From: minx@access.digex.com (minx)
Subject: Re: "Missing out" (was. re: Justin...)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:41:11 GMT

In article <BuKnFD.22o@apollo.hp.com> betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry) writes:
>Here's the fundamental problem I have with natural-birthers, many of
>whom are completely reasonable people.  *Some* natural-birthers
>generalize from "Labor pain was necessary for me, and pain medication
>was not worth the trade-offs to me" to "Labor pain is necessary for
>everybody, and people who choose pain medication are ill-informed."

I agree with that.  But you know, I haven't met any of those who say
*everyone* needs to have labor without medication.  I think they would be
very silly.  Nobody knows how much pain they can take, never mind trying
to figure out how much pain somebody esle can take.

>There are a lot of tradeoffs with pain medication.  One important goal
>is the child's alertness at birth; another important goal is the
>mother's alertness at birth.  The overriding MOST important goal is
>the safety and health of both parties.  Some women find labor pain
>easily manageable without drugs; others, equally committed to
>intervention-free childbirth, find the pain unbearable.  

I was very committed to intervention-free childbirth.  But the nursing
staff kept pushing the demerol at me, saying they would just give me a
little something for the pain.  They also made mention that the 
anesthesiologist was waiting just outside if I wanted an epidural
Nobody told me what the risks were, but they were ready to hand
out the stuff like it was candy.

>A woman who has suffered a very painful labor may be too exhausted or
>too frightened to enjoy her newborn.  This is just as great an
>impediment to that joyous moment of birth as is an infant sleepy from
>pain medication.  And both impediments pass with time.  It is *not*
>true that you have to "bond" in the first 60 seconds or be forever
>doomed.

I think you're right about the bonding thing, but I've been told that
the rush you get from an unmedicated birth is natures way of making sure
you aren't exhausted.  And by the time the baby is born, I don't think
anyone could still be frightened unless there was a problem with the
baby or with the mother.
>
>I've read some of the research.  A study you don't often hear cited
>(I'll try to dig up the citation in *I Wish Someone Had Told Me*) is
>a Canadian study, which showed that women who had undergone prepared
>childbirth classes had no better a record at avoiding pain medication
>than women who hadn't.

But which childbirth classes?  My Lamaze class was AWFUL!  My friend's
Bradley class, according to her, was great!

>It does astound me that there's this hembra (feminine of "macho")
>mystique around childbirth.  Nobody hands out gold ribbons for having
>a broken leg set without medication; everybody is willing to admit
>that it's appropriate to accept pain relief.  Why is there this cult
>that "real" women don't need pain relief from childbirth?

I don't know if that's a fair comparison.  When you choose medication for
your leg, you know it will make you groggy, etc.  When you choose medication
for childbirth when you don't know what you're getting, you're not only
making that decision for yourself, but you're choosing for your baby too.
Besides, your taking pain medication does nothing to change the way that
the doctor sets your leg.  But having a baby is all you, the doctor only
catches him.  If you are messed up, and your muscles aren't working right,
it could have an effect on the work you have to do.  I wouldn't take
general anesthetic if I had to drive my car when an asprin or nothing
would do...

Minx



Newsgroups: misc.kids