Thoughts on Informed Consent, Refusal and VBAC

If you’ve been listening to the news lately, you’ve probably heard a lot about vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). The NIH held a consensus meeting to decide what was appropriate in VBAC care. The general thought was that the overall VBAC rate should increase and that the rate of primary cesareans should decrease due to the risks of surgery to the baby and mother. The panel had several recommendations that can be boiled down into:

• ACOG and ASA should revise their guidelines on the “immediately available” guidelines.
• The decision to do a VBAC or a repeat c-section should be made between a woman and her practitioner, after an informed discussion.

The problem with the last statement is that true informed consent and discussion is very rare in obstetrical care. The closest that we tend to come is the woman who is choosing a VBAC. She is likely to spend the last several months of her prenatal care being told of the risks of VBAC and the parameters in which it will happen. In contrast, had that same woman chosen to have an elective repeat cesarean, she would simply be handed an appointment card for her scheduled surgery and then sign a sheet of paper that would have to suffice as informed consent, all done a few minutes before her surgery. Neither of these is truly informed consent.

So how can women get informed consent, particularly when it comes to a hot topic like VBAC? My advice is:

• Do independent research.
• Seek out information from neutral sources.
• Talk to other mothers who have had a VBAC.
• Talk to other mothers who have had a repeat c-section (planned and not).
• Prepare for your birth by childbirth class, doula support and emotional support.
• Consider alternatives including midwifery led care.
• Make a decision only after a lengthy discussion with many people, including your practitioner.

Providers have to consider multiple issues when recommending one mode of birth over another: health of mother and baby, liability for complications, availability of self and staff during uncomplicated and complicated births, personal beliefs, medical malpractice insurance (if they choose to carry it), what other practitioners will think of their choices, etc.

Women have their own issues to consider when deciding her mode of birth: health of baby and mother, likelihood of the success of VBAC, physical and emotional pain after the birth, personal beliefs, etc.

The final point is that of informed refusal. ACOG has a policy of informed consent and refusal. This states that they believe that a woman who has all the information, is allowed to make a decision to choose not to receive the recommended procedure or therapy that is being suggested by her doctor.

At the panel yesterday, when asked specifically about the policy of informed refusal as it included forced repeat c-section, either by practice policy or individual recommendation, they basically said that this was unclear. Some advocates took this to mean that the consensus panel was suggesting that women did not have the right to choose a VBAC if that wasn’t the recommendation of her doctor or that if she did, it was acceptable to coerce her with threatened legal action. In other words, a woman is free to make any decision she would like, unless it conflicts with what her practitioner decides.

That leaves us in a sticky spot. What’s a birth activist to do?

Related:

• Maternal Decision Making, Ethics and the Law
• Refusal of Care Based on Religious Beliefs
• Women Need a Chance to Avoid Repeat Surgery

VBAC from a Care Provider’s Perspective

Share 

What is it really like to be a hospital care provider attending VBACs? Janelle from Birth Sense describes it in this post submitted to the ICAN VBAC Blog Carnival.

The whole post provides a very rational, no nonsense description of the actual problems that care providers face without an emotional “WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE SUED AND EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE AND YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND RISK!” She calls upon providers of modern obstetrics to “speak up on behalf of women who want VBAC and insist that realistic, evidence-based guidelines are instituted.”

Furthermore, Janelle points out something that would probably shock the public about hospitals. The “special” mandate that an OB remain in the hospital during the entire VBAC labor with an operating team standing by is hypocritical. If hospitals are so serious about having a team ready to handle VBAC-related emergencies, why would they not want to have the same safety net available to deal with comparable emergency scenarios in “low-risk” women? When I gave birth in a hospital for the first time, I mistakenly assumed that there was an OB and an operating team on hand for those rare emergencies. Why else would I have been in a hospital?

What is most perplexing to me is the mandate that the provider remain in the hospital during a VBAC labor “just in case”, yet other serious causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality are not considered adequate reason to have a surgeon and operating team standing by.  Some examples are:

1. Cord prolapse, with an incidence of 0.14-0.62 percent.  This can cause permanent fetal injury or death.¹
2. Placental abruption, with an incidence of 0.6 percent.  Again, this complication of labor can cause permanent fetal injury or death, as well as potentially life-threatening blood loss for the mother.²
3. Placenta accreta, and its variations (placenta increta and placenta percreta).  With a reported incidence of as many as 1 in 533 births, this is a serious maternal complication which can cause death.³

If we are serious about being able to take immediate action in the event of uterine rupture (approximately 0.5% incidence in low-risk labors VBAC labors), we should be equally serious about being prepared to immediately manage other perinatal emergencies.   The truth is, VBAC is not much riskier than a normal first birth, provided a few criteria are met:

• One low transverse uterine scar
• Normal onset of labor, no cervical ripening or induction
• No use of pitocin augmentation during labor
• Prior vaginal delivery increases chances of successful VBAC
• At least 18 months since cesarean birth

The risk associated with VBAC that concerns hospitals, insurance companies and care providers isn’t just the potential risk to women and babies. They are naturally concerned about the risk to their financial bottom line associated with a potentially predictable obstetric emergency.

The next time you hear anyone try to tell you that patients or laypeople just don’t understand risk, the question should be “The risk to whom?” I would argue that, given accurate information and percentages, most patients understand risk just fine. When you read between the lines, it’s clear that patients are expected to believe that the risk that lies behind scare tactics and lies about necessity of many cesareans and inductions is based on a certain risk to them or their baby. Unfortunately, it often has little or nothing to do with risk to the patient and everything risk to the care provider or institution.

And that’s the risk that most patients do not understand about how decisions are made about their bodies until it’s too late.

But Why is VBAC so Important?

I am sure that I am not the only person to ask myself this with the announcement of the National Institute of Health VBAC Conference announcement.  But unlike most, I know more than my fair share about VBAC after having a cesarean with my first child it became more than a healthy obsession to me. But sadly the more I learned, the more sad I became about the access to VBAC nationally.

In a 2009 survey from The International Cesarean Awareness Network, it was found that nearly 50% of all hospitals in The United States has some sort of a VBAC Ban in place. Whether it be a formal policy written by hospital administrators, or a de facto ban, meaning there simply are no providers who will take on a patient who wishes to have a Vaginal Birth after Cesarean.

But what does this mean for women nationally? For the women who have had cesarean sections, whether medically necessary, or unnecessary?  It means that once they have experienced once cesarean birth, they have no choices regarding future pregnancies or deliveries. Essentially leaving them with no real informed consent.  To me, as a huge activist, that is not only a violation of a patients rights, but it is a major human rights and bodily anatomy violation.

Right now, 90% of women who have had one cesarean section will go on to deliver all of their children through multiple major abdominal surgeries, the next more risky than the last. When the safe and relatively low risk  option of a VBAC is not available.  But lets look at the numbers regarding the risks of VBAC as opposed to repeat cesarean sections.
The major risk associated with a Vaginal Birth after a Cesarean section is something most near the most not knowing the risk is so low. Uterine Rupture.  Not something we should discount or not worry about, but when we look at the statistics, the average healthy woman who has had one previous cesarean section has a 0.6% chance of experiencing a uterine rupture.

When I went through the process of filling out and signing my VBAC consent form for my second pregnancy, there was paragraph after paragraph panting VBAC in a scary pictre, then a small paragraph with the minor risks of a repeat cesarean, almost like the practice of Obstetricians backing my midwives wanted me to change my mind and run in fear.
This form was not informed consent by any means, it was skewed, biased, and provided misinformation, but sadly this is what we are seeing Nationwide today.

But I can hope with the NIH VBAC conference we can start to see a change in the way that VBAC is handled nationally.
Women have the right to real informed consent, and give birth vaginally if that is what they choose for their own birth.

For more information on Cesarean Awareness, and Advocacy, check out The International Cesarean Awareness Network.

Loyally Devoted to Doctor

I recently read the book The Highly Sensitive Person by Elaine N Aron, Ph.D. In the chapter called Medics, Medication, and Highly Sensitive People, the author states:

“Keep in mind, too, that it is common to feel an attachment to anyone you have been with during an arousing experience, especially if it was a truly painful or emotionally significant ordeal. In the medical realm you hear these sorts of extra feelings when people describe their surgeon or women talk about the person who delivered their child, which is perfectly normal. The solution is simply to know why it happens and compensate for it appropriately.”

In the chapter about relationships, she talks about studies that were done that showed people are far more likely to fall in love under stressful circumstances. She applied this phenomenon to attachment in all relationships, not just romantic relationships. Later when I read the above statement in the medical chapter, so many things started to make sense to me.

Why do women love their maternity care provider, even when they may have done unnecessary procedures on them and not allowed them to make their own choices? Why do many providers use scare tactics? Why do women hold so adamantly to the belief that their provider “saved their life” or “saved their baby” or “was a great doctor” or “really took good care of me”, even when evidence to the contrary is right in front of them? Why do they fail to make important connections, such as that their c-section may have been one of the many unnecessary ones, or that there may not have been a true evidence based need for their induction? Why is childbirth treated like a major emergency with so much fear and anxiety around it? Why aren’t all women who give birth in this system severely traumatized from it, and instead defend and adore their doctors? The answer is simple: the culture of fear that surrounds childbirth actually endears women to their doctors. It cements the relationship between women, their doctors, and the hospitals their doctors practice at. It ensures that the women will keep coming back, and will recommend their providers to all their friends as they speak about them in glowing heroic terms. It is quite brilliant really, providers and hospitals have found the key to running a very successful business, and it has nothing to do with allowing women to make their own choices. They simply have to give the illusion prenatally that the woman can make her own choices for her birth, and then make sure that the actual experience of birth is one filled with fear, anxiety, and of course a healthy baby, and then the narcissistic provider will come out looking like roses to the woman who must endure the “horrors of childbirth”.

Of course, I am not really giving the doctors the benefit of the doubt here. They likely don’t know on a conscious level what they are really doing. They have been trained to act this way, by people who were also trained to act this way, and it is reinforced for them every time a woman profusely thanks her doctor for a job well done, and every time a woman tells her birth horror story where the good doctor makes an appearance as the hero who delivers her baby to her despite all the dangers that presented at the last minute. Both the woman and the doctor seem ignorant of the psychological effects that framing every average birth as a medical emergency creates.

In the statement above, the author states: “it is common to feel an attachment to anyone you have been with during an arousing experience, especially if it was a truly painful or emotionally significant ordeal.” This describes childbirth perfectly. The word “arousing” here is referring to sensory levels. That can mean physically, emotionally, sexually, or any other assault to the senses, good or bad, that can be had. We know childbirth can be described as “arousing” in many ways. It is also inherently “painful” and “emotionally significant”. Even when women use drugs, there is still some level of pain before she took them, and depending on what type of drugs she took, she may still experience pain while she is taking them. So really, all births fit this criteria. Births in a hospital, or at home, or in a birth center all have these same basic elements. It seems women are wired to form an attachment to the people who were with her and helped her through the event. This could be her partner, her doula, her midwife, her doctor, her nurse, or her friend or relative. I think this type of attachment likely had an evolutionary purpose at one time. It would be ideal to attach to an older, wiser woman who assisted with the delivery of babies who would have been there to care for the mom postpartum, and to slowly help her to bond and form an attachment to the baby. This wise woman would then help the mother learn to breastfeed and care for her new infant, while slowly pulling back her own attentions from the situation. This is what we have in homebirth midwives today. How would our ancestors have fared if a man had shown up in the tribe to deliver a baby, and then disappeared immediately afterward? The woman would be left adoring him, yet not having help from him to form an attachment to her infant. Never learning how to breastfeed or other infant care skills. What would have become of humanity? What is becoming of humanity?

Midwives and doulas seem to understand this phenomenon. Doulas usually visit a woman once or twice postpartum and are available if she needs to talk or has questions about the baby, breastfeeding, or the birth. Midwives start seeing a woman more and more as the birth approaches, and then once the baby is born, they start to taper off again, seeing her less and less until she is no longer needed at all. This is a much more natural and appropriate response to caring for a woman during such a pivotal transition in her life. What happens when women see doctors or CNM’s in hospitals though? They are likely seeing a practice, not a specific provider. They will likely not give birth with the same doctor or CNM they saw prenatally. They may never see the same doctor or CNM again after they give birth, or perhaps just once at the six week checkup. How does this affect women emotionally, or in her relationship with her baby, when instead of having a slow winding away from her provider, there is just an abrupt ending to the relationship? Does this interfere with breastfeeding, or affect feelings of trauma related to the birth, or feelings of depression related to her new role as mother? It is ingrained in our psyche to attach to these people who help us through such a major event in our life. How will the people we choose handle this responsibility? Are we choosing someone who will corrupt our experience and force an unnatural attachment to them by creating more anxiety around the experience? Are we choosing someone who will be there for us days, weeks, and months later to answer our questions about the baby or to offer us emotional support? Will the person we choose even be available for the birth, and will we ever see them again afterward?

Now I realize why other women feel the way they do about their provider. I did not attach to my provider, I was instead extremely traumatized by her actions. I still wonder why some women are traumatized, and others fall in love with their providers, given the same set of circumstances. I wonder if it is actually more natural, and thus common, to attach to a provider even when (or perhaps especially when) that provider creates an atmosphere of fear. It makes sense then why so few of us are speaking up about the system and the way women are treated. It makes sense that women are extremely loyal to their providers, even when many aspects of their births were disappointing or upsetting to them. It makes sense that many women are reluctant to accept that there is anything wrong with maternity care. It makes sense why the maternity care system is so hard to change and is met with so much resistance from every side.

What can birth activists do to help women form healthy attachments during this transitional time in her life? It may be tempting to try to convince all women to have a homebirth with a midwife since we know that they are probably the best option for healthy attachments and a healthy weaning away as well, however, if a woman has already formed a strong attachment to a certain provider, it may be more realistic to recommend having a doula. A doula will be there prenatally, for the birth, and postpartum, and therefore can provide much of the physical and emotional support that new moms need and deserve. Some moms may hire a doula, yet keep her same provider that she has formed an attachment to, and others may find that a doula is a stepping stone to having a homebirth the next time. One day I hope that maternity care shifts to being centered around the mother again, and not around the provider and his schedule or routine.

Violence in Maternity Care

The non-profit organization Solace for Mothers: Healing After Traumatic Childbirth is asking anyone who has experienced or has witnessed violent maternity care, to write a letter to Lynn Rosenthal, the presidential advisor on violence against women, and First Lady Michelle Obama.

Solace explains:

We invite you to join us in writing to Lynn Rosenthal and Michelle Obama in an effort to bring awareness to the violence women experience at the hands of some maternity care providers. First Lady Michelle Obama has made recent remarks championing the rights of childbearing women, and may be an ally for this cause. Lynn Rosenthal is a former executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

We are calling for an official review of perinatal practices to investigate common and flagrant violations of patients? rights; mainly the right to informed consent and refusal. We are asking that enhanced and enforced mechanisms for accountability follow the investigation.

What can be considered violent maternity care? Solace states,

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence in this way:

“the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”

Violence in maternity care is expressed in many different ways. There can be physical violence, such as forcing procedures which women have explicitly refused. There can be emotional violence, such as coercion, manipulation, or verbal abuse. There can be an exertion of power or force over women’s legal rights by individual health care providers and/or by hospital policies such as threatening to call child protective services if a woman does not agree to a procedure or threatening to withhold care in labor if a woman does not agree to the provider?s suggested intervention. ?Informed consent? refers to the legal right of all patients to have the risks, benefits and alternatives clearly explained prior to any procedure. All patients ? including laboring women – have the right to accept or refuse any suggested treatment. Withholding informed consent through the use of physical force, coercion or manipulation is an act of violence and is illegal.

Provider-perpetrated violence during childbirth can result in the birthing woman suffering traumatic stress, anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress, postpartum depression and other disabling mood disorders.

For more direction, please click here to visit the Solace for Mothers webpage about the campaign.

To read the letter sent to Lynn Rosenthal and First Lady Michell Obama from Solace for Mothers, Click Here.

Please write letters and spread the word to anyone who may have experienced or witnessed violent maternity care.

The Infamous Cascade Chart

As someone strongly involved in the birth community, this is probably one of my favorite pictures floating around the internet that I run across every once and a while.? One day when I find out the person who actually put these thoughts and cascade of interventions into a physical chart to view, I am going to kiss them!

I have always loved how it starts with induction, because lets face it, so many women today are starting their labors with some kind of artificial labor stimulant. Whether it be pitocin, or the oh so dangerous cytotec. I can personally say I have been the victim of the cascade myself with my first child. Had I seen this before my pregnancy with him, I would have never opted for the induction. Many do not realize that induction in many cases will fail, almost half of the time according to the most recent figures, and when I quote that, I am quoting Robbie Davis Floyd in a 2008 interview, I believe it was in Pregnant in America but my birth/pregnancy movies and interviews all start to blur together when you watch so many of them. These babies are not ready to be born in many cases, especially when we are seeing these inductions before the “due date” or the 40 week gestation mark. Although we know that “due dates” aren’t much to put stock into, many women and providers use them as some type of eviction date, which history has shown to be a pretty bad idea. No one is going to be pregnant forever and many women left alone will go into labor on their own. Now granted, there are cases that induction is medically necessary and for these special cases, I am completely thankful. Without induction these women would be subjected to cesarean sections instead of labor inductions which could in turn be even more hard on their body, and experience over all.
What we do not understand with the induction of labor is, we are creating unnaturally strong contractions in attempt to simulate something similar to natural labor. As someone who has experienced pitocin labor, and natural labor, I would take a million natural contractions over being on the receiving end of pitocin again. The comparison in my opinion is not even in the same ball park. Another issue with these contractions as most know, is the fact that they are more likely to cause fetal distress on the baby because they are not natural contractions or what normal contractions are supposed to be. So in turn we are putting our children under unnecessary stress. Especially if they are not ready to come and join us in “our world” yet. Again something I learned with my first.
Then we have the provider who comes in and looks at the fetal heart monitoring and says, “Oh No! Your baby is in danger!!” So off to the operating room we go for an “emergency” cesarean which in reality was caused by the pitocin to begin with. You would think by this point there would be a bit of common sense in the Obstetric community to say, ya know, I think we are causing these actions instead of blaming the increasing cesarean rate on “patient choice cesareans” which only make up 3% at most of the incredibly high cesarean rate in our country.

But a cesarean is only one path that this induction cascade can lead to. There are still women out there that will have a vaginal delivery when subjected to a labor induction, but in turn these women have greater risks for other procedures including episiotomies which have all in all been proven to really have little to no benefit to women in the long run. While episiotomy rates are starting to decrease, they are still over used in many communities. For example, here in my state of Connecticut, some hospitals have an over 25% episiotomy rate, when science tells us there really shouldn’t be over 10%. Trying to obtain these numbers are like pulling teeth too FYI!

We also have vaccum extraction. I had never really discussed this or spoken with someone who experienced this until I met my Chiropractor in the summer of 2008. He was discussing with me why Chiropractic care in infants is important, and then he described his own daughters birth, they had applied the vaccum to the top of her head, and while “assisting” her out, they pulled so hard the vaccum literally flew right off of her head. My Chiropractor described it so vividly… “I thought her HEAD popped RIGHT OFF! I was horrified to even look!”? My heart broke for him because no parent should have to go through that kind of fright during the birth of their child!

These all often lead to epidurals, which especially if you are going to have a cesarean section, you will either have this or a spinal block. All types of anesthesia that will have a direct impact on the baby. Although I have experienced women told there will be no effects on their baby at all.
I am sure most know about the “breast crawl” and I can say after watching a baby who’s mother did have an epidural, as opposed to a mom who had a natural birth, there is no comparing the instincts of the baby. While I had epidurals with both of my children, I didn’t have the opportunity to breastfeed then until they were a little over an hour old. My first was almost 2 hours. For more information on epidural effects on babies, click this link!

The last thing I want to touch on is the separation of mother and baby after a cesarean section which is very common. It is pretty uncommon for an newborn to be allowed to stay in the OR with mom, although it does happen sometimes. I can really related to the lack of bonding, breastfeeding problems, and reduced bonding because of this because I deeply experienced this with the births of both of my children. While I bonded, it was not that “instant motherly love” I am sure most feel. It hurts me to this day to know that my bonding was an almost learned bonding because I knew as a mother it was something I needed to do in order to protect my babies.? While most women who have had cesarean sections are not quick to admit this, I think by discussing this and acknowledging that this is a true problem it will only help to improve it for others in the long run. I also noticed that mothers who do experience this may be ashamed or fearful to admit this because it make portray them in a less than perfect light, or maybe others may look down on them because of this, but they should not be ashamed. It happens and there is nothing we can do about it but help other women to not go through what we did!

Be empowered by your birth, no matter how you birth!
If it is a bad experience, help to educate others so they do not go through what you did, so they can avoid the pain or heartache you have dealt with!

Avoid Giving Birth on the Back and Follow the Body?s Urges to Push

This one just seems like it is out of the Journal Duh.? I mean seriously folks, how can laying on your back NOT be pushing uphill? Can someone cue the song from Wicked: Defying Gravity?? Oh and can you quit screaming at me while I try to give birth to a baby?? This isn’t a football and I don’t need a cheerleader.? I know what to do.? You just be quiet and let ME make all the noise!

Mothers Advocate Video | Mothers Advocate Handout | Lamaze Paper

Avoid Interventions That Are Not Medically Necessary

This is the health birth practice that gets me strange looks – why would anyone want to avoid medical interventions?? I truly think that people 1) aren’t stopping to hear the medically unnecessary part and 2) simply don’t trust birth to be uncomplicated and go off without a hitch.? Seriously, machines are not designed to give birth but women are!

The use of medical technology in the rare instance of a complicated birth is a blessing, but the flip side is that overuse of the exact same technology is a curse.? The use of fetal monitoring has done nothing but increase the cesarean rate.? Don’t believe me?? Ask ACOG.? We routinely give women IVs, fetal monitoring and the cesarean surgery rate has gone up 46% in 10 years.? Something is wrong.? That is the misuse of medical technology in a typically uncomplicated process.? When cooking, do you skip the blender because you know how to chew your food?? Or do you process all your food into liquid in case you might choke on a piece of it?

Here are some ways to avoid unnecessary interventions in birth:

• Consider where you are giving birth. Giving birth at home or in a birth center will help ensure that you are well supported in an uncomplicated pregnancy.? Unnecessary technology is not available because it is not needed.? Emergency equipment is saved for emergencies.

• Consider with whom you are giving birth. Giving birth with a midwife at home, a birth center or even a hospital could have beneficial effects on your labor by the lack of unneeded technology.? There are certainly OBs and family practitioners who provide quality, low risk care without overusing medical technology, but they are not trained in the specialty of low risk women.

• Frequent conversations about your needs. Talk to your practitioner about what you need both in terms of support and (in)action from them.? Ask them when they would resort to medical technology and open up that conversation.? Remember, the point is not that intervention is bad but that unnecessary intervention is harmful to labor, baby and mom.

• Don’t hesitate to change. So many women get into their pregnancies and realize that either they’ve changed their goals or that their practitioner is not supportive.? Some choose to have home births, some choose to go to a different facility or different provider.? That is an acceptable thing, do not be concerned about hurting your practitioner’s feelings.? If your plumber provided services that were not what you needed would you hesitate to find a new one? Or live with a broken faucet?

Trying to tell if a medical intervention is necessary?? Talk to your practitioner.? Over the course of your prenatal care, your relationship has grown and you need to trust this person in practice and philosophy.? Get informed consent.? Do you have time to think about it and discuss it or is this an emergency? Do you know why a test or procedure is being proposed? What is it supposed to so?? When will you know if it worked?? Are there other procedures, tests or possibilities?? What are the benefits?? What are the trade offs? What happens if you decide to do nothing or not go forward with what they are proposing?? If you determine, with the help of your medical team, that an intervention is necessary and not “just because we do it to everyone,” then you are still keeping with the spirit of this healthy birth practice.

Lamaze Healthy Birth Practice | Mothers Advocate Video | Mothers Advocate Handout

Postpartum Depression, Bottle Feeding and Infant and Mother Separation at Birth

There is a new study out by the University of Albany done by evolutionary psychologists that puts forward the idea that a woman who feeds her baby a bottle instead of breastfeeds may be at risk for postpartum depression due to the fact that her body will interpret this as an infant loss. The article states:

“for most of our evolutionary history the absence or early cessation of breastfeeding would have been occasioned by the miscarriage, loss, or death of an infant, and, at the level of basic biology, a mother’s decision to bottle feed rather than nurse unknowingly simulates that loss.”

This was a small scale study, only 50 mothers were surveyed. However, they still found interesting information:

“those who bottle fed their babies scored significantly higher on a postnatal depression scale than those engaged in breastfeeding.? The increased risk of depression among mothers who relied on bottle feeding held true even after controlling for such factors as age, education, income, and the mother?s relationship with her current partner.”

They also found that mothers who bottle feed tend to hold their infants more, which they have seen in primates whose babies have died and they cling to those babies for prolonged periods afterward. What I found most interesting though was this:

The UAlbany research team noted that the common hospital practice of isolating newborn infants together in a nursery for the first couple of days after birth, and the resulting intermittent separation of the mother from her baby during the initial post childbirth period, could also serve to simulate child loss and contribute to or set the stage for subsequent postpartum depression.

“Bottle feeding and hospital procedures that simulate child loss may increase the risk of postpartum depression,” Gallup said. “These practices fall within a growing number of medical issues that could benefit from a perspective of human evolutionary history.”

It is very interesting and significant that the common hospital practices here are linked to an increased risk of postpartum depression. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale was used in this study to asses whether women were suffering from postpartum depression. However, they could also have been suffering from postnatal traumatic stress, since the Edinburgh scale only picks up depression symptoms and not trauma symptoms, and separation from infants is a key trauma risk. Either way, connecting postpartum mood disorders with the routine practices of separation of infants and mothers in a hospital seems to be a step in the right direction toward reforming maternity care.

Does a Laboring Woman Have Any Rights?

I have been doing a lot of reading about the case of a woman who exercised her legal right to informed consent and refused a cesarean, and subsequently had her baby taken away because of it. This woman’s case hits very close to home for me. She labored in a way that was described as “combative,” “uncooperative,” “erratic,” “noncompliant,” “irrational” and “inappropriate.” I can imagine that the midwives who assisted in the delivery of my son would label the way I labored in much the same way. These terms are all very subjective, and I can imagine them being used for a patient that was vocal about refusing procedures they wanted her to comply with. The court records were vague on the next similarity, but it also seems that this woman was in an abusive environment. She even called the police from her hospital room. From everything I have read, it seems that they are using her accusations of abuse as proof that she was being irrational, and I have seen no description of what abuses occurred, as if the entire subject is too crazy a notion to spend any time on. I think if there was abuse, this is a pretty good explanation of her actions during labor. Another explanation is that she was previously treated for PTSD. A woman who has had PTSD in the past who enters a hostile environment, is in the vulnerable position that being in labor creates, is pressured and perhaps abused, will be triggered by all this and react – there is simply no way around that. When a person with PTSD is triggered, they go into panic mode which will insight the fight, flight or freeze mechanism. She obviously went to “fight”, since she could not flee or freeze at such a time. Instead of the people around her being understanding of her responses, a psych evaluation was done while she was in labor. Her past history of being treated for a mental illness was dug up, and a case was made that her and her husband (since he agreed with her), were not fit parents and the child was removed from their care.

There are several alarming factors in this case. It is legal for a woman in labor to refuse care. Every person has a legal right to informed consent and refusal. Informed consent means that the person will be given the risks, benefits and alternatives of a procedure. Informed consent includes the right to refuse care. But people always say, what if it is an emergency and the baby will die without treatment? The fetus is not legally a person, and therefore a pregnant woman has the legal right to make decisions for her own body, regardless of how those decisions affect the fetus. Furthermore, a parent of a living child has the right to choose or refuse medical treatments for their child. The only legal way that any person can be forced into medical care is if a court order is obtained that deems them incapable of making that decision. I am assuming that the psych evaluation during this woman’s labor was the first step in them trying to obtain a court order. This did not work however, because the first person to examine the woman deemed her mentally capable of refusing care. The second person to examine this woman was unable to complete his examination before her healthy baby was born.

I had no idea that it was legal to have a psych evaluation done while a woman is in labor. I am guessing that this is the only way to obtain a court order, but it seems that it should only be allowable for that purpose. It is unclear to me whether or not these evaluations had any bearing on the decision to remove her child. I find it very unsettling that a woman’s mental health can be evaluated for any purpose while in labor since women enter a different state of mind in order to accomplish the monumental task of giving birth. Is this natural alternate state of being understood by the evaluators? Do they realize that what they are seeing is not mental illness but just a woman in “labor land”? Are they able to decipher the natural affects of being in labor from true mental illness? It seems that any findings from a woman in labor would be in question, so the fact that this was even done with seemingly no understanding that they may not get accurate results is just extremely alarming.

Many people are quick to point out that the c-section refusal was not the final reason given for the removal of her child, but it was her mental illness and her and her husbands unwillingness to work with the system in having their child returned to them. As for her mental illness, she had been treated in the past for PTSD. She had completed her treatment. Many women have a history of being treated for a mental illness. If a woman has ever been to therapy, chances are there is a diagnosis of some kind in her records somewhere. Many women have been on medication at one time or another. Lots of women have been treated for postpartum mood disorders. Will these things now be held against us when we have children? Is it legal to remove a child from a home just because a woman has been treated for a mental illness in the past and they feel that she is therefore at greater risk of abusing or neglecting her child? The irony is that the very system who caused my PTSD can now remove any future children I have because of it? And this is all perfectly legal in this country? As for their unwillingness to work with the system, I can understand that. In those first weeks after being traumatized and devastated, and seeing things through this lens of overwhelming emotions, I am not too sure that they would be capable at that point of seeing the benefits of cooperating with the people who just did this to them.

So, does a laboring woman have any rights? Do the laws of informed consent and refusal apply to her? Why is it that a woman is stripped of all her legal and civil rights during the window of time that she is giving birth, yet she has personal and parental rights at any other time in her life? The laws of informed consent are on the books, but they can’t be upheld legally. If she is violated and damaged, she can not sue for compensation simply because no lawyers will take a case like that. I was just told last week by a lawyer that I had no legal right to refuse any unwanted physical contact or medical procedure during my labor since I had signed a blanket consent form upon arriving to the hospital. Apparently, according to him, a woman can scream “no” and “stop” all she wants to, but she has no legal rights do so, since once she signs that consent form she is allowing the hospital and it’s staff to do whatever they deem necessary from that point on. I disagreed with him, but he holds the beliefs and opinions of most of the lawyers and judges and health care providers in this country. In order for a woman to have any rights, it has to be able to be upheld legally in court. Otherwise, it is just a useless law written in a book somewhere and has no power or bearing on women’s lives. Therefore, I would say that no, women have no legal rights while in labor or giving birth. I think this is the singular problem with our maternity care system. If a woman has no legal rights to refusal in an emergency, then everything becomes an emergency, and she suddenly has no legal rights over anything that happens to her from vaginal exams, to IV’s, to fetal monitoring, to episiotomies and c-sections. In order to change the system, women must be granted their legal rights. Education can only go so far. We can all be highly educated victims, or we can change the system and insist that we have a right to informed consent and refusal in maternity care.