing loon who like women to suffer.

On oxytocin:

“Most women give birth now on a synthetic Oxytocin drip. It is the most common medical intervention in childbirth,” he explains. But with no long term studies on its side effects, he says: “We are playing with the Oxytocin systems of human beings without knowing what we are doing.”

Thanks to masses of recent research into its effects, medical science now accepts that natural Oxytocin is the ‘love’ hormone needed to initiate and maintain labour. Nicknamed the ‘shy’ hormone, it requires a dark, quiet, familiar and non-threatening environment in order to flow (the antithesis of noisy, brightly lit maternity wards with unknown faces coming and going). Its enemy is adrenalin – hence the increasing popularity of birthing mothers using hypnotherapy to stay calm and offset the negative effects of ‘fear, fight and flight.’

Odent is a fan of this type of Oxytocin (hence his claim that women should birth privately with a midwife who is so busy knitting that she doesn’t transmit her own adrenalin through the ‘mirror neurone complex’). The hormone ‘peaks’ moments after birth and causes the overwhelming sense of ‘love’ that some women report on seeing their baby.

But he is frankly terrified by the long term effects of synthetic Oxytocin (which suppresses the natural version) on babies, mothers and – controversially – their bond. Odent points out that autistic children produce less Oxytocin. He is incensed that “thousands of articles all over the world” have discussed the link between MMR jab and autism although there is no “valuable epidemiological study detecting correlations” between the two.

No long term studies on its effects? Literally tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of women and babies have been exposed to synthetic oxytocin (which is an chemically identical to oxytocin produced in the body) over a period of 2 full generations, and we have yet to discern any harmful effects.

The rest of Odent’s claims are also unsubstantiated.

The enemy of oxytocin is adrenalin? Really? You know what dramatically increases adrenalin in labor? Pain! You know what dramatically decreases adrenalin in labor? Epidurals! According to Odent’s “reasoning,” every woman ought to have an epidural in labor.

Synthetic oxytocin suppresses the natural version? Really? Why would that be a problem? We only give synthetic oxytocin when there isn’t enough natural oxytocin to get the job done. And it works.

Oytocin causes the overwhelming sense of ‘love’ that some women report on seeing their baby? Where’s the evidence for that claim? There is no evidence. Odent simply made it up.

But wait! There’s more:

Odent is perhaps most famous for recently claiming that men should not attend births…

“It is only in the middle of the twentieth century that the birth environment became ‘masculinised’. The number of specialist doctors increased at lightening speed and almost all were men,” he writes.

Now that’s funny. Here’s a man complaining that childbirth has become masculinized while simultaneously pushing his masculine beliefs about childbirth. Ironic, no?

This book reads like a giant ‘I dare you’ to the medical world. He dares researchers to open the can of worms to ponder if ‘HOW’ we are born impacts on ‘WHO’ we become. And that in turn dares the obstetric world to treat women as sensitive yet capable mammalian beings rather than mere parts in a masculinised, medicalised production line of baby-makers pumped full of potentially harmful drugs.

His book asks if this is “utopian?”

No, it’s not utopian.

It’s classic fabricated, unsubstantiated mansplaining.