Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Catherine Skol, former Chicago cop and mother of five, is suing her OB for abusive treatment during the birth of her fifth, nine months ago. If you've heard of the case, and the arguments that she's "just suing over rudeness" and should quit it because she's going to make malpractice rates go up, I suggest you go here, and read the details of the allegations.

I don't suggest you read it if you are pregnant and about to head into a hospital delivery however.

According to the suit, defendent Scott Pierce, who was filling in for the Catherine Skol's primary OB, was so incensed that she hadn't called him before heading to the hospital (an instruction her main OB had never given her) that he decided she "deserved" pain, refused an epidural, put her in intentionally painful positions, insisted she push before she was sufficiently dilated, kept telling her she was going to hemorrhage, wouldn't give her enough anesthesia before stitching her up and told her husband to "hold her down" instead, and talked loudly and crudely on a cell phone about an abortion in the room. There's more. It's truly astounding, in a nauseating kind of way.

(Confidential to "Linka" who called Skol a wimp for complaining about not getting her pain meds: I'm no fan of routine epidurals and had my kid with none, but I would never claim to know out of context when one was appropriate. And I'd like to see you get stitches for a severe laceration on your vulva without anesthesia, not mention all that other crap.)

As much as I've heard plenty of horror stories about OBs and their attitudes, I have to say that this is a category all its own, and sounds to me like the sort of extremely aggressive behavior that arises when people are on something illegal or are having, shall we say, certain brain chemical imbalances. Not that there aren't people out there who are just that awful, but they don't generally keep a job like doctor very long.

In fact, his behavior bothers me less than the commenters who say that because she and the baby are physically healthy, she should shut up and deal. Aside from being cruel, the behavior described was dangerous. If it's anything like she described, he should have his license revoked. People sue all the time for doctors failing to prevent problems they couldn't have prevented—that's one of the reasons our c-section rate (and malpractice insurance) is so high. Here's a case where the doctor was actually in the wrong rather than just getting the blame for a tragedy. This is what lawsuits are for.

Photo by Bloomsberries.

Related Posts:

Mom Says Hospital Fouled Childbirth—Twice

More by this author:

The Problem with "Orgasmic Birth"

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:14:00 GMT

The documentary Orgasmic Birth is coming to 20/20 in early January. I have mixed feelings about this.

First, unlike some of my fellow bloggers, I have no trouble believing orgasms can occur during the birth process, and this fact neither creeps me out nor makes me angry. I even think that it's cool that a documentary on the phenomenon is out and about.

However, it does creep me out that in the accompanying print article, people seem to be holding up orgasmic birth as somehow central to or representative of the messages of the natural birth movement, especially the very very important message that things like atmosphere, position, how safe a woman feels and how afraid she is will (along with a bunch of other stuff) affect her experience of labor pain, and the amount of it. They keep linking the idea of orgasmic birth being this big "best-kept secret" directly with such basic concepts as how it matters that women be allowed to labor in comfortable positions. I find this to be a troubling leap.

For my part, I think I had about as good a set-up as could be asked for. I was at home, I had a tub, I was never on my back, I felt safe and well cared for, I didn't go in particularly afraid. In fact, I knew of the existance of orgasmic birth, and while I didn't expect it, I was fully open to the idea that I might experience contractions as "rushes" instead of "pains."

I didn't. It hurt. A lot. I know this is no big surprise to most of you. It was not intolerable, and it was, as some call it, "pain with a purpose." It was worth it. But it sure was pain, and I sure didn't feel sexy or like an earth goddess or any of that.

Luckily, I hadn't been expecting to, and so I look back on my birth experience as a positive, empowering one.

But I'm afraid that if this orgasmic birth stuff is presented in the wrong light it's going generate a lot of "damn hippie" sentiment about natural birth, or even worse, a bunch of angry women who feel they were misled into thinking if they just breathed right and weren't afraid, it definitely wouldn't hurt.

The film's website says "Filmmaker Debra Pascali-Bonaro reveals a revolutionary approach to birth that is statistically safer for both mother and child than the birthing and delivery methods that are standard in many parts of the world today." Maybe she does. I think most of what the folks involved in the film would advocate would in fact do that. But surely orgasmic births are a happy side effect of that, not the revolutionary approach itself?

My take is that orgasmic birth is like simultaneous orgasms when two virgins have sex. Possible? Sure. Cool? Hell ya. Likely? Hardly. But more importantly, focusing on it as the goal makes a lot of people feel like a failure. You can just as easily up the odds by doing a lot of things you should be doing anyway: making sure people are well educated about sex and anatomy, happy with their bodies, not pressured into sex, etc.

Photo by Irannis.

Should You Take a Risk on Orgasmic Birth? (With Video)

More by this author:

Strollerderby : labor pain

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

The Problem with "Orgasmic Birth"