Comments on: Birth Track, a New Way to Monitor Labor http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/07/old262/ bloggin' for better births Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:04:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Creepy Obstetric and Childbirth Technology Patents http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/07/old262/comment-page-1/#comment-2023 Creepy Obstetric and Childbirth Technology Patents Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:18:14 +0000 #comment-2023 [...] to women as an alternative to multiple vaginal exams during labor, BirthTrack received FDA clearance in the United States. According to the BirthTrack Web site for [...] [...] to women as an alternative to multiple vaginal exams during labor, BirthTrack received FDA clearance in the United States. According to the BirthTrack Web site for [...]

]]> By: Guest http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/07/old262/comment-page-/#comment-1215 Guest Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1215 I have been reading as much I have been reading as much as I can find on this machine and no where have I read about the effect of the monitor being screwed into the babies head. What kind of marks does it leave, if any? Does the baby feel it? These are my biggest concerns. I have been reading as much I have been reading as much as I can find on this machine and no where have I read about the effect of the monitor being screwed into the babies head. What kind of marks does it leave, if any? Does the baby feel it? These are my biggest concerns.

]]> By: mamablogess http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/07/old262/comment-page-/#comment-1408 mamablogess Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1408 The internal monitor is the The internal monitor is the same as an electronic internal fetal monitor that hospitals use, and would have the same effects to the baby as one of those. This component does not have to be used with the device, and I would caution strongly against using this part of the device as a matter of routine. In fact, I would caution against using the entire device as a matter of routine, but if there are reasons that you want to use the other components, you certainly do not have to use the internal monitor as well. You may want to consider doing intermittent monitoring with a hand held device such as a fetoscope or a doppler. The internal monitor is the The internal monitor is the same as an electronic internal fetal monitor that hospitals use, and would have the same effects to the baby as one of those. This component does not have to be used with the device, and I would caution strongly against using this part of the device as a matter of routine. In fact, I would caution against using the entire device as a matter of routine, but if there are reasons that you want to use the other components, you certainly do not have to use the internal monitor as well. You may want to consider doing intermittent monitoring with a hand held device such as a fetoscope or a doppler.

]]> By: Lauren http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/07/old262/comment-page-/#comment-1417 Lauren Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1417 I suppose that, used I suppose that, used perfectly by supportive attendants, this device could be a not-so-bad thing. But I think it's pretty clear that it will be used as another device to monitor women while busy nurses are caring for too many patients, to further reduce the hands-on expertise of care providers in favor of technology, and to further delineate the definition of "progress" so that fewer and fewer women will meet it's requirements rather than more. And to document all of this to the millisecond so that no one can get sued. My cervix didn't dilate for over 12 hours, then went from 2-8 within an hour. According to this device, I would have "failed." And for the record, I couldn't stand being on my back until the very end of the pushing stage. Of course, I am preaching to the choir... and I had a natural, home water birth where this kind of thing would be useless. I still find this scary. I suppose that, used I suppose that, used perfectly by supportive attendants, this device could be a not-so-bad thing. But I think it’s pretty clear that it will be used as another device to monitor women while busy nurses are caring for too many patients, to further reduce the hands-on expertise of care providers in favor of technology, and to further delineate the definition of “progress” so that fewer and fewer women will meet it’s requirements rather than more. And to document all of this to the millisecond so that no one can get sued. My cervix didn’t dilate for over 12 hours, then went from 2-8 within an hour. According to this device, I would have “failed.” And for the record, I couldn’t stand being on my back until the very end of the pushing stage. Of course, I am preaching to the choir… and I had a natural, home water birth where this kind of thing would be useless. I still find this scary.

]]> By: Sandy http://www.birthactivist.com/2008/07/old262/comment-page-/#comment-1421 Sandy Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1421 This is the next EFM If hospitals end up spending a lot of money on these machines, the pressure will be on to use them and before you know it, every single woman will have to use it in the hospital. It is impossible nowadays to have a baby in a hospital without EFM, at least intermittant. Even in birth centers within hospitals, they require some EFM. The EFM was not developed to be used on all women either but now, unless you're having a baby at home or in a free standing birth center, it is. While I detested the vaginal exams during labor, I truly believe that the answer for women who don't want them is to just say no, not agree to yet another technological intrusion. As to your point that it may reduce unnecessary c-sections, it is also just as likely to add c-sections but showing "no progress" over some arbitrary predetermined space of time. This is the next EFM If hospitals end up spending a lot of money on these machines, the pressure will be on to use them and before you know it, every single woman will have to use it in the hospital. It is impossible nowadays to have a baby in a hospital without EFM, at least intermittant. Even in birth centers within hospitals, they require some EFM. The EFM was not developed to be used on all women either but now, unless you’re having a baby at home or in a free standing birth center, it is.

While I detested the vaginal exams during labor, I truly believe that the answer for women who don’t want them is to just say no, not agree to yet another technological intrusion.

As to your point that it may reduce unnecessary c-sections, it is also just as likely to add c-sections but showing “no progress” over some arbitrary predetermined space of time.

]]>