A Butcher's Dozen
by Nancy Wainer
© 2001 Midwifery Today, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
[Editor's note: This article first appeared in Midwifery Today Issue 57, Spring 2001.]
I'm so tired! Exhausted. It's the wee hours of the night and it's dark and freezing
cold. I am driving home slowly—darn, the roads are icy—from back-to-back births.
I realize that both of the women whom I have just attended would have had cesareans
had they been with typical American obstetrical care providers. Two more women who
weren't cut, who birthed their babies powerfully and naturally. Two more babies who
were born into calm and joy. I'm not quite so tired anymore. In fact, I begin to
feel exhilarated. The roads aren't icy, they're sparkling, and I'm going to build
a (pregnant, of course) snowwoman before I go inside!
I have been asked to write on VBAC—vaginal birth after cesarean. Good. I'll use
this invitation to share some stories, pass along some information, give a quick
retrospective history on the subject, and, OK, yes, to vent a little steam.
VBAC. A victory and a relief for most of the women who have one. A deep and generous
healing for many of them. And still, very much a sham, because most of the women
never really needed to be cut in the first place, so they didn't really need to be
VBACs after all. In that respect the whole concept of VBAC is actually, unfortunately,
pathetic. In this country the subject of whether or not VBAC is "safe"
is also subject to the obstetrical fashion of the hour.
I receive thousands of inquiries about VBAC every year. This week I have gotten
several calls from midwives throughout the United States who tell me that the hospitals
they work for no longer want to do VBACs, or that doctors who have been backing VBAC
are getting a lot of heat. Today I received a letter from the coordinator of a cesarean
education and support group in Australia.
She writes that South Australia has a section rate of 25 percent—so I guess we
in the United States aren't the only ones who are ignorant and knife-happy. She writes
that "the vast [majority] of doctors are scared of VBAC. Current hospital policies
do not support VBAC women's needs.
[T]he general statement [from the heads
of all hospital birth units] is that they do not need to address the issues of VBAC
because there is no issue! . . . I would like to ask you for your advice on how to
make 'them' listen to us 'mere women'"
Mere women. Without us, my dear new Australian sister, they wouldn't be here,
cutting women. We must remember that cesareans are just one more reminder that we
live in a misogynistic world—they are a form of violence and abuse and they are
symptoms of fear, hatred, greed, misuse of power, and sexual dysfunction.
For the moment, let's just arbitrarily begin with the last 12 women who have used
me as their midwife. They all had homebirths, and let's get one thing straight: I
did not deliver their babies—they delivered their babies. I did not do their births—they
did their births. But I did assist, and I did work hard, and I did influence, and
I did suggest, and I did listen, and I did trust, and I did support, and oh-dear-God/dess
yes, I did love.
Dawn had had two previous sections. She was two weeks past dates. She had prodromal
labor for several days, during which time we made many suggestions to keep her relaxed
and trusting and to help line up the baby (see addendum); then,
when she went into labor, she birthed her baby in two-and-a-half hours with a big
smile on her face. She said people thought she was crazy having a homebirth at all;
after learning she'd had two sections, they thought she was stupid. But they were
really convinced that her wiring was crossed, she says, when she told them she loved
being in labor and wants to do it again! She'd have been sectioned.
Deb, sweet and tiny, five feet tall, had had a section for cephalopelvic disproportion
(CPD). This time she had a five-and-a-half hour labor. She went into labor two weeks
prior to her due date, on the day her three-year-old was having his birthday party.
There were 20 guests, and an entertainer who brought animals to her child's party.
Deb had her baby with a ferret, a boa constrictor, a tarantula, and some bunnies
very (very!) close by. She had the exact same difficulty during pushing that she'd
had last time. But we do things differently and she had a nine-pound baby. She would
have been sectioned, sans ferrets.
Laura, small in stature as well, had been sectioned for CPD the last time. That
baby was nine pounds, 14 ounces; so, of course, with such a big baby—sarcasm dripping
here—that section must certainly have been "necessary." This time, she
had a four-hour labor, an 11-pound baby with a huge head circumference, and no stitches.
Jean had a nine-pound, seven-ounce VBAC baby last month; in fact, many of our
mothers have babies that are nine pounds or more and have them in less than five
hours—love that HypnoBirthing! I am so glad that I learned early on from one
of my wonderful mentors (thanks, Val) that larger babies come through very easily
when their heads are lined up—and how to help them line up!
By the way, Laura was past dates with this very big baby—like most other VBAC
hopefuls in this situation, she most likely would have been induced, Pitocin'd, and
well, you know the rest of the story. But most of the people who are involved in
birthing in this culture don't know. They don't understand that when you induce a
woman, her body isn't ready to give birth—if it was, it would be in labor!—and
so you are, in effect, trying/hoping to blast a square peg through a round hole.
And at what cost? At cost to the woman's insurance company (ah, but that is a major
subject for a different day . . .) as well as to her physical and—if she is a conscious
individual—emotional health. And at cost to the baby as well.
Pam birthed last night. Another tiny woman, she and her husband and 20-month-old
son moved all the way across the country so she could birth with me. I wanted desperately
for her, as I want for all of my couples, a wonderful and healing birth. I knew they
must have had a very traumatic birth last time for them to sell everything so they
could move here.
Last time, she had a posterior baby and had pushed for hours and hours with absolutely
no progress and was cut. This time she also had a posterior baby; however, we continually
tweaked this baby's head position. She pushed 45 minutes and had an eight-and-a-half
pound baby. The only song that Pam's toddler, Oliver, knew was "The Wheels on
the Bus," so to that tune, we were all—including Pam—singing "The mommy
in the bed goes push push push" as she was birthing. Pam was laughing as Mack's
head, and then his body, was born. When we came back the next day for the first postpartum
visit, Oliver started laughing and singing again. What joy. A healing for him, as
well. An hour after the birth she commented that her baby hadn't cried, and I repeated
what I had learned: "Why would he cry? He hasn't left your side, his cord has
not been cut, he feels the love and joy in this room, and no one's been mean to him!"
Amy had a section for fetal distress the last time. This baby was as happy as
a pig in mud all throughout the labor. This baby was fed during the entire labor—at
six centimeters his mom was eating a sandwich and scrambled eggs. This baby had no
drugs to contend with and had no one disturbing/distressing his mother. We see almost
no fetal distress at any of our births. But Amy would most likely have been sectioned
because she had high blood pressure for much of the pregnancy. She would have been
induced for sure. She said to me, "If you think my blood pressure is high now,
take me into a hospital and you'll really see it soar." We (my apprentice midwife
and my assistant) spent gobs of time with her and worked diligently with nutrition
(Much love to you, Dr. Tom Brewer!), herbs, relaxation, homeopathics, chiropractic
and other natural means to keep her blood pressure at a manageable level. She birthed
at home.
The other women would also have been sectioned for a variety of reasons. One had
her water leaking for several days. We waited until she went into labor on the third
day and had a homebirth. We have never had an infection, even last summer when one
woman's water released at 32 weeks and she waited and had her baby at home at 36.
One woman had very poor muscle tone—the doctor told her that her uterus did not
have the tone to birth and scheduled her for a section—she birthed at home and had
a four-hour labor. One woman's waters contained meconium. We do not necessarily transport
for this—it depends on a variety of factors. Our suggestions often work, and within
a short time the meconium is cleared. She had a lovely homebirth.
One woman was 42 years old. She didn't think she was a good candidate for a homebirth.
I told her that some people aren't good candidates for the presidency, but that doesn't
stop them! (OK, so I'm not a political humorist, so shoot me.) She had her VBAC baby
(last child was born 17 years ago!) in under five hours. She lives in one of the
oldest houses in Massachusetts—it is 275 years old, and very beautiful. There was
a borning room!!! as well as the original beam floors in much of the house. We thought
about all the babies that had been born in that house—and there were plenty of them—and
all the midwives who came to attend the mothers there over the centuries. What a
travesty it would have been for her to have been in a chrome and plastic hospital
bed with the "potluck (or un-luck) OB of the day" who had to look at a
chart to see what her name was.
Here's one: Mary came to see me two days before Christmas. Because her baby was
breech, her doctor insisted on a cesarean and had scheduled her for one. She wanted
suggestions from me as to how to turn the baby and asked if I recommended she go
in for an external version. My first suggestion, of course, was to not have the version
done at a hospital! They do it all wrong and it hurts like the dickens and it's rarely
successful, and they give drugs that are actually counterproductive to the turning,
but who cares, the docs get hundreds of dollars whether or not the baby turns anyway.
She came to see me for a consult, and I palpated her and told her that her baby was
not breech. She was surprised. To make a long story short, every time she went to
see her doctor the baby was breech or transverse; she would come to me and the baby
was head down. This happened three times. I made several suggestions, including chiropractic,
homeopathy and so on and sent her on her way with good wishes. She called five days
ago, and asked to come and see me again. She said she was considering a homebirth
(she was "overdue" at this point). I told her to go home and think about
it. The next morning she called and said they had just made the decision to stay
at home. I told her that I had already fallen in love with them and they would be
fine. I apologized and said that we would not get to know them as well as we know
most of our clients. She said, "Are you kidding? In the first hour [we had spent
four altogether] you spent with us, you had already spent more time with us than
our OB has spent with us in the nine months of this pregnancy!" She went into
labor two hours after she called, and had a two-and- a-half hour labor!
And last summer, VBAC—hopeful Bettina would have been re-sectioned because her
baby was breech. We invited our expert breech midwife to come to Boston and teach
us as she assisted Bettina. Bettina's eight-and-a-half pound breech daughter slid
out of her body. She was "lucky," the doctors say? Lucky to have birthed
safely outside the hospital? No, Bettina was lucky not to have been in the hospital
getting cut. The same experienced midwife assisted Emma, who would have been sectioned
as well—for twins; instead, she had them at home, gently and easily.
Ah, and Anna. She'd had two cesareans. At 39 weeks pregnant she decided to drive
eight hours to have her baby here. The doctors in her area seemed itchy to cut her
again. They had no faith in her ability to birth. Instead, this beautiful, large
woman (over 300 pounds) had an eight-pound, 11-ounce VBAC baby four full days after
her water released. She is so happy. Sooooooooo happy.
A while back, I had a true shoulder dystocia with one of our small (under five
feet) VBAC moms. Her baby was large, 10 pounds, four ounces (although our three,
over-11-pound babies have slid out). This is of course every midwife's nightmare—I'm
talkin' real dystocia and not just sticky shoulders here. We did the Gaskin Maneuver—flipped
her onto her hands and knees—and we were able to help the baby out; he is now an
active, healthy three-year-old. During my training I was an observer at a hospital
when there was a shoulder dystocia and the baby died. In hospitals, laboring women
are usually medicated and epidural'd—they have monitor belts around them and are
entwined in IV lines. IVs create a continually filling bladder (big deal, right,
we'll just catheterize) which compromises the amount of space for the baby. Women
are often weak from lack of food. It is almost impossible to get them turned quickly
and efficiently over onto their hands and knees—the position that often helps dislodge
the shoulders.
Don't we get it? Women have babies! Even when there are situations that arise!
There are billions of people on the planet—they get here without being cut into
the world! All our ancestresses had babies or we wouldn't be here, and they all birthed
outside of the hospital. I will say it again and again and again until I no longer
have the breath: Hospitals are for sick people, and birth is not an illness. Every
study that has ever been done has shown that planned homebirth is as safe (safer,
I think safer) as hospital birth. Best kept secret in the country, wouldn't you say?
Oops. I'm sorry. Please pardon the sarcasm—it just slipped out. Get me talkin'
about birth and VBAC and a whole lot of emotion comes up.
I have counseled thousands of VBAC mothers. They understand that they were robbed,
and that birth is joy. They are exuberant—for years after their VBACs. Their bodies
work, there is nothing wrong with them, they are normal. The "voices of VBAC"
are profound and passionate. VBAC mom Megan proclaimed, " I want to do this
again!"—much to her husband's shock, since only the head of this baby was out
at this point. Brenda wrote, "When I met you, I had little faith in my ability
to birth a baby. You gave me confidence and courage to let go and trust my body.
Ryleigh's birth was more powerful than I ever could have imagined. During Ryleigh's
birth, I found a strength within me that I did not know existed. I now find that
strength extending into all areas of my life . . . Being surrounded by so much love
and support was the key to my success. I wish I had the words to describe the impact
your touch and encouraging words had on me during my labor. From that point I never
doubted my ability to birth my baby . . . I am so grateful and I look forward to
the day when all women can expect to receive the loving care I did throughout my
pregnancy and birth." Marcia said, "You have healed me of the trauma I
experienced two years ago and given me back my birth rite. You granted my heart's
desire to push my baby out and feel it." Rachel wrote: "I feel that you
are the gardener who tended me while I blossomed. I'm sitting here with this bundle
of flesh and bones, hands and feet, blood and smiles, eyes and ears, love and spirit
on my lap. I stroke his head, and know that he is nothing less than a complete miracle.
I know that it was the grace and power of my body and the creative force within it
that carried him into the light. But I also know that you do whisper magic that makes
miracles happen. And that your love and mothering nature tends to make things bloom.
My experience of giving birth made me whole in a way I wasn't aware of being broken."
Obstetrical Conference
A few years ago I learned about a big, two-day obstetrical conference on VBAC.
Even though I was one of the first planned VBACs in the country, coined the term
VBAC, wrote the first book on the subject—which, by the way, won the best book in
the field of Health and Medicine by the American Library Association the year it
was written—had more experience with VBAC than anyone else in the country—or the
world!—and lived in the city where the conference was being held, I was not asked
to speak at, or attend, the conference.
Although I may occasionally be sarcastic—to cover up the frustration and rage
I feel about women getting unnecessarily cut and erroneously diagnosed with failure-to-progress
(FTP) and CPD—I am not arrogant. I wasn't insulted that I wasn't asked to speak:
I was sad. I have so much that I want to share about my research, information, and
experience with VBAC. And yet I recognize that this oftentimes happens in a patriarchal
system—that key people, mostly women, are ignored, dismissed. Anyone whose experience
does not fit the script is dismissed. But birth, to be natural, powerful, cannot
be scripted.
The conference was being held at the swankiest hotel in the city. The cost was
prohibitive. I learned that there was no quota for obstetricians, but there was actually
a quota on midwives. As it was, there were few midwives who could afford the cost
of the conference anyway. I knew that going to the conference would probably not
be good for my blood pressure and decided that staying at home and writing was the
best way to spend my time.
The night before the conference I got a call from a woman who is a birth researcher/writer.
She was ill and could not attend the conference. She asked if I would go in her place.
She said she knew that I would find much of the information difficult to swallow,
but that at the very least, I'd learn firsthand what they were saying. "Nancy,
just think—you'll be able to use all their incorrect assumptions and information
as ammo for your next book!" she said.
Believe it or not, I don't want "ammo." I want shared information, communication
and understanding. I want others to be interested enough—intrigued enough—to find
out why so many of the VBAC women with whom I work have large, healthy babies and
normal, natural births in such short periods of time. I want them to be inspired
enough to be able to assist women in having wonderful, fun (yes, fun!) births that
are healing and empowering.
A man who had written a book on VBAC and was speaking all over the country on
the subject was going to be there as a presenter. I had called him years earlier,
and in effect, was told that his association with me could reduce his chances for
his work to be respected by the medical community. I had understood then that this
man was becoming a VBAC guru—I was glad that someone was, although I had concerns
about some misinformation in his book and the fear that that information engendered.
I wanted to dialogue with him, to help him, if I could, along his path. I knew that
while obstetricians might have little regard for my work and my knowledge, this man
was "one of them," and so they might pay attention to VBAC through him.
VBAC has been my baby for almost 30 years, and if he was going to talk about it,
write about it, and be the authority on the subject, I wanted him to understand aspects
of it that I knew he didn't know, aspects that I know are essential to its success.
A note here: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) wanted
to take credit for having introduced VBAC into mainstream consciousness. Nothing
could be further from the truth. It was a grassroots movement of women who had been
cut and were enraged by the cesarean epidemic. It began with people like myself,
Jini Fairley, Lynn Richards (who called VBACs "Very Beautiful and Courageous"),
and a few pioneer midwives such as Kay Mathews and Valerie El Halta who were attending
VBACs long before any "research" was done to "prove" their safety.
We did sit-ins and letter-writing campaigns and wrote articles for magazines and
spoke out to anyone who would listen. We birthed in vans outside of hospitals and
in motel rooms across the street from hospitals and then in our homes. We found a
few (a very few) sympathetic doctors across the country who supported VBAC and who
were willing to assist us in quiet, yet powerful ways, many of whom were ostracized
by their peers for doing so. After a period of time we had attended thousands of
women who'd had VBACs; many of them birthed babies who were significantly larger
than the babies for whom they had been sectioned. Many had VBACs even after more
than one, two, three or four (or more) cesareans, even with twins (and one woman
with triplets) and with breeches. We did research on the safety of VBAC in other
countries, on the dangers of anesthesia, and on the types of incisions that were
being done.
We talked about the convenience/advantages of scheduled/repeat cesareans for American
doctors, and we talked about money, power and control. Eventually, reluctantly, sheepishly,
annoyedly—ACOG had to pay attention. They began to talk about "trials of labor"
and VBACs under specific conditions. After a while they owned VBAC as their own,
as if it had been their idea. The same doctors who had told me (18 of them) that
either I or my baby (or both of us) would die if I dared to try for a VBAC began
advertising that they indeed promoted VBACs as the safest alternative for most previously
sectioned women.
Doctors may have acquiesced and even later, boasted, but they never really liked
attending VBACs. And because they tried to orchestrate VBAC, control it and manage
it, they never had the kind of success with it that others of us did. But they could
at least say that they tried it and it didn't really work, so why not just have another
cesarean without all the (as one doctor said) "muss and fuss." Women were
deprived of food during their VBAC labors—we all know that during labor women must
eat for strength and to keep their babies healthy! VBAC women were given IVs, "just
in case"—we all know that IVs interfere with normal labor, cause a woman's
body to tire out, and deliver a message of fear that affects the labor as well. In
addition, no one seemed to pay attention to head position [see addendum], and so
women who'd had cesareans for FTP or CPD were once again trussed and prepped: Hi
ho, hi ho, off to the O.R. we go...
I went to the conference. There were perhaps 150 or more people there. With the
exception of three other women, all were men, mostly obstetricians, with a few hospital
administrators. I raised my hand many (many) times to ask a question, discuss or
argue a point or make a statement, and was completely overlooked. I almost stood
on the table at one point. I was hearing things about VBAC that were so blatantly
untrue, so fear inducing, so ridiculous, that I wanted to shout: "You don't
understand VBAC! You don't understand women! And you don't understand birth!"
I also wanted to vomit. But as Sonia Johnson first noted, solid gold platters and
Waterford crystal glasses are not appropriate for puke.
By the end of the first day of the conference, I wasn't sure I could return. I
felt physically sick; I had spent the day listening to "research" and recommendations
on VBAC that had not taken into account one, not one, of what I know to be the most
important aspects of this kind of birth. And yet I felt a responsibility to return.
Perhaps if I returned I would be able to ask a question, or make a statement. At
lunchtime the next day, at which point my raised arm had been passed over yet another
20 times, I decided to introduce myself to some of the keynote speakers in the room
and tell them that I had great interest in talking with them about VBAC, if not now,
then at some point in the immediate future. I suppose I had a delusion or two of
grandeur—I thought, maybe later, one of them would say, as he was presenting his
VBAC-related topic: "Oh, by the way, we are most privileged today to have here
in our audience the very person who coined the term VBAC, the person who had one
of the first VBACs in this country, who founded the organization C/SEC, Inc., and
who was instrumental in the formation of the Cesarean Prevention Movement [now ICAN],
the person who has devoted her entire adult life to the subject of VBAC. Ms. Wainer-Cohen,
would you be so kind as to stand up and say a few words?" In fact I was treated
just the opposite: it was as if I didn't belong there and had nerve even going up
to talk to the speakers. Two of the men actually turned away from me, and one refused
to talk with me (after he had made a rude comment). I was stunned—honestly, not
from a place of ego, honestly—but from a place of pain. It was clear once again
that the "powers that be" were not really interested in the truth about
VBAC, but more in their own gain, and I heard the quote "the master's tools
will never dismantle the master's house" echoing in my broken heart.
It was clear that according to the presenters at the conference, they thought
that VBAC was dangerous, and most would prefer to just cut women open and be done
with it. VBAC may be dangerous, the way most obstetricians do it! It was even clearer
to me that their ignorance and fear are going to be the downfall of us all. They
don't think that the process of birth works, they think that women's bodies are defective,
and they pay no attention to preventing cesareans in the first place (so that VBAC
isn't even an issue).
They pay no attention to nutrition, the cornerpost of healthy mothers and babies
and good, safe, births. They don't understand the differences between their inductions
of labors and helping VBAC women go into labor naturally. With so many of their "attempts"
at VBAC failing, why should they continue encouraging VBAC? Why should they think
at all that VBAC works?
Why should VBAC work in America? American obstetrics doesn't work! What can you
even begin to say about a country with an ACOG conference entitled "Promoting
Medically Unnecessary Cesarean Sections"? We rank number 24th in the world:
there are 23 other countries that have better birth outcomes than we do. This is
a disgrace! And the countries with the best outcomes use midwives and encourage out-of-hospital
births! Here, women think nothing of sitting in waiting rooms for 45 minutes with
no nutritional food or naturally delicious snacks in sight in order to have a six-to-10-minute
appointment, if that, with an OB who has never had a baby, or who has had a drug-induced,
Pitocin-augmented, epidural-"enhanced" labor—an OB who doesn't know them
and may never even see them again. These "care providers" cut the baby's
cord immediately, depriving babies of their own stem cells and a good portion of
their own supply of blood, wonder why babies "need" vitamin K and why so
many of our kids become anemic, for starters—and then charge thousands of dollars
to bank the stem cells in case the kid needs them later. We are nuts! Ah, but I digress....
Birth does work. Almost all of the time. When we trust that it will and when we
are respectful and relaxed. I remind women over and over and over again that they
come from strong and proven stock, that their grandmothers had babies, and their
great-grandmas, and their great-great-great grandmas—all of their ancestresses since
the beginning of time have birthed—and they have been designed to birth, as well!
I also remind them that contrary to what we have been taught (oh Oprah, would I love
a private session with you, sweet woman!) and shown on TV programs like ER, when
you are respectful of the process, birth is not a disaster waiting to happen.
I am extraordinarily grateful for the help that we are given by skilled, attentive
and supportive doctors when there is a situation that needs additional expertise.
However, with healthy mothers it is rare to have an emergency that is not preceded
by a situation, which, had it been addressed, would not have escalated into a complication
or an emergency (this, too, is a subject for another day). And being in the hospital
does not preclude birthing women from having problems; in fact, being there often
creates the problems that are then "solved" with devices—and knives.
So, back to VBAC. In order to appear progressive, and in response to demand, doctors
began accepting VBACs. The ones who did were getting more clients (remember, patients
are sick people), and of course, money talks. Some would agree to VBAC, but only
if the woman herself brought it up. Others would agree, but only under certain conditions:
for example, if there was an anesthesiologist in the hospital at the time. I always
questioned this: what did they do if there was a car crash or a shooting and they
needed to operate right away? There was more of a chance of these things happening
than the need for assistance with a VBAC! Many doctors even charged more for a VBAC
than for other labors. I wanted to spit.
Most of these obstetricians didn't understand certain aspects of successful VBAC—excellent
nutrition, the absence of fear, the importance of the energy in the birth room, and
faith in the birth process. Many of them told women that they had to have their babies
by 40 weeks—or they would be induced. But since more and more women were having/demanding
VBACs, this is where the money was, and doctors began to get more comfortable with
the idea. For doctors, more VBACs equaled more time with less money, less power and
less control. OBs who were attending VBACs were merely "baby catchers"—something
any ol' midwife could do; performing surgery was lucrative and awe-inspiring. They
could schedule cesareans at a time that was convenient for them, instead of possibly
being disturbed in the middle of the night. They couldn't understand what was so
important about a vaginal birth, and they oftentimes used scare tactics to get women
to comply, that is, agree to schedule a repeat cesarean. They accused women who wanted
normal deliveries of compromising the health and well being of their babies for their
own aggrandizement and at the expense of their babies. Of course nothing could be
further from the truth.
One of the VBAC mothers I attended writes, "As we know, many doctors, even
medwives, have never even seen a normal, natural birth, let alone experienced one
themselves. But, not only have they not/won't experience it, they have no incentive
to change, based upon their experiences—scary, frustrating, 'unsuccessful.' Your
VBAC clients refuse to be limited by their own, often frightening first birth experiences,
and find it in themselves to trust and believe in the very different experiences
real midwives and their clients have, and plan and succeed at VBACs. Experience is
powerful, and informative, and . . . thank the goddesses, some of us find ways to
overcome our negative Experiences, to create the Experiences we know are possible."
We all know that birth in this country is big bucks. Cesareans are extraordinarily
profitable for doctors and hospitals. Initially, we were all told how dangerous VBAC
was. Then, when we noted that other countries did not find this to be the case, and
when thousands of women here started having "uneventful" VBACs, the doctors
began telling us, well, yes, perhaps it was, after all, safe. As their section rate
decreased, so did their bank accounts shrink. As they began losing money, because
more and more women were delivering vaginally, they had to find a way to scare us
back into more cesareans. At the same time, the more comfortable they became with
VBAC, the more risks they began to take. Before, no one ever induced a VBAC woman,
and certainly no one ever used Pitocin, but now, Pitocin was used frequently. Isn't
it interesting, by the way, that although we are told that Pit is safe, as soon as
the drip is started, a woman must be strapped with electronic fetal monitor belts
in order to "make certain" that everything is OK? There has been an increase
in uterine rupture with the advent of induction and Pitocin. I find it incomprehensible
and wicked that instead of understanding how obstetrical directives create problems
and decrease the safety of VBAC, obstetricians in the United States believe that
the danger is inherent within VBAC. In fact, it has come to our attention that recently,
instead of taking the time to suture the incised uterus in layers, doctors have been
taught a "short-cut" technique that uses only one layer. This method compromises
the integrity of the scar and predisposes a woman to greater incidence of uterine
rupture. So now they can tell you with a straight face that VBAC is dangerous: they
are making it so. We are at their mercy—they cut us up and they sew us up.
We all know that while major abdominal surgery is safer than it used to be, there
are a variety of major complications that can and often do occur. The risks of anesthesia
alone are pretty mind-boggling. A c-section is not simply just another way to have
a baby—it is major abdominal surgery. It is not so much that c-sections are so safe
as the fact that they have become comfortable. Comfort and familiarity is equated
with safety, much as the thinking that the more gadgets, machines, whistles and beeps
at a birth, the safer the birth must surely be. If women knew the real truth about
birth, obstetrics as we know it would be vastly different—this may be a threatening
thought to those who have been in-doc-trinated to believe that machines, technology
and computers always make things better.
Laura, VBAC-with-a-beautiful-11-pound-baby-and-no-stitches-and no "gestational-diabetes"-either,
worked hard to get the VBAC homebirth she wanted. She interviewed many doctors and
midwives before making a decision to travel to Boston to have her baby here. Recently,
she wrote to me. "Knowledge is power, Nancy, which is why they cannot allow
[emphasis hers] us to share ours: They know that allowing real midwives' knowledge
to be shared would take away from their power. It's not enough for them to do the
initial cuts, then leave the VBACs to us. They want it all! They want the repeats-scheduled
ones at that-too! Thus their need to silence the midwives who have knowledge about
VBAC (not to mention natural birth, the first time around!). To borrow a phrase from
the book of AIDS' activists: Silence equals death. The docs (not all, but seemingly
most) want to silence us, because they want women's knowledge to die. Doctors often
scare women with words like 'you might die.' What they don't understand is that the
surgery itself represents a kind of death: death of our dreams, death of normalcy,
an excising of our power-after all, they are cutting that part of us which creates
life!"
Life has risks. Not everyone who plans a VBAC will have one, and not everyone
who has one will have a perfect experience. Some women who desperately want VBACs
end up with repeat cesareans. But after almost 30 years of researching, writing,
counseling and teaching cesarean prevention and VBAC, I know that most women can
have safe, gentle, sacred, delicious VBAC births, and that they are safer than repeat
cesareans. It is a travesty that the majority of sections and repeat sections are
unnecessary. It is a tremendous sadness when women have been so indoctrinated with
fear about birth that they choose numbness and technology to "get the baby out"
rather than their own power and efforts.
We must continue our efforts to stop the alarming number of primary cesareans
and to increase the VBAC rate for those who have been cut. Spiritually conscious
women want to feel the full scope of their feminine experience. They do not want
to be ripped open. VBAC makes an immense difference in their lives, and it makes
a positive and impressive difference in the lives of all those who are witness to
that experience, as well.
Addendum: Heading In The Right Direction!
One of the reasons that so many of the women with whom I work have successful
VBACs, even with very large babies, is that we pay strict attention to the position
of their babies. Information about tuning in to the baby's position during pregnancy,
in early labor, and then paying careful attention to it throughout the labor,
makes a tremendous difference in birth and in VBAC outcomes. I suggest that you
pay very close attention to Valerie El Halta's article "Posterior Labor:
A Pain in the Back" [Midwifery Today Issue 36 and Wisdom of the Midwives]
and the booklet Understanding and Teaching Optimal Foetal Positioning by Jean
Sutton and Pauline Scott [available through Midwifery Today].
OK, so we know the baby' s head is down. But that information alone is not
enough. We need to know where the baby's back is, what side the baby favors. It
is appalling to me how many care providers are unable to ascertain this information
without ultrasound. This is disturbing to me for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which is that ultrasounds themselves may influence the position of the
baby. In addition, and most women whose babies have been exposed will verify this:
babies do not generally like to be ultrasounded. It seems to disturb them, causing
them to become overly active: mothers will tell you it was "as if the baby
was trying to get away from the ultrasound." It is often easy enough to ascertain
the position of the baby externally. But if there is a doubt, midwife Valerie
El Halta asks: "What do you think suture lines and fontanels are for?"
Answer: "They are God's directional signals for midwives!" The anterior
fontanel is diamond-shaped and the posterior fontanel is triangular. By feeling
the fontanels and the suture lines, we can determine the baby's head position.
[Note: I was most interested to receive Doris Haire's note this week: "On
Dec. 13th I posed the following question of David Feigal, MD, Director, FDA Center
for Devices and Radiological Health: 'Dr Feigal, it is my understanding that no
one knows the delayed, long-term effects of diagnostic levels of ultrasound on
human development. Is that still true?' Dr. Feigal's answer: 'Yes, that is correct,
no one knows the long-term effects of diagnostic levels of ultrasound on human
development.'"]
When the baby's back is on the mother's left, or to her front (anterior), labor
will most likely be short and productive. When the baby and head are "lined
up" properly, the waves [contractions] are generally regular, with time in
between, and the cervix dilates well. This is because the smallest part of the
baby's head is presenting, and it is the part of the head that molds most easily.
In addition, this part of the baby's head presents as a circle that applies direct,
equal, and even pressure to the circle that is the opening cervix-voila!: 10 centimeters
and pushing. However, if the baby' s back is on the mother's right, or the baby
is facing front (that is, posterior), we must pay close attention. Unless this
is rectified, either naturally or with assistance, several things most likely
will occur: the mother will experience prodromal "on again-off again"
labor, which is exhausting and discouraging; the waves will be on top of one another,
occurring every two or three minutes, lasting only 20-30 seconds with sharp peaks
and excruciating pain but very little accompanying dilation; mothers often complain
tearfully how much their backs hurt; there is often pain even in between contractions.
These are warning signs of a posterior or asynclitic (one of my midwife mentors,
Clare, calls these "caddywumpus") babies. In these situations the largest
part of the baby's head is presenting, and it is the part of the baby's head that
does not mold as easily or naturally. It is not a circle that is applying to the
circle which is the cervix, but a large, convex, irregular oval that creates pressure
only on random segments of the cervix. The result is that the cervix becomes irritable,
contracting often but unevenly, and without much (or any) progress.
Without the presence of the correct part of the baby's head, the woman's cervix
usually dilates only to three or four centimeters, with little further progress.
She is in a situation that requires diagnosis, attention and correction. Techniques
and measures such as visualization, relaxation, chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy,
herbs, putting the mother in a hands and knees position, having the woman hold
her own stomach and then redirecting the baby's position externally, tennis balls,
hot (or cold) compresses on her back have all helped certain labors, but more
often there is little change, and the woman, discouraged and wracked with unremitting
pain, anguished and defeated, begs for relief in the forms of drugs, anesthetics
and cesareans.
If the woman is in the hospital, the obstetrician will most likely suggest
Pitocin, which often causes other problems: maternal and/or fetal distress; stronger,
but still ineffective contractions which are more difficult for the mother and
so she needs-begs for-drugs or an epidural; and then we get into that whole CASCADE
of interventions, and, most importantly/ominously, forcing the baby down in-and
thus actually committing the baby to-the unfavorable position. Others suggest
that the woman squat if she is not making progress-this may also encourage the
baby to come down in the unfavorable position, causing a deep transverse arrest.
Doctors often break the bag of waters, hoping to get things going-this is not
generally recommended either, as this, too, often commits the baby to the unfavorable
position.
Prevention of posterior babies is possible! We are all beginning to pay attention
to this fact. We are telling pregnant women: Never recline during pregnancy-if
you are going to sit and read or watch TV, for example, make certain that your
back is absolutely straight. Put a wedge or a book or lots of pillows behind you.
Follow this advice when you are in a car as well-make certain there is a pillow
behind your back to straighten it. If you work at a desk with a chair that leans
slightly backwards, find a straight-backed chair. Reclining can weaken back muscles
and create a situation that encourages babies to hang out in unfavorable positions
(and look at how all our little American babies are carried around in bucketed
car seats for hours at a time, creating generations of girls who will later be
predisposed to posterior babies as a result!) However, if a woman has entered
active labor and is not making progress, it is important to begin to (literally!)
turn things around, to intercede.
Midwife Valerie El Halta teaches the difference between intervention and intercession.
An intervention is done without any regard for whether or not this action will
assist the mother in having a natural birth. Interventions are not natural; for
example, Pitocin and epidurals. They are often done for the convenience and comfort
of the obstetrical staff, or to speed things along. They are often advocated in
an atmosphere of mistrust of the natural process and in an environment of birth-related
fear. An intercession, however, is something that is done with both safety and
natural childbirth in mind. It is done with the unwavering belief in the woman's
ability to give birth. We intercede on behalf of the laboring mother to assist
her in having a natural birth. Repositioning the mother and/or helping to rotate
a posterior baby is an intercession, not an intervention.
The position that we find most always rotates posterior babies is called the
Polar Bear Position. This term was coined from a magnificent picture in National
Geographic magazine of a polar bear who is birthing her baby. Her front paws are
down as low as they can go, as are her shoulders, and she has a big arch in her
back with her knees apart and her butt way up in the air. (It has also been called
the Playful Puppy Position, or Sleeping Baby). Women assume the position in early
labor, when the contractions are established. If after 45 minutes or so the baby
has not turned on its own, it is easy to go in (with the woman still in that position)
and reposition the baby by gently but firmly pushing the baby back in. Many obstetricians
tell women that the baby's position cannot be adjusted until the woman is at least
seven or eight centimeters or more, and unless the baby's head is quite low in
the pelvis. The problem, of course, is that many women never get to seven or eight
with a posterior or asynclitic baby, and if they do, it has usually taken hours
and hours. Adjusting the baby's head position in early labor is imperative: it
saves the mother from exhaustion, saves the baby from distress and eliminates
the problem of a baby that is unable to turn. It is not unusual to have a mother
who has been "stuck" at four or five centimeters for a while to automatically
progress very quickly, because the head is now well applied to a cervix which
has very much wanted to cooperate but has been unable to do so due to unequal
(or non-existent) pressure.
Helping to rotate a posterior baby is safe. It is most likely as enormous a
relief to the baby as it is to the mother. In thousands of tweakings/adjustments,
there have been no incidents of fetal distress or stress or cord entanglement.
In fact, it is far better for babies to have their heads positioned correctly,
well applied to the cervix and dilating it symmetrically, so they can be born,
rather than being "jammed" asynclitically or posteriorly without progress.
Many babies who don't get turned end up with meconium and other signs of stress—and
off to the OR they go.
|
Nancy Wainer is a midwife, childbirth educator and an internationally known childbirth
writer and speaker. She coined the term VBAC—vaginal birth after cesarean. She is
the co-author of Silent Knife: Cesarean Prevention and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean
and the author of Open Season: A Survival Guide for Natural Childbirth and VBAC.
She is currently working on her third book, Birthquake: A Childbirth Book for Strong
Women and Women Who Want to Be Strong.
Related Information:
If you enjoyed this article, you'll enjoy Midwifery Today magazine!
Subscribe
now!
|