Xblog

Chris, You make some great connections that do indeed affect the statistics of birth ( ie, immigration levels, determination of viable birth, and nations with socialized medecine), however you are telling everyone to skip a movie that you haven’t ever seen. That seems to go against the moral tone in which you write. Wow, I want to call you mr. brussel sprouts.

And yet in your own writing you reveal the greatest issue of this Birth Choice movement that is growing not only in America, but round the globe. You do not know what you could have denied or requested around the birth of your child. There is far too little consumer awareness of the protocol and procedures of birth attendants! This in itself has caused an unchecked situation where agendas of both hospital administrations and medical staff (based greatly on the fear of liability) indeed manipulate the events within labor and delivery.

It has been said that mothers’-to-be and fathers and families research mortgage and new car acquisitions with in depth fervor and yet leave the investigation of the birth process (biological and how it is administered by birth attendants) up to the hands, hearts and minds of others. Granted, we do not live in a society where we might have been around birth numerous times to ask questions as a child and familiarize ourselves with it. No, sadly our gut responses to birth are based on overdramatized movies, Nielson-driven editors and other media blitzes.

And even though you seem to position emotionality as a bad thing, I can only imagine the road of emotional discovery you went through participating in the birth of your child and the experience of your partner.

This film and others like “What Babies Want,” are not only imperative in the Birth Choice Movement, but offer a greater glimpse into how to be a conscious consumer about birth. And even though you seem to avoid the emotional connection, birth experiences are the most emotional experiences of our lives. Every participant should be viewed as an emotional being: you the father, the mother, the newborn and the even the birth attendants.

You have bitten off what I believe the forces behind the trailer of the Business of Being Born expected audiences to sit up and pay attention. Sadly it is statistics, the safe, emotion-free insight that most Americans find the easiest to address.

I thank you for addressing that flaw in our society’s attention span and also ask you to find time to privately explore your memories/experiences of the journey of your child’s birth, as it seems that you question its roll out. This questioning is the begining of becoming concious consumers of pregnancy and birth, or as I like to view it, protectors of the greatest rite of passage in human civilization. You might have another child or your children or other families near you might have another child and only in sharing our experiences do we realize that we are not alone.

The quality of birth can increase for everyone once we allow ourselves individually and as a collective society to consider that a “good birth” means more than the statistical viability of mother and newborn. There is so much more in a good birth that I wish all people to experience.

Jessica Deltac Therapist in Southern California

If you haven’t watched the film, shouldn’t the title for this article be “The Trouble with Advocacy TRAILERS?” Trailers are designed to grab your attention and this trailer did that….if only you would watch the film before you critique it!

If you haven’t watched the film, shouldn’t the title for this article be “The Trouble with Advocacy TRAILERS?” Trailers are designed to grab your attention and this trailer did that….if only you would watch the film before you critique it!

While I didn’t watch the film, I did grab the press package that is distributed by the filmmakers and looked specifically at the press notes, which did include a section highlighting the facts behind the film’s argument. While they did raise a few good points, for the most part it confirmed the impression I had from the trailer that most of the content of the film is playing fast and loose with statistics and facts.

The title of the article is informed by my experiences with a number of documentaries that I have watched. This film was picked upon because it was a new film that I’d encountered and at least at first glance it seems to hit all the notes I feared it might.

As for trailers…. a good trailer should grab your attention and make a case for why you would want to devote some time to watching a movie. It should not misrepresent, mislead, or misinform. Most importantly, it should make a convincing case about what is different about this film that I should watch it before the countless other films that I have not watched. In this case, the message I walked away with was that while the filmmaker likely has done an excellent job of weaving together a compelling story, that the film had the traditional failings of an advocacy documentary. So my overall impression was that I’m not quite in a hurry to see it. If someone who has seen it has a different impression, I’m all ears.

you are telling everyone to skip a movie that you haven’t ever seen. That seems to go against the moral tone in which you write.

I am not telling everyone to skip the movie. I am suggesting that if people wish to become informed about these issues there are better ways than by watching this film, which is entirely consistent with the tone of my writing.

There are lots of good reasons to see a movie, and many of them likely apply to this movie. I’m merely suggesting that, “I want to become more informed about this issue” shouldn’t be very high up on the list, particularly with fictional or advocacy films.

You do not know what you could have denied or requested around the birth of your child. There is far too little consumer awareness of the protocol and procedures of birth attendants!

I should clarify this. I have a pretty good idea of what were my legal restrictions (which are more than I’d like them to be but for the most part are quite limited). Before educating myself on the protocol and procedures we chose to go with, I think I actually had a better idea of what is involved with a midwife (oddly enough, most of the kinds of fiction I’ve read have dealt more with the midwife scenario, and of course friends who have gone that route have been more likely to share about their experiences, so I really didn’t know much about how the institutional process worked until after we were pregnant). The ignorance which I spoke of was with regards to the facts about the pros and cons of midwifery. I really have no idea whether outcomes are better for either mother or child, or whether the rather aggressive campaigns against midwives during the early 20th century were really beneficial in terms of medical outcomes (I don’t consider the overall reduced infant mortality rates at all definitive).

It has been said that mothers’-to-be and fathers and families research mortgage and new car acquisitions with in depth fervor and yet leave the investigation of the birth process (biological and how it is administered by birth attendants) up to the hands, hearts and minds of others.

I don’t really know about the general case, but I can say with confidence in our case that the opposite is true. Indeed, we bought a house the day before my son was born (kids, don’t do this at home), and I can tell you that the we probably spent more time fussing over the choice of pediatricians (let alone the whole birthing process) than we did over our house.

On the advice of others we went to courses on this stuff and went over procedure with our obstetrician, hospital, and to a lesser extent pediatrician, all of which were very clear about what was legally required and what was a choice (I’m sure this was out of fear of possible legal repercussions of us not being fully informed), and I recommend that others do the same.

Nobody suggested that we do the same about buying a house (indeed, the process was rife with a lot of “just sign here”).

And even though you seem to position emotionality as a bad thing,

It’s not an inherently bad thing. Emotional portrayals are one of the main reasons to watch a movie, and I don’t think it is necessarily wise to divorce one’s emotions when considering an issue either (in cases of involving a child, I’d argue such a pursuit is doomed to fail anyway ;-). However, one must recognize that molding the data to fit one’s emotions does not lead to an informative piece.

You have bitten off what I believe the forces behind the trailer of the Business of Being Born expected audiences to sit up and pay attention. Sadly it is statistics, the safe, emotion-free insight that most Americans find the easiest to address.

I don’t think one can honestly suggest that the trailer wasn’t pulling at emotional strings!

I think suggesting that the statistics are emotion-free is also highly misleading. There are a lot of emotions involved in a pregnancy, and a LOT of them have to do with the health and well being of the child. When I saw the trailer throw up the stat about infant mortality in the US, my immediate reaction was entirely an emotional one, and I think the folks who put together the trailer were counting on that.

This questioning is the beginning of becoming conscious consumers of pregnancy and birth

Honestly, I’m at least as uncomfortable as you with thinking about this from the context of being a “consumer”, which makes me feel like I’m buying groceries and looking at ingredient labels. I was a parent, trying to do what was best (both emotionally and medically) for me and my family. Most of us can’t possibly hope to be fully informed, nor do we need to be, but you navigate through the process as best you can.

This is a very interesting discussion. I’m a European living in America and I’ve delivered 2 kids here so I can speak from my point of view having 2 very different hospital births. In Europe it’s very common for women to give birth without pain medication for example. Here in America, the first option given to you is pain medication with very little regard to how it can and does affect the outcome of the birth. It’s been proven that epidurals and c-sections go hand in hand and one doesn’t have to be a doctor to see the correlation there. Women’s bodies are build to give birth to babies not lay in the bed under pain medication not being able to feel your body working during labor. The baby has trouble coming through the birth canal because the hormonal/pain censors in the brain has been blocked by pain medication. All of sudden the baby is in distress and off we go in the surgery room. How many times have you heard a woman giving birth naturally meaning without any pain medication, needing a c-section? I gave birth naturally without any pain medication and the hospital staff on both occasion were horrified and actually amused because they thought they knew I couldn’t do it and also because they didn’t see the point why anyone would want to. After those reactions coming from 2 different hospitals and hospital staffs I got a good idea of the current medical mentality here in American and I’ve since learn how much the insurance companies and hospitals control the birthing process and are in it together. If you get the automatic epidural being offered, your hospital bill goes way up because now you’ve got the anestesiologist involved and you have to pay that person as well. I wanted to get out of the hospital the next day after having my delivery but my request was denied by the hospital and was bullied into staying by the hospital staff claiming that if I leave, the insurance company might not pay for my delivery. Now please tell me why a hospital would want me to stay for 2 days instead of 1 when me and my baby were perfectly fine. The only answer I can come up with is money. They were going to get more money from me and my insurance company. I can’t believed that I was so stupid and caved into staying. I’ve since learned that this is common practice by the hospitals. If I had known that, I would have walked out with our baby in our hands. After my own experienced with child birth here and American and knowing how different things work in Europe and the country I’m from, I’m so glad to see this film being put out to make people think. I haven’t seen this film myself so I shouldn’t fully comment but I hope to see it soon. One more point, I’d like to make is that from the many years that I’ve lived here I can see how many americans are brainwashed by the drug companies to need a medication for everything. The drug companies have such a powerful hold on the American society due to the money spent on advertising and lobbying on Capitol Hill. In Europe people are encouraged not to use medications unless completely necessary including over the counter medications. A good latest example of the over usage of medications is the cold medications being banned for young kids and babies because parent’s couldn’t be trusted to properly use them and because there wasn’t enough testing done on the side effects on the kids, yet these medications have been on the market for years without any regard to the responsibility of the drug companies and the FDA to make sure these medicines are safe to the age group they are intended to.

Here in America, the first option given to you is pain medication with very little regard to how it can and does affect the outcome of the birth.

I guess it depends on your hospital/obstetrician. Our hospital offers a course in pain management above and beyond the beginner stuff. When we encountered complications during the birthing process, one of the first things that our obstetrician tried was cutting off the epidural, so I’d say that they were pretty aware of how it affect the outcomes.

How many times have you heard a woman giving birth naturally meaning without any pain medication, needing a c-section?

Well, you’d kind of hope that you’d get some pain medication before they cut open your abdomen…. ;-)

Seriously, there are a lot of situations where a c-section is needed and/or safer that have absolutely nothing to do with pain medication or the condition of the mother at all.

After those reactions coming from 2 different hospitals and hospital staffs I got a good idea of the current medical mentality here in America

I think, in this case, two is not enough. Your experiences sound very different from my own. America is a big place, and anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to make generalizations.

Now please tell me why a hospital would want me to stay for 2 days instead of 1 when me and my baby were perfectly fine.

It sounds like the hospital staff were simply trying to look out for you. Normally they want to get you out of there as fast as possible. The norm these days is 1 day for a regular birth and 3 days for a Caesarean…. and the insurance companies will typically balk if you exceed those numbers.

The only answer I can come up with is money. They were going to get more money from me and my insurance company.

I guess they’d make more money if your bed would otherwise be unused, but normally they can make more money if they get you out of there and use the bed for a patient that needs surgery or other hospital services. Particularly with all the hospitals that have been closed, empty beds are hard to come by, and a patient in a bed who doesn’t need hospital treatment represents lost revenue, not additional revenue Isn’t it possible that they were either concerned about your health for some reason and/or they really were concerned that you’d get shortchanged by your insurance?

I’ve since learned that this is common practice by the hospitals.

No, that is incorrect. I know people who would have loved to have the extra day but couldn’t because their insurance doesn’t cover it.

A good latest example of the over usage of medications is the cold medications being banned for young kids and babies because parent’s couldn’t be trusted to properly use them and because there wasn’t enough testing done on the side effects on the kids, yet these medications have been on the market for years without any regard to the responsibility of the drug companies and the FDA to make sure these medicines are safe to the age group they are intended to.

You are misinformed on this matter. You may find this article in the NY Times enlightening. The original approvals happened decades ago when the medical community (not just the US) believed testing with children was unnecessary. The drugs in question were never okayed by the FDA for children under the age of 2, nor were they marketed that way (if you look at the “dosage” section on the bottles they usually say “talk to your pediatrician” instead of listing a dosage). Furthermore, the medications were banned not only because of safety concerns but because of evidence that they were completely ineffective. As for parents being “trusted” in the US, there may be cultural differences on risk tolerance… are those medications still for sale in Europe?

1) You haven’t seen the actual movie. 2) your own words: “First of all, I have to embarrassingly admit here that I am not sufficiently well informed on midwifery and/or home birthing to really be able to discuss the matter one way or the other. When it came to our own child I don’t think the issue ever came up (although there was discussion about a Doula), and I guess I lacked sufficient curiosity to investigate it myself.”

My suggestion: Don’t blog about a movie you haven’t seen on a topic that you are not sufficiently well-informed on. This is yet another example of the internet providing a platform for any Joe Blow to air his/her uninformed opinions for the masses to consume and often (unfortunately) take at face value.

You sound like a really inteilligent guy. Maybe you should wait until you’ve seen the movie and learned more about alternative birth options to blast it.

If your point is that advocacy films skew evidence in favor of the point they are trying to make, then draw from examples of the films you have actually watched instead of targeting just one film (which YOU HAVEN’T SEEN).

This is yet another example of the internet providing a platform for any Joe Blow to air his/her uninformed opinions for the masses to consume and often (unfortunately) take at face value.

Which differs from an advocacy documentary in that said Joe Blow does need to have some money to burn. ;-)

Having a market place of ideas where the cost of entry is cheap is a net good thing. You’ll note that unlike an advocacy documentary, it is equally easy to present criticism of my ideas inline with the ideas themselves (yeah! we all win). Media such as this make it easier for alternative viewpoints, like alternative birth options, to get out to the general population.

Maybe you should wait until you’ve seen the movie and learned more about alternative birth options to blast it.

You’ll note that I didn’t blast any point the film made about alternative birth options. Rather, I criticized the blasting of institutional births as found in the press materials provided by the film makers and by the film’s trailer. In some cases the information is misleading, and in others it is just flat out wrong. I do think that is important and relevant. If the film repudiates these points, I’d be very interested to hear about it.

If your point is that advocacy films skew evidence in favor of the point they are trying to make, then draw from examples of the films you have actually watched instead of targeting just one film (which YOU HAVEN’T SEEN).

The advantage of this particular film is that I was able to restrict my comments to content which is available on the web (the trailer and the press kit). This makes it easy for anyone reading the blog to view the material themselves and draw their own conclusions.