Strollerderby : c-section

Babble Talk: Do We Still Judge Women for Having C-Sections?

Jen Chaney — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:02:00 GMT

I have had a C-section. So has Tova Mirvis. So have many women. So why do so many of us still feel like we're being judged for it?

That's one of the questions Mirvis tackles in her Babble essay, "In Praise of the C-Section," a thoughtful piece in which she acknowledges the sense of inferiority that can result from having a Caesarean, as well as the need -- however irrational -- to justify one's reasons for doing so.

"When I was pregnant with my third child, I accidentally wandered into a conversation in which two mothers I'd recently met were extolling the virtues of homebirths and water births, midwives and doulas," she writes. "When the well-meaning moms asked about my birth plan, I told them I was having a scheduled C-section. Their faces conveyed self-righteous disapproval and my mind was immediately awhirl in disclaimers: I was having the scheduled C not because I wanted the convenience, not because I was afraid of labor, not because I didn't want to miss my manicure appointment. 'My oldest son would have died if I didn't have a C-section!' I said instead."

Every woman who has a C-section has a different reason for doing so. In Mirvis's case, as she describes in more detail in the essay, she went that route with all three of her children because of complications, including last-minute ones during her first delivery that threatened her son's health. Other moms may elect a C because they've lost, or nearly lost, a child in the past and want to take whatever steps they can to control the process. And still others, like me, have C-sections because there is no other option. My son was breech and few OBs are willing to risk a vaginal delivery under those circumstances.

Are any of these mothers less motherly because of the types of deliveries they had? I may be biased since one of them is me, but I think most would say, no, of course not. But what about a woman confronted by no extenuating circumstances or complications who chooses to have a C because she doesn't want to have a vaginal birth?

Aha, this is where the judgment comes in. Having a C-section when you don't necessarily need one is indicative, to some women anyway, of a lazy, shallow and self-absorbed mother, someone who doesn't have the cajones to do a little pushing, grunting and lamaze breathing. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can understand where the perception comes from. Elective C-section moms have the same reputation as the boss who takes credit for all of her employees' great ideas: they want to revel in the glory without having to do any of the hard work.

But here's the truth of the matter, something Mirvis wisely points out at the end of her essay: How we deliver our children ultimately has nothing to do with what kind of mothers we are. So maybe we should stop judging the elective (or non-elective) C-section mothers, or feeling guilty for not having vaginal births, or developing inferiority complexes because we broke down and got an epidural. Maybe we should realize that the test of our motherhood really begins once that healthy child arrives on this Earth and in our arms.

As Morvis writes, "If the experience of childbirth is in fact a crucial process, then let it be the process of teaching us that our children will emerge in ways varied and complicated, not necessarily in times or manners of our choosing, neither made in our image nor as proof of our prowess. Let birth remind us that, with children, so little goes according to even the most well-drawn plan."

Well said.

My Wife Says: 10 Reasons to Get Plastic Surgery after the Baby - Part 2

Cole Gamble — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:00:00 GMT

7) After the surgery, you can really milk the fact that you just had surgery and can't do much; therefore you get some much needed R&R and time to yourself.

8) If you have a significant other, they may tell you that you are still beautiful and that it is up to you to make up your mind about having surgery done. That is a lie. They DO love you, but don't want to insult you by cheering for plastic surgery.

9) Most men love breasts, and the way they do them now, they are so natural looking, and your stomach gets very tight. It will add so much spark to your sex life.

10) Don't feel bad that they are so turned on by the "new you". They've always loved you but now you're smokin' hot so they can't help themselves

Bonus Reason: 11) Don't let other women try to talk you out of it and call you shallow. If you are doing it for the right reasons, there is nothing wrong with gaining more confidence in yourself. Just because you're a mom, you don't have to look the part!

Back to Part 1

More by this Author:

Musical SpongeBob Rectal Thermometer. Fun for Your Kid’s Butt?

10 Things They Don’t Tell You about Parenting

The 12 Do’s and Don’ts of Throwing Your Kid’s Birthday Party

Things You Should Never Say at a Chuck E Cheese Birthday Party

My Wife Says: 10 Reasons to Get Plastic Surgery after the Baby

Cole Gamble — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Look, ladies. I’m not saying YOU NEED PLASTIC SURGERY. You look great. Never better. Amazingly you haven’t lost that pregnancy glow.

We good? Okay. There are some women, however, that may feel their body lost something in the baby making process. That’s certainly how my wife felt, which is why she insisted I write this post. During her second (and final, I assure you) pregnancy, Nicole vowed she’d be getting a tummy tuck. After the birth, she wouldn’t even let me see her stomach, but assured me it looked like a marsupial pouch. Some women’s bodies snap back remarkably well. Nicole’s skin is not so elastic. According to her, our children “ruined her.” I didn’t think so, but when it comes to plastic surgery, it’s a person’s own esteem that is the most important consideration.

Nicole is incredibly happy with her surgeries (she had breast augmentation as well as her chest looked significantly different after two kids). And these are the reasons, in her words, why you might want post-baby plastic surgery too.

1) Most doctors will let you on a payment program. You can also submit it to your insurance company; say if you’re deflated, flabby stomach is bothering your lower back.

2) Let's face it, there are a lot of women who have had babies and you'd never know by looking at them. But there are some pretty damaged bodies out there as well. Don't feel bad; be at least grateful that you can be fixed!

3) A breast augmentation can look very natural. They use silicone again and now put the implant under the muscle, so it’s your breast that you see. Get a teardrop shaped implant so they don't look fake. Your breasts will look great and not like dirty tube socks anymore.

4) The other invaluable surgery is a tummy tuck. A lot of stretched out skin is removed, but most importantly, they sew back your fascia muscle to look flat again. (You know the mini butt on your tummy? That is the fascia the muscle).

5) Many women, post surgery, have found that they look better after the surgery than they ever had before.

6) The procedures are a bit painful, but if you have birth or had a C-section, it is a breeze.

Continue to Part 2

More by this Author:

Musical SpongeBob Rectal Thermometer. Fun for Your Kid’s Butt?

10 Things They Don’t Tell You about Parenting

The 12 Do’s and Don’ts of Throwing Your Kid’s Birthday Party

Things You Should Never Say at a Chuck E Cheese Birthday Party

Database of Hospital VBAC Policies Released

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:29:00 GMT

If you're planning a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), you'll want to know about the International Cesarean Awareness Network's new database of hopsital VBAC policies (i.e. supportive, ban them, de facto ban because no docs do them...).

While the Our Bodies Ourselves blog notes a few small issues with methodology, it's a darn good start. I've heard of too many people learning too late that the hospital they were planning to go to wouldn't allow them to try VBAC.

Photo by davhor.

More by this author:

Two Wombs, Two Babies: Mom Delivers Twins

JeanneSager — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:18:00 GMT

I'm a sucker for a happy ending.

Like finding out you have two uteruses (uteri actually) and getting pregnant with twins - one child per uterus. Oh, and best of all? Giving birth to two healthy little girls.

Michigan mom Sarah Reinfelder has uterus didelphys - a rare condition in which the two tubes in a female fetus don't join to create one larger, hollow organ. They remain two distinct parts of the body - uteri.

The condition isn't dangerous, and many women go on to have children, but twins from uterus didelphys are rare, which makes Reinfelder's daughters extra special. So far, only three cases have been reported in the entire world.

The larger twin developed in Reinfelder's larger uterus, weighing in at four pounds, fifteen ounces. Her sister was a full pound smaller. The girls were delivered via a C-section, approximately seven weeks prematurely. The babies are expected to be released from the hospital in three to four weeks. Reinfelder and husband Shane have an elder child - 10-month-old William at home. They were shocked to find out she was pregnant with the twins - especially because she was on the birth control pill at the time.

"I was like okay, and then they did the ultrasound and said, 'Guess what? You're pregnant twice!' and that's when I almost wet my pants," Sarah told her local TV news station.

Can you really blame her?

Image: Upper Michigan Source

Via Jezebel

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Three Generations, Just One Birthday

JeanneSager — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:37:00 GMT

The chances of having three generations in one family share the same birthday are seven in a million.Meet number seven - she was born February 2.

So, for that matter, was Anala Broussard's mother, Jasmine, and her grandmother, Cherise Terry.

I had to laugh at the comments from an astrologer in the Mercury News article on the family: "These kind of ties between people is a strong sign that they are karmically linked and shared other lives." Yes, they're karmically linked all right, biologically linked too!

But whether you're the superstitious type or not, there's something just this side of coincidence about every female in one family making her entrance on the same day.

As the Terrys point out, it does have a drawback for Mom - her birthday ceases to be important as the focus of celebrations and parties goes to her daughter, and now it will go to her daughter's daughter. But I suppose it must save a bundle on birthday cakes?

It also bears noting that Feb. 2 is Groundhog Day - and like Bill Murray, this family is apparently living one day over and over again.

Does your family have a double - or triple - birthday? Has it impacted celebrations?

Image: Mercury News

The Trouble With Wanting a VBAC

Madeline Holler — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:54:00 GMT

With first babies, you have all the choices in the world how to give birth -- drug-free, with a doula, in a hospital surrounded by the family, c-section. Not that the plan always works out, but a mom-to-be can dream.

With subsequent babies, however, the options narrow quickly for a group of women who, for whatever reason, wound up giving birth to the first via cesarean section.

Pamela Paul's article in this week's Time, "The Trouble With Repeat Cesareans," would more accurately be titled "Hey, Good Luck With That VBAC."

Paul doesn't set out to argue whether women should be allowed to choose to give birth via c-section. Rather, she illustrates how, for an alarmingly large number of women, the choice to give birth vaginally isn't even there -- c-section is the only apparent option.

She writes that although VBAC is a safe option, nine out of 10 women with a prior cesarean undergo repeat cesareans for subsequent births. Of course repeat cesarean might be the woman's choice, but vast numbers of are basically forced into the operating room.

From Time:

...the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN), a grass-roots group, recently called 2,850 hospitals that have labor and delivery wards and found that 28% of them don't allow VBACs, up from 10% in its previous survey, in 2004. ICAN's latest findings note that another 21% of hospitals have what it calls "de facto bans," i.e., the hospitals have no official policies against VBAC, but no obstetricians will perform them.

These bans left one California woman to drive 100 miles to a hospital where she would be allowed to attempt a VBAC.

This is interesting because the National Institutes for Health, recognizing the tremendous cost and associated risks of surgical birth, has set a goal of decreasing the number of cesareans by, in part, upping the VBAC rate to 37 percent by 2010. In 2006, VBACs only accounted for 8 percent of all births in the U.S.

Paul counters the studies and VBAC safety fears many women, doctors and -- probably most importantly -- insurance companies operate under. And explains how we got to where we are today, even though just over 10 years ago, attempting VBAC was quite common. Several high profile lawsuits sent malpractice insurance through the roof. She qoutes a doctor who admits the "once a cesarean, always a cesarean" is an issue of money, not patient safety.

Paul also writes on Huffington Post her own experience when she wanted a VBAC. She found who she thought was a VBAC friendly doctor, only when she was six months pregnant he wanted to talk c-section scheduling. She balked and when she went in to give birth, the on-call doc at her supposedly VBAC-friendly hospital wouldn't talk to her while she was in labor and didn't answer his pager when it was time for her to push. Lovely!

I'm curious whether what hoops you had to jump through to get support for a VBAC or if you had to through in the towel. If you had a repeat c-section, was that your choice? Avoiding the battle?

McCain Takes Aim at Obama's Fancy 'Copter

Round 1: Baby Food Taste-Off

Preemie to Pediatrician

How the Recession Will Mess With Your Marriage

Photo: Time

Baby Born Two Days After Mom's Death

JeanneSager — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:40:00 GMT

There's no avoiding the horrors of this story. A woman has died. A mom will never get to see her baby girl.

And yet, there's something beautiful about the story of little Aya Jayne Soliman (OK, beautiful and total sob, melt-down inducing).

Her mother was forty-one, a former skating champion, who always wanted to be a mother. When she collapsed from a brain hemmorhage at twenty-five weeks pregnant, she could have lost that chance. But doctors decided to keep her alive for two more days, to give her baby girl a chance at life.

They administered two shots of steroids to boost the baby's lungs, and forty-eight hours after declaring Jayne Soliman braindead, doctors performed a C-section to bring into the world little Aya Jayne (thus named by her father because "Aya" is Arabic for "miracle). The baby is just over two pounds, but she's alive and faring well in the hospital. And her father, Mahmoud Soliman, is struggling to contain the grief at losing his wife with the happiness that her "one true wish" was fulfilled.

"She would have been a great mum. In the space of forty-eight hours I have experienced joy at the birth of my child and endured torment over losing my wonderful wife," Soliman said.

There's still a long road ahead of them (imagine, two pounds!), but often the birth of a child can help rouse a family from its grief - if for no other reason than the demands that an infant makes on their time. There's no second to think sad thoughts when the baby's screaming for a diaper change or the next feeding.

And, hopefully, one day, Aya Jayne will grown up and learn that even in death, her mother was fighting for her. (Yes, you can start weeping now - I am).

Image: BBC News (Jayne Soliman with friends)

Cops End Search for Baby Thrown in Hospital Trash

Dad Finds Daughter Abducted During Bosnian War

Designer Baby Born Without Cancer Gene

An Early C-Section Could Harm Your Baby

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

Cops End Search for Baby Thrown in Hospital Trash

JeanneSager — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:09:00 GMT

I'm still sputtering over this one. A baby is dead, and somehow his little body ended up not in the hospital's morgue but in their trash.

Now he's gone, police have called off a search for his body, and his mother is convinced the hospital is covering something up.

Kalynn Moore says when she gave birth via C-section to her little boy, Bashere Davon Moyd Jr., on Dec. 21, he was breathing and very much alive. She says doctors spent twenty minutes trying to stabilize him before a nurse wrapped him in a blanket and let her hold his dead body (the picture above was taken then, it's the only link she has to the little boy).

The hospital, however, says the baby was stillborn - as in never alive - and that she was drifting in and out of consciousness because of the anesthesia administered to perform the C-section. They initially told Moore that her son was taken to the morgue. When funeral home workers arrived at the hospital on Jan. 2 to pick up little Bashere, he was nowhere to be found. Christ Hospital says his corpse was either consumed by the flames of an incinerator or is lost amid hundreds of tons of garbage. A large portion of that garbage was shipped out via train to a Kentucky landfill.

Police stopped searching today, and closed the case, citing this not as a criminal matter but an "unfortunate incident [that] was the result of procedural deficiencies and human error."

I understand people are human, but how does a mistake of this magnitude happen? How does a baby become trash? And how can this not be considered gross malfeasance?

As mothers giving birth, we trust the hospital to take care of our children - alive and dead. The hippocratic oath calls for healthcare works to first do no harm. Misplacing a medical chart is an accident. Misplacing a baby is failure to act within the guidelines set for medical facilities, the guidelines that earned them that trust. Not only should someone be held criminally liable in this case, but the hospital should be prepared for a civil lawsuit. I hope they lose.

Via Jezebel

Image: MSNBC

Parents Wait a Decade to Report Missing Child

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

New Babies Wrapped in Holiday Stockings

An Early C-Section Could Harm Your Baby

Jen Chaney — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:28:00 GMT

Deciding to have a Caesarean section at 37 weeks, when an infant is technically full-term, should be harmless, right? Wrong, according to a new study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The information in the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and reported by many media outlets, including the New York Times, says that babies born via C-section at 37 weeks are twice as likely to develop complications as children delivered via C-section at 39 weeks. At 38 weeks, the increase in medical risk is also higher, but only by 50 percent. In other words, it's safest to have that Caesarean at 39 or 40 weeks. Or, to put another spin on this data, women who elect to have C-sections a little ahead of the curve, primarily for reasons of convenience, are putting their kids at risk.

Of course, as we all have heard and read, more women have been doing just that in recent years. As the Times reports, 30 percent of deliveries in 2006 were "Cs," an increase of more than 20 percent over 10 years prior.

Now, a lot of the blame for that gets placed on the moms, those "horrible control-freak women who just have to organize and schedule everything." But I suspect that, at least in some cases, OBs also bear some of the responsibility for encouraging women to go ahead and schedule the 'ol C because it's just as convenient for them as it is for the mom. At the least, doctors may not be discouraging women from taking that course of action.

New Risks Associated with Elective Deliveries

They Say: Even Late Preemies at Higher Risk

Image: newyorktimes.com

In light of this new study, I wonder if we'll see a shift in that trend, both in terms of what OBs and their patients will allow. No matter how attached we are to our Blackberries and Google Calendars, we all want to deliver healthy babies. And this knowledge could very well change people's plans.

Given the information in this study, would you elect to have an early C-section or would you wait until that 39th or 40th week?

Two Doctors Needed to Deliver 14-Pound Baby

Jen Chaney — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:02:00 GMT

Here are three words most new moms don't want their nurses to utter while helping to deliver their babies: "Oh my God!"

But apparently one couldn't hold back when she got a look at Richard Sault, a 14 pound, two ounce baby boy delivered last week via C-section in Laguna Hills, Calif. As the Orange County Register reports, two doctors were needed to lift the child out of mother Sara Sault's womb. And all I can say is ... damn.

As the Register also notes, the 21-inch long kid outgrew his car seat mere seconds after birth. So much for all that research his parents did on whether to buy a Britax or a Graco Snugride.

Little Richard -- man, that's a play on words his parents could not have seen coming -- may be the largest child ever born in Orange County. But he isn't the biggest baby ever. According to the Guiness Book of World Records, that one weighed in at 22.5 pounds, which is darn close to the size of an Olsen twin.

So if you think it feels like you're running a marathon by carrying around a six or seven pound child, think again. Compared to Sara Sault, all you're doing is taking a leisurely stroll around the block.

P.S. In honor of Richard Sault's arrival, Fox News has put together this photo gallery salute to large babies. Click and enjoy the many rolls of adorable infant fat.

Image: Orange County Register

Woman Induces to Beat Health-Insurance Cancellation Date, Fails

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:40:00 GMT

It's a story painful in every way: Starla Darling was only days from her due date when she heard from a fellow Archway employee that the company was going bankrupt, they were being laid off, and their health insurance was being canceled in two days.

She panicked, ran to her midwives, had them induce labor, and ended up with an emergency c-section. She had been planning a water birth and natural labor. (Granted, there's no guarantee she would have had one anyway, but induction does increase the likelihood of c-section dramatically.)

The worst part? Insurance didn't cover it anyway and newly laid-off Darling has an $18,000 medical bill. She would have been better off to wait. But there was no way for her to know that and no one can blame her for taking what she thought was the cautious route.

It seems Archway was behind on its premiums and apparently the insurer has been denying a bunch of claims from that week, before the employees were told their coverage was ended. Frankly, at the least, someone ought to be responsible for making sure that claims made while employees still believed they had coverage are paid. After all, they had paid their share of the premiums. In fact, it's really Archway's fault more than the insurer, though I would hold Blue Cross Blue Sheild responsible too. That's just not OK.

I'm afraid we're only going to be seeing more of this stuff.

More by this author:

Pre-Term Elective C-Sections Are Dangerous: So Why Insure Them?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:00:00 GMT

Michael McGuire is CEO of UnitedHealth, a health-insurance provider in New Jersey. In an op-ed in the Trenton Times recently he talked intelligently about the health dangers of elective pre-term c-sections.

The evidence keeps mounting—prematurity, even by a few weeks, means higher rates of breathing problems, cerebral palsy, NICU stays, etc. When the baby's not ready to come out, it's not ready, folks.

McGuire makes the impressive assertion that when he explained this carefully to a "pilot group" of physicians and hospitals and they stopped scheduling c-sections before 39 weeks, there was a 46 percent drop in NICU stays. Those are results to write home about. As he writes, "That's almost half the number of newborns with potential health problems, almost half the number of distraught parents, al most half the number of potential tragedies. The cost savings to these hospitals, the parents and the health-care system is enormous."

He notes carefully, as do I, that sometimes a pre-term c-section is medically necessary for health of mother and/or baby. Obviously, that is not what I'm talking about. But I would include c-sections that are planned for medical reasons,* but where there is no medical reason not to carry the baby to term. I think those are far, far more common than the over-hyped "too posh to push" phenomenon.

So here's what I want to know: If it's documented to be such a health risk, why don't McGuire and his colleagues just stop paying for c-sections that are unnecessarily scheduled at an unsafe time?

Insurers already go out of their way to not cover things they claim are optional (including some that are emphatically not), not to mention dangerous. Usually I question their judgment, but the evidence is pretty compelling on this one.

I'm all for educating docs, but it seems to me the insurers could stop this practice cold with their purse strings.

Photo by César Rincón.

*(Of course, many of those "medical reasons," like a previous c-sections or breech presentations, don't actually require a c-section, but that's a separate post.)

Related Posts:

More by this author:

They Say: Even Late Preemies at Higher Risk

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:02:00 GMT

While it's long been known that premature babies face a much higher incidence of cerebral palsy and other medical problems, most of the infants thought to be at risk were those born before 34 weeks -- the tiny babies, notably premature, whose entire bodies can fit into the palm of their father's hands. But new research suggests that even bigger, healthier-seeming babies, when born before term, are much more likely to fall victim to the health problems of prematurity. And at a time when more and more women are giving birth early due to inductions or scheduled C-sections, that risk needs to be better communicated, according to the doctors who authored the study.

The study, which examined the circumstances of more than 140,000 babies born at 30 weeks or later, concluded that babies born from 34 to 36 weeks' gestation, although often appearing as big and healthy as full-term newborns, were three times more likely to have cerebral palsy than babies born at 37 weeks, and up to 25% more likely to face mental retardation and other developmental delays. Because the babies in the study have not yet entered elementary school, the authors point out, it's too early to know whether other learning-based problems will be detected.

While overall rates of prematurity are fairly steady, the number of babies born from 34-36 weeks is growing, and currently represents one in 11 births in the US. The study did not look into the reasons for the late preterm births, and some surely were medically indicated (pre-eclampsia, for instance, pretty much demands that a baby be born early, to save both lives).According to the study's authors, however, some of those "late preterm" births were due to early inductions or C-sections that were not medically necessary (remember that the next time a Hollywood starlet says she's due "sometime in the fall" and has a six-pounder).

Pre-term Elective C-Sections Are Dangerous: So Why Insure Them?

More by this author:

Is This Baby Obese? Aussie Mom Says No
Baby Nearly Starves to Death, Diluted Formula to Blame
Grandmother’s Right? Or Totally Obnoxious?
Health Scam: Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Mama’s Got a Brand New Bag

Today Show Says: Doulas Get in the Way

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:30:00 GMT

Despite having been exceedingly happy with my own home birth, I know birth location is a very personal choice. When I have friends who are planning to give birth in a hospital, I don't go home-birth evangelical on them. I just have three words: "Get a doula."

A doula, or labor assistant, is a trained birth attendant, but not a medical professional. Their role is to provide support for the laboring woman—reassurance, massage, etc.—and her partner, and also to be a patient advocate when needed, not inserting their own opinions, but understanding what the parents want to happen under certain circumstances and sticking up for it. How many OBs read birth plans these days? Breastfeeding, circumcision, pain relief . . . In these days of understaffed hospitals, it's good have someone keeping track of you, your needs, and your decisions.

The extra, consistent support makes a difference. In fact as far back as the 1970s, all sorts of clinical studies show that the presence of a doula reduces complications and c-section rates and improves mothers' feelings about the birth outcomes. Sounds perfect, doesn't it? A nice middle ground in the birth-location fight, a win-win situation? DONA International, a group that trains doulas, was hopeful that that was the message that a recent Today Show segment on doulas would spread.

They, and many others who have used doulas, were dismayed to find that instead a huge amount of the segment was devoted to a doctor who wanted to emphasize how doulas get in the way, inserting their own (non-doctorly!) opinions, and arguing with doctors. Her hospital has actually banned them. I have to wonder if they had any hard numbers on birth outcomes that contradicted the larger clinical studies, or whether they just don't like being challenged.

If it had just been her inclusion that was the problem with the segment, I would have disappointed but understood that it was coming from the twisted meaning of "balance" that operates in journalism these days (i.e., "We must find one extreme opposing viewpoint, even if it's a lie or represents only 2 people out of the whole world"). But the host and resident expert were also astoundingly snotty and condescending throughout, full of smug phrases like "buyer beware" (You know, unlike choosing an OB) and "this is a luxury for most women" (You know, unlike an increased risk of major abdominal surgery, which is just fine) and "Make sure they know they're not there to get in the way."

Yes, doulas are not medical professionals and shouldn't be trying to act as such. But as this stunning article points out, unfortunately, laboring women often need someone adovcating for them, and it shouldn't always fall on the partner.

Interestingly, the text article on the Today Show's site is very different in tone and content, and much more positive.

DONA hasn't issued an official response yet, but it's planning one. Its supporters are, not surprisingly, already asking people to write in and complain.

More by this author:

Baby Boy Developed in Mom's Intestine Delivered Via Cesarean

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:32:00 GMT

It was supposed to be just another C-section. But when doctors cut open an Indian mom to deliver her son, they found the little boy wasn't in the uterus. He was in her sigmoid colon, the space at the end of her large intestine.

As recently as two days before delivery, doctors saw nothing wrong with the woman's second pregnancy. But at 37 weeks pregnant, she arrived at the hospital emergency room in extreme pain with her abdomen "tender and tense." Rushed into surgery, doctors soon found the mother of two mother of two (including the newborn baby boy) had a rare secondary abdominal pregnancy. They happen in one in ten thousand pregnancies, but the fetus rarely makes it out of the first trimester. Only 109 moms with a secondary abdominal pregnancy has delivered a baby in the entire world; this is only the second in India.

A study in the Journal of the Institute of Medicine, published in 1998, followed the first Indian mom to deliver after a secondary abdominal pregnancy. It reports the risk of maternal death is 17 times greater than the average pregnancy, 90 times greater than an intrauterine pregnancy (where the baby develops in the uterus).

Uncontrollable bleeding is one of the chief risks to the mother, and 30-year-old Meena had to be treated mid-surgery to stop the bleeding. It worked, and doctors were able to successfully deliver her child without any further trouble. The little boy weighed two and a quarter kilograms (roughly four pounds).

Both mom and baby are doing fine.

Source: The Times of India

Image: DailyMail

Five Movies You Shouldn't Watch While Pregnant

Australian Family Says They Were Served Poop Ice Cream

They Say: Depression Can Lead to Premature Birth

Family Keeps Dead Mother in the Freezer For More Than a Year

Teen Gives Birth ... Nine Hours After Discovering Pregnancy

Woman on Pill Conceives Identical Triplets

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:05:00 GMT

The chances of getting pregnant while on the birth control pill are about 1 to 2 percent—this is actually not an insignificant percentage, when you consider that about 2 women out of 100 on the pill will get pregnant. But the chances of having identical triplets are laughably minuscule: 200 million to one.

So, the odds of having both of these things happen simultaneously are, well, too tiny for me to wrap my mind around. But that is exactly what happened to 22-year-old Kirsty Hale. Though they profess to be still in shock, Hale and her fiancé, 28-year-old Toby Wilson, quickly adjusted to the idea of becoming an “instant family.” Lily, Gabriella, and Alicia were born by emergency C-section a few days ago, and are all in good health.

Photo: The Daily Mail

C-Sections Go "Natural"

Amy Kuras — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:38:00 GMT

As someone who had two, I am a pretty staunch defender of C-sections if that's the best thing for the mother and the baby (and for the record, I feel the same way about homebirth and whatever other options are out there to give mothers and babies the birth experience they wish for). But I'll acknowledge one criticism of them as valid – they don’t give the mother and baby very much of a chance to bond immediately after birth.

Salon's Broadsheet wrote last week about the idea of "natural" C-sections, which is gaining ground among some doctors. In short, if a c-section is non-emergency, they let the birth partner watch, uterine contractions (versus lots of pulling OUCH) can help deliver the baby, and babies are placed on the mother immediately for skin to skin contact.

I love this idea, although I wouldn’t want things to go so far as an unmedicated c-section (OMG). With my first baby, she was born by emergency c-section after a pretty terrifying labor experience (anyone who would like to trash me for having a c-section doesn’t get to judge unless they got to hear their baby's heartbeat slow almost to a stop while they lay petrified and helpless to save her). I couldn’t touch her right away, or even for a few hours, and really the whole thing left me kind of shocked and numb.

With my little guy, it was planned and the whole thing was different emotionally – not least because our hospital had, in the three-plus years between kids, instituted a "bonding nurse" program after surgical births. Also, the nurse anesthetist that was by my head during the procedure put up a mirror so I could see my son emerge and she helped my husband put the baby's head on my shoulder right away, so I could kiss him and snuggle him.

That in and of itself was so much more wonderful than my daughter's birth, but the other thing that was great was that my husband got to leave the room with him and carry him off to the nursery, and bring him to me in recovery when I arrived. The bonding nurse stripped him down and let me encourage him nto urse right away and just let me hold him for as long as I liked, which I think had everything to do with how great I felt right after his birth.

Circumstances surrounding my two birth experiences were so different I can’t say that my son's was so much better just because of the attention paid to bonding with him, and I am pretty strongly bonded to my girl as well. But I know I am awfully glad I had the chance, and I wish everybody did. Let's hope this catches on.

C-Sections May Hinder Mother-Baby Bonding

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:07:00 GMT

With nearly a third of babies in the U.S. delivered by C-section, many researchers are wondering how if, at all, the experience of undergoing labor contractions, which release hormones that are linked to maternal behavior, affects a mother’s bond with her baby.

A new study from Yale University has found that women who give birth vaginally are more responsive to their babies’ cries than women who give birth by C-section. This increased responsiveness may be linked to the brain's innate response to natural birth, since brain scans on post-partum women indicated that the areas of the brain that are linked to motivation and emotions were less active in women who had had had C-sections.

This research does come with some important caveats. The brain scans were conducted on 12 women—six of whom had given birth naturally and six of whom had had Caesarean sections. 12 is pretty small number. Also, the women who had their babies delivered by C-section had all elected to do so. So there is certainly the possibility that the maternal differences the researchers found between the two groups were due to a personality difference between mothers who choose natural births and those who opt for C-sections, even when medically unnecessary.

Lastly, the brain scans were conducted on women two to four weeks after birth. Clearly, this is no indication of what kinds of mothers they will be in the long term.

Photo: BBC

Woman Sues After No Meds C-Section

Best of FameCrawler: Week of July 25th

Whit Honea — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Pregnant Man Shares Baby Photos & Baby Name

Angie and Brad Couldn't Get It Done on Their Own?

Mindy McCready: Miscarriage?

What is Wrong With Katie Holmes?

2008 Emmy Nominations: Five Drama Mamas

Sex Tape: A-Rod and Madonna!

Maggie Gyllenhaal on Letterman- He Wishes

Jennifer Garner's Baby Bump: She's Pregnant Alright

Bob Geldof's Daughter Peaches' Drug Overdose

Brad Pitt Pulls A Britney

Jennifer Aniston, Oh So Gracious

Ashlee Simpson's C-Section

They Say: Doctors Have Feelings Too

Amy Kuras — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:32:00 GMT

Hmmm, maybe they are not coldblooded perpetrators of the "birth-industrial complex" after all: One in 10 obstetricians have been sufficiently impacted by the stillbirth or neonatal death of a baby they delivered that they have considered giving up their practice, and three quarters said they had profound anxiety, guilt and stress over such negative outcomes for their patients, according to a University of Michigan study of more than 800 OBs.

As somebody whose kids were both birthed via c-section, one emergency, one not, I am not a fan of the Ricki Lake-esque earthy-birthies in the first place. I've got no beef with midwives, homebirth, natural childbirth or anything else that lets someone give birth the way she wants, but I expect the same respect accorded to how I chose to give birth. I'm willing to concede the point that birth doesn't need to be medicalized, but some of us just do feel more comfortable with someone who went to school a lot longer than we did keeping an eye on things.

And aside from the smugness and belittling of other mothers for making dfferent decisions, my other major issue with the earthy-birthy crowd is this reflexive distrust of doctors. I was lucky enough to sort of stumble into a great OB and have heard some awful stories from others who weren't so lucky, but what this story reinforced is that most of them aren't unfeeling scalpel-wielders but people and professionals who want good outcomes for their patients.

Is it fair to take pictures of Britney's kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:53:00 GMT

You may have heard about the photographs of Britney Spears smoking while 2-year-old Sean Preston was playing with her cigarette lighter. Well, the actual photo doesn't quite show that. Here it is:

Now, far be it from me to disagree with the celebrity media machine, but this doesn't look as bad as it sounds. In this pic she looks to be taking the cigarettes away from her child. That would be the right thing to do. The better thing to do would be to not smoke at all, and especially not in front of your kids. Second-hand smoke is very dangerous, especially to little lungs. It also makes me wonder if she was smoking while pregnant, which would be much worse. My guess – and I have nothing to back this up – is that she probably was. As a former smoker, I know how hard it is to quit, and it looks to me like the Britster is quite the nicotine addict.

Here's the part that gets me: the photos were taken at her house. Why? Presumably a photog with a mega-ultra-zoom lens – a "Pavarotti", as El Federline famously referred to them on his ill-fated rap album – was suspended from a helicopter or something and took the shot through her window or on her balcony.

She's a celebrity, and over 18 (although emotionally she might be, like, 12, but let's not go there). But her kids aren't. Not to sound like a celebrity defending dipstick ("LEAVE...BRITNEY...ALONE!"), but maybe there should be a law that prevents the kids from being photographed, at least when they're at home. As someone points out over at MomLogic, they didn't ask to be in this bizarre situation.

There are celebrities whose children you almost never see candid pictures of – Madonna, Howard Stern, Christie Brinkley, and I'm sure there are dozens more that I can't think of at the moment. Of course, those people aren't the unbelievable mess that Brit appears to be. At best, this photo shows poor judgment on her part, not only the smoking but also hanging out with her kid in front of an open window where a sleazoid photographer can get a clear shot. Um, curtains? A really high hedge? Move someplace else?

Of course, if nobody wanted to see the pictures, they wouldn't be worth anything, and photographers wouldn't take them. But that's a different topic.

Here are the rest of the photos. Hey, at least she looks pretty good in her bikini.

images: popsugar.com

Britney - Babe-A-Licious Again!

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

20 Disturbing Baby Products

S&M Barbie

Lourdes and Miley kidnapped?

20 mil for pics of twins

When Cynthia called Cindy

Who Would You Name Your Local Sewage Plant After?

Rich or Rehab: Whatever Happened to the Girl From 'Love, Sidney'?

Michael Savage says kids with autism need to get over themselves

Celebrity Baby Naming Hits New Low

Would You Let a Midwife Perform Your C-Section?

Madeline Holler — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:14:00 GMT

Well, would you? What if she had trained for four years as a midwife and performed more than 100 c-sections under the eye of an actual surgeon? Still no?

Well, maybe me too. I don't know. But! I have the good fortune of not ...

being desperately poor and living in rural Mozambique, where there are but 18 OBs for the entire country (yes, the entire country and its 19 million inhabitants!). Because in that case, I'd say I'm allllll for it.

Last night, PBS's Wide Angle (the summer version of Frontline) aired a documentary about one woman who trained in this innovative program and, OK, sure, I'd let her have a whack at me. She was kind, totally cool under pressure and knew her stuff. You can watch a preview here and also a short take on midwives in the U.S. Or read more about Mozambique and its tragically high maternal and infant mortality numbers.

Of course, midwifery supporters such as myself have to approach the topic if midwives performing surgery with some caution. Having had a midwife-attended home birth in a state that had yet to legalize professional midwives, I know that doctors and lawmakers opposed to midwifery often scare people away from the idea of legalizing the profession by saying "they'll start performing c-sections!" or "now they'll do abortions!" So it bears pointing out that in Mozambique, training low-level healthcare workers in surgery (not just the midwives are picking up the scalpel) is a response to a severe shortage of doctors in the country. It's the best they can do for now.

Oh, and it's working!

Czech Law Forces Pregnant Teens Out of School

Newborn Son Brings Dead Dad Back to Life

My Big Fat American Pregnancy

Photo: PBS.org/Wide Angle

No twin visits for Jon Voight

Brett Singer — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:30:00 GMT

Usually the birth of a child can bring a family together. But whatever is going on between Jon Voight and Angelina Jolie must be pretty bad. According to E! (that's hard to type – the !) Voight says, "I was just as excited as everybody else" about the birth of the twins. (Maybe, "I'm more excited than everybody else" would have been a better choice of words?) As for actually seeing them in person, "If I'm asked, I'll find a way but I haven't been asked." Here's the REALLY LOUD CELEBRITY NEWS VIDEO FROM E!ONLINE(!!!!!):

It's kind of sad news -- grampa not allowed. But here are some facts about their relationship (in this case, "facts" means stuff I read on the Internet that could be true):

Jolie was raised by her mom, and officially changed her last name from Voight to Jolie in 2002. (I don't remember her ever being known as Angelina Voight, but who knows, maybe I was just busier back then.) She did this about a month the Midnight Cowboy said, on television, that his lovely daughter had "serious emotional problems." Nice! Here's the quote that seems like there's more here than meets the eye: "My father and I don’t speak. I don’t hold any anger toward him. I don’t believe that somebody’s family becomes their blood. Because my son’s adopted, and families are earned." She stated that she did not want to publicize her reasons for her estrangement from her father, but because she had adopted her son, she did not think it was healthy for her to associate with Voight. (Premiere Magazine, via Wikipedia)

Taking that quote at face value, it makes a certain amount of sense. She's adopted, what, about 47 children at this point? She wants them all to feel loved. I would imagine that anyone who adopts a child would say the same thing. (I have no idea if this is true, but it seems like a good thing to feel.) Plus, dad wasn't around for her when she was growing up.

Maybe she's just annoyed at this line from Voight's own Wikipedia page that talks about Angelina and her brother, James Haven: Both children would go on to enter their father's business, James as an actor and assistant director, and Angelina as a major Oscar-winning movie star in her own right.

In her own right? Is that a joke? How often do you hear about what James Haven is up to? I think the last time was when everybody thought he and Angie were a little tooclose, if you know what I mean. Oh, he played an usher in 2003's "Hunter of Man". Didn't see it? Maybe you were sick that day. No disrespect to James, but whoever wrote that needs to get out more.

Anyway, bummer for Jonny V, but based on my potentially inaccurate information, it sounds like Angelina has a right to be pissed off. Brad's parents can play Gramma and Grampa.

image: Heatworld.com

Dad Rod to visit Kid Rod

Xtina and Max Rock the Vote

Brangelina's Twins Have Arrived!

Angelina's Due Date - Got It!!!!

Want to know about the twin Earths? Ask people with twins!

Couple Dump Twins at Hospital for Being the Wrong Sex

Introducing The Twins - Photo!

Brangelina Twins' Photos

20 mil for pics of twins

Brett Singer — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:45:00 GMT

OMG! Magazines might be paying $20 million for pics of twins! Quick! Everyone with twins hurry and get some shots taken!

Oh, wait. Not YOUR twins. The Jolie-Pitt twins. OH. Sorry. Didn't mean to get your hopes up.

The Associated Press (via Yahoo! News) quotes Darryn Lyons of the photo agency Big Pictures in London, as saying that the "official" photos of the most famous pair of rugrats on the planet could fetch between $15 and $20 million.

How does this compare to previous bambino/bambina windfalls? AOL Money says that Jennifer and Marc Lopez (let's face it, she's the one with the career) received $6 million for photos of Max and Emme in March of 2008. They also received sighs of relief from millions when they gave the kids normal names. But Shiloh Nouvel, Brad and what's-her-name's first non-adopted child, snagged $4.1 million in June of 2006. So the $20 million figure is probably not far off.

Quote of the day: The only other photos that "would possibly come that close is Britney Spears giving birth to an alien," [said Lyons.] I'd pay a couple of bucks to see that.

image: jewels-whatevah