In search of a pediatrician... (LONG)

I am trying to secure a pediatrician for the well-infant care of my daughter who is due in less than a month. I loved my own pediatrician, who I will not name for the time being. I wanted to use the same practice but have been told by the office staff that they do now take babies from the Birth Cottage because it is "risky".

The woman I spoke to this morning told me that they have had issues with babies in the past who had something wrong that should have been detected at the time of birth but went without treatment because they were born at the birth center rather than a hospital. I don't see how the location of birth has anything to do with potential of an undetected illness or problem. I attend a medical facility that provides me with licensed professional care and have a low-risk pregnancy. All my tests have come back healthy and normal. I have no reason to believe that my child will be ill in any way. She told me it was a "one in a million chance and they don't want that one."

My baby is being judged for the location of her birth rather than her actual medical history. She is healthy. She is normal. If something arises, THAT is what the doctor is for. I'm at a loss for why the pediatricians are singling out these babies who may have had something wrong as if they wouldn't have happened if born in a hospital.

My child is at a lower risk of birth defect and delayed effects that are caused by excessive fetal monitoring, anesthesia, and other interventions that I will be avoiding. I'm prepared to birth a healthy baby but they assume she will be unfit just because her arrival will be aided by midwife?!

What if a patient planning on giving birth at TMH, gives birth in her car and only her husband attends? Would they turn her down? Simply because this is my choice does it effect the policy. The real issue seems to be that they don't want crunchy granola moms who think for themselves in the practice. That seems to be a bad maneuver since more and more moms are learning to take charge of their medical decisions. That is the way it should be.

I'm awaiting a call to see if the doctor I saw as a child is willing to accept my child as a patient but at this point I'm not sure what is best for her.


Anyway, this article caught my eye and seems to be what the woman is basing her view of midwifery on...

Do Natural Birth Centers put Mothers at Risk?
Posted by Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah


"In the health section of Scotsman.com yesterday there was an article called Natural birth units 'putting mothers at risk'. The article says:"Up to a third of expectant mothers are rushed at the last minute to doctor-led labour suites because midwife-run wards cannot deal with medical complications or provide sufficient pain relief." Now, this article is based on research in Scotland and says that a lot of the problems are with first time mothers.


Obviously, this is causing a huge controversy where doctors and midwives are on opposite sides.


I have several friends that have recently given birth in birthing centers instead of hospitals. I know a lot of people who have done home births. I understand that women have been having babies for millions (or however old man is) of years without anesthesia and I know that it can be better for the baby.


I also know this: when my children were born I needed a blood transfusion. I had an emergency caesarian. I also had a very complicated pregnancy and odds are that the only reason my children both lived is because through modern medicine the doctors were able to delay childbirth for six weeks. I went into labor when I was 28 weeks pregnant. (Think of it as seven months.) Naomi Wolf is probably going to hate me for saying this but I thank my doctors and medical staff for saving my life and the lives of my twins.


That being said, even if I had gone into labor on my due date I still would have wanted an epidural and medical staff nearby. For me it just isn't worth the risk. I feel fortunate to live in a time where we have all of these wonderful medical tools (including painkillers) available to us.


I don't mean to slam midwives, I'm sure they are wonderful people. I am sure that a home birth without complications is a beautiful thing. I just like to hedge my bets, especially when it comes to my kids."

_________________


My reaction to this is that the author is not a good candidate for midwife care but uses that as a justification that it isn't a safe birthing process. Rather she would not be safe in that situation but it remains a safe option for other women. Women like me. She needs a doctor because she has the presence of abnormalities (multiples, preterm, history of excessive blood). I am absent of any known complications and that is why I can safely see a midwife for my prenatal care, labor, and birth.


As a side note, she concludes by saying that she isn't willing to take the risk of midwife care (which she clearly has limited understanding of) and would rather recieve an epidural. It seems that she isn't aware of the effects that could negatively effect her and her baby from this sort of pain management. There are risks there too and she acts as if it is totally safe. It isn't. Its a decision she has to make for herself but it seems from her writing that she is unaware of the full risks and believes herself to be safer than she really is.

Another issue I take with the article is that she sites a review made about transfers and she lumps medically necessary transfers in with mother requested ones. They are not equivalent and they skew any true image of the safety of a midwife attended birth. 

I see this view a lot in my conversations with other pregnant (or recently pregnant)women they are in deep waters and they are holding on to a raft but are totally unaware of the shark encircling them. They hold on to the fact that they have all the medically trained staff and new technology but aren't really seeing the whole picture because there are dangers in that environment too.