The Deranged Housewife

Why do women choose "risky" births?

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Sat, 11 May 2013 16:12:00 +0000

Whenever a tragic birth outcome makes the headlines, especially if it's perceived as "risky," I know women ask themselves, "How can a woman do this? What on earth was she thinking?" It's hard not to, but much of the time, I can totally understand why.

The death of any baby is tragic, and I guess hindsight is 20/20 when you pronounce the death "unavoidable." In the case of this Australian woman, who was attempting a VBAC at home after two cesareans, she was summarily lambasted for not following the advice of her doctor and "internet advisers" were blamed for giving her false information on what she should do. One woman said, "I blame the 'variation of normal' crowd." (The woman's baby was breech.)

Contrast that to this story, of an American woman who died of complications following her sixth cesarean section. No is blaming her for her risky decision to have so many cesareans, as I'm sure she took her doctor's advice - and I highly doubt he/she was pleading with this mother to "please have a VBAC! It's safer!"

What's the difference, really?

Why is accepting one death - that could have also been avoidable - okay, but not the other? Imagine if the Australian woman had decided on that third cesarean, perhaps going on to have more children and more cesareans, and ending up like the woman who died? Are we saying that's just an acceptable risk that you take and "so what?"

I see it as merely shifting the risk. The more you discourage VBAC in women who've only had one prior cesarean, especially in those who desire larger families, the more you end up hearing stories like this. It seems like our medical community, and society at large, is perfectly willing to believe in dangerous paradoxes - namely, that VBAC is dangerous and cesarean section is "perfectly safe." Many commenters were disgusted that she went against the advice of her doctor and attempted a VBAC, which was unfortunate; but for many women who do take that advice, you better believe their doctor can churn out just as much misinformation as that sandal-wearing hippie natural birth advocate you so despise. How is being the opposite side of the same coin any better?

Add the fact that very few hospitals receive an official "Mother-Baby Friendly" designation (not that that matters, I guess) or can seem to be supportive without treating mom like brainless chattel and it should be easy to see why women choose an alternative birth. How many times have you heard that it's damned-near impossible to have a normal, let alone natural (gasp!) birth in a hospital setting? I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's usually difficult and you have to really work the system (which has quite a learning curve, let me tell you).

For those who frequently bitch about how reckless or crazy women are after disastrous home births, what are they doing to make hospital births more hospitable? Oh wait - they're usually the ones that tell you to just "let go of your anger and get over the 'birth experience' - just deal with it." I'm guessing they've never once cracked open a book that details some of the absolutely barbaric birth practices that "modern" obstetrics have put women through* over the generations, and for what? To be treated like a human guinea pig? Or the formidable, unmentionable "physicians" who like to demonize all women for even thinking about a home birth, much less having one - are they making stunning strides and initiatives to support women in a comfortable, accommodating hospital atmosphere? Or just complaining about it and publishing the names and addresses of those women who've lost children in home births?

I'm not sure how I managed it, but I had a VBAC in 2006 and sort of fell into an OB's practice that would actually "let me" do it. I don't think I had any clue how difficult it is for some women to have one. If I hear someone say "just find a supportive OB and hospital with lots of experiences in VBAC" one more time I'm going to scream. Because it's definitely not that easy.

From the ICAN website.

If you look at this list, many are rural hospitals or in smaller towns. And many are hospitals in large cities. I'd like to know how you are just going to up and "find a supportive hospital" when they don't seem to exist. If you live in the boonies, your options for supportive hospitals and OBs or midwives is probably pretty limited, and I'm willing to bet the cesarean and induction rates at those hospitals that serve rural women are through the roof. ACOG Guidelines be damned; they aren't offering up an attorney, birth doula or physician to see you through your VBAC - which means the "guidelines" they issue do little to help the patient if a doctor can just pick and choose which guidelines to follow.

(*And for the record, I'm not intimating for one second that before modern obstetrics, women didn't suffer or go through torturous experiences in order to birth children, sometimes with disastrous results. But I think our glorification of modern medicine might be, at times, misguided and perhaps glosses over its sordid history and past failings.)

More reading:
The "C" in ACOG stands for "castrated"
Tori Spelling and cesarean complications: why we need to hear about it

Newsflash: Pitocin could harm your baby

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Fri, 10 May 2013 15:22:00 +0000

For some of us, the idea that Pitocin is not exactly a walk in the park is nothing new. So when this official proclamation came from ACOG, a lot of people were like, "Well, duh."

Apparently this is "the first study of its kind to present data on the adverse effects of Pitocin use on newborns." Considering how deeply entrenched its use has been since its inception as the drug we know today, I find that incredibly shocking.

Unfortunately it seems like either those who swear up and down that it's the Devil's poison end up getting it, or those who are warned "don't induce!" often find out the hard way that in many cases, yes, it does suck as badly as everyone said it would. (Although obviously this is not the case for everyone.)

Back when my niece was expecting her first child, she said she was not planning on inducing but asked for advice about it. I tried to offer my opinion without sounding preachy, and a many of her friends said that in their experience, it was terrible and to avoid it if she could. I don't know what happened, but the next thing I knew, she was getting induced, had a hellish labor, and now apparently doesn't want any more children. *sigh*

What I've noticed is when people are asking about Pit, there are usually tons of people who relay their experiences - some okay, some great, some perfectly horrific and the stuff of nightmares. I'm not one to try and scare women by propagating horror stories, and whenever I speak of this stuff I try to be as balanced as possible. But I can't help but notice that usually, all the dissenters are ignored, their advice chucked to the curb and the mom is induced, sometimes with not so happy results. Sadly, it seems like those who filter out what they don't want to hear seem to have the worst time of it.

Either that, or one of two things happen: a dozen people say, "Well, I had it in labor and did just fine," as if they refuse to believe there is actually a problem. Or, they list the numerous reasons why they needed it in a defensive tone, which is kind of sad. Again, for some women, it's what they need and can really benefit them. But for everyone? I don't believe it.

I think some women get defensive because their hackles immediately go up and they miss the part where, again, it says that for some women, it can be a life-saving, very important drug to have on hand. I also wonder if they are in denial that their doctor could ever give them something that might be unsafe, completely trusting them with their own wellbeing as well as their unborn baby. I'm not necessarily saying that they aren't acting in your best interests, but rather questioning why this needs to be standard fare in so many hospitals today. One source suggested that approximately 81% of women receive Pitocin either to augment or induce labor. 81 percent?!

And because it's become so commonplace, it's perceived as unequivocally safe, a perfectly normal and acceptable routine of labor. If you question it, I highly doubt your doctor or nurse is going to calmly say, "Oh, you don't want it? Okay, that's fine." Administration protocols seem to vary by hospital and doctor, and while some appear to follow perfectly reasonable guidelines (especially the idea that if this isn't working, let's send mom home), others are outrageous - as expressed by nurses who work with these people, not just "natural birth hippie chicks."

From a popular internet forum for nurses. Click to enlarge.

Some things to consider:
• Sometimes inductions and Pitocin use are completely necessary and the best thing for both mom and baby. If at all possible, perhaps suggest a gentle induction that can get things started in a minimally invasive way. Remember that in first-time moms, inductions can increase the risks of cesarean, although sometimes this is unavoidable. (Pre-eclampsia is a good example.)

• Sometimes it is not necessarily the best course of action but is given anyway. Know that you have rights. Some women do say that while they refused it during their labors, they had it given to them anyway; perhaps hiring a doula or having a birth advocate present with you may help. Some reasons for its use are dubious at best, and can cause more harm than benefit. (For an example, click here.)

• Get all the facts prior to an induction and ask lots of questions. If your doctor starts talking about an induction early on as a matter of course, this could raise some major red flags.

• Throughout its history, it has affected different women differently. This can depend on a number of factors, including how aggressively it's administered. While it can have many benefits, it is not without risk to both mother and baby.

More reading:
Pitocin side effects
Five ways Pitocin is different than oxytocin

Does public education earn an F?

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:53:00 +0000

It's not much of a secret that American public schools are in the proverbial toilet. That's not to say that all districts are bad or fail their kids, but let's not kid ourselves: it seems that somewhere in the equation, we have screwed up. Badly.

My apologies to those who like this guy (I've never heard of him - does that make me uneducated?), but after seeing this meme on FaceBook I just kind of shook my head.

Hmm...did he really say this? Something didn't sound quite right here. His disclaimer: "Even though I don't personally have a kid in school" made me wonder if he was even old enough to have kids. Apparently he does, but I don't know if they're old enough to be in school yet. Even if they are, do you think with his wealth and fame he's going to put them in public school? And even if he is, again - with that wealth and fame he can pretty much move right in to one of the best, wealthiest districts in his area, I'm sure.

Because I didn't know who this person was, I looked him up. He was educated in a boarding/country day school and then moved on to the rural but prestigious Kenyon College, a private liberal arts college in Ohio (that is not that far from where I spent my formative years). I have lived as a faculty spouse in the boarding school culture for over a decade, and am quite familiar with its demographics: mostly made up of either parents who are scraping everything together to help their kids where the public school failed them, or parents who could literally write a check for the $50,000 tuition without batting an eyelash.

Either way, because we're a school that specializes in teaching kids with learning "differences," they're here because their former public school failed them. They're here because their public school either could not, or would not, give them what they needed to succeed.

As a product of the public school system myself, I caught on quickly to their schemes: tracking and grouping "smarter" students and sending them to the brighter, more engaged and dynamic teachers, while the rest of us were going in the other direction. I quickly noticed how the TAG (talented and gifted) program primarily consisted of the smartest kids in my class. I was there when, as we stood in the hallway looking at the class roster for the coming year, a fellow student who's mother was a substitute teacher was horrified to learn that she'd been placed in the teacher's room that ended up making my life a living hell for much of fourth grade. (It wasn't long before her mother protested and changed her to the other teacher's class, and I wondered to myself, What's wrong with this teacher? What does her mother know that mine doesn't? Why doesn't my mom move me, too?

As it turned out, that fourth grade teacher would chastise me for my problems in math, calling me to the board to be embarrassed in front of the entire class time and time again. Meanwhile, in my head I was silently criticizing her for her professed inability to say the word 'aluminum.' Years later my mom told me told that classmates of mine asked her, "Why is the teacher so mean to Carrie?" Therein began my absolute hatred for math.

Fast forward a couple grades - after we stopped being separated by "smart kids, dumb kids" - and I was distinctly told by at least one of my teachers, "Oh, I've heard about your struggles in math." I thought to myself, Yes, and what are you going to do about it? I was again horrified and embarrassed. My high school algebra teacher separated me from the class, making the rest wait in silence as he went over negative numbers and integers with me. At one point during that year, I left the room in tears.

It was only when my chemistry teacher took the time to teach me a different way, to help me outside of class and away from the stares of my peers, that I really got it - and actually started to enjoy math. Somehow I can function just fine in my world, despite not having taken higher-level math - a reality that became crystal clear to me as I took one standardized test after another to assess what I knew and what I should know. The math questions always stumped me and I basically just started guessing. It occurred to me: This is an assessment of what the state thinks I should know. But what if I don't? How can I answer questions on a test when I've never even seen this material before?

I think of the learning-disabled kids who went to my school - stuck in the resource room, which translated into "party time!" They were kids with behavioral problems and bad grades, and it's hard to tell which came first. It's obvious when reading their status updates on FaceBook that they still clearly struggle with reading and writing skills, and I feel badly for them. They were just shuffled around, probably never made to think they could succeed. What if they had untapped potential and could've been helped in a different way? Even though this was during the 80s and 90s, don't think it still doesn't happen in schools today, despite all the legislation, funding and government intervention that tries to tell us differently.

I took "advanced placement" English in high school, which was nothing more than a year-long session of glorified spelling tests. We read one book the entire time. I got mad about it, admittedly disrespectfully arguing with the teacher in front of the entire class about how when I got to college, my English professor was going to laugh in my face. I asked the school's librarian about it, and she knew full well the problem, puzzled because that teacher's house was "full of books."

We are fortunate to have the opportunity to send our children to a private parochial school that has the cheapest tuition I've ever seen. But we're hoping to move closer to family, which makes me wonder if we're not crazy for giving up such a good deal (too bad it's only K-8). When I compared private education costs elsewhere, I was literally blown away. One school charges $6,000 a year for full-day kindergarten alone. How can we possibly afford to educate three kids there? Couple that with housing costs, and just in order to find a house reasonably within our budget, we're looking at sketchy, poorly-rated districts, if not some of the worst in the area. What do really poor, low-income people do? Just give up?

I think back to my conversation with a private school administrator currently facing low enrollment (because no one wants to shell out the big bucks for private schools) and a number of questionable students who are there on the voucher program. While it ideally should give bright students trapped in a crappy district the power to seek out better schools, in reality, she said that those A's they got in public school now translate into D's once in the private setting. That particular district was riddled with corruption scandals that included a heavy-handed principal that used his influence to hire friends who were incompetent and lied about their credentials during interviews. They tore down the completely ramshackle building and built a fancy new one, which now has empty classrooms that they cannot fill. The local police department also has an office within the building, if that tells you anything.

Why should we be happy to shell out hard-earned tax dollars to a district that is underperforming? That has had state funds put on hold because they aren't churning out students that meet their expectations? Districts that are obsessed with raising those all-important test scores, at any cost? If all they care about is the scores, they're not caring whether or not the kids really know the information - all it does is teach you how to be a good test-taker. If you're not, then it's a poor reflection of what you really know, and how you can apply that knowledge.

I also think of the public school teachers I know who post multiple updates about how they hate their jobs, are getting out of teaching, because the students don't care, don't do any work, the administration gives them a pass and doesn't punish them, the parents are uninvolved and couldn't be bothered. It's endless. One person I actually had to unfriend because that's all she did, in every post. Is this the new "social order?"

One thing I've noticed that is rampant in the educational subculture is the use of big words, stock phrases and jargon that basically says absolutely nothing. We can speak this way all day long, to convince people we care, that we "get it," to make ourselves look puffed up and educated. When really, it's quite the contrary. Book smarts and fancy language are impressive, but can only go so far. I saw a great interview with old-school economist Thomas Sowell, who was public-schooled in Harlem, dropped out of high school and went on to become a veritable genius in his field, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard. He said that people are always coming up to him and bemoaning his experience in the inner-city public schools, but he doesn't know what they're talking about - he said he received a good education, and those in the neighborhood around him did, too. What happened? He now thinks there are none of those channels out of poverty and the very system in place to help is actually keeping these students from succeeding.

I don't like to use the phrase 'stupid people,' perhaps just "under smart." Not as smart as they could be, maybe because they're expecting and allowing the public school to fully educate their children? Trusting them to do a good job and pick up where the parent left off? What if the parent never started to begin with? I'm sure it's a combination of things - parents that don't care or can't care, students who don't care or fall between the cracks, teachers who don't have the time and mental fortitude to work on every single kid who comes from a household where education doesn't mean squat. And the more people who don't become their "child's first teacher," who don't give a rip, the more the district - and the state - decides to step in for "the social order" and the common good and start making decisions on the child's behalf. That includes in cases where the parents most definitely educate their kids and have a high stake in their learning. What gives the district and the state the right to undermine and override the parents' authority in their child's life, especially in the presence of very aware, intelligent and involved parents? If you have a district that's primarily made up of parents who don't care, are they doing more harm than good in acting on the child's behalf, just further making them victims of the system?

I think so.

More reading:
California 12-year-olds to get HPV vaccine without parental consent
Teen gets abortion with help from her high school

Woman sues clinic for failed abortion

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:05:00 +0000

Photo credit: andreyutzu/stock.xchng

I wasn't really sure I wanted to write about this - it's always a touchy subject, and I don't think we have enough time to go into detail on my feelings about abortion. But hey, what the heck.

I first read about this woman - a mom of a preschooler who attempted to have an abortion, which was unsuccessful - and ended happily (she's happy about it, just for the record) with the birth of a healthy, live infant. Thankfully, they posted a link (that most people either missed or didn't bother to read) that is a little more detailed than theirs.

The woman has a double uterus with two cervices (that's plural for cervix) - otherwise known as uterus didelphys. Apparently it's rather rare and goes undiagnosed unless the woman has problems, such as miscarriages and preterm births. From what I understand, uterine defects - especially this one - can cause repeated miscarriages, pre-term births and intrauterine growth restriction, depending on the severity of the defect. I myself have a bicornuate uterus, which is a heart-shaped variation that at the very least is why two of my children were not able to turn into the vertex position before birth.

According to the article, during the woman's first pregnancy the embryo implanted in the right uterus, producing a healthy, preterm infant delivered by cesarean. Unfortunately, the second pregnancy implanted in the left portion, and doctors felt that it could jeopardize the life of the mother if she remained pregnant.

I don't necessarily fault her for following the advice of her doctor. Nothing in this article made her sound cruel, heartless, or any of the other vile comments that some people made. She followed the advice of her physician, something many pregnant women do every day. Is the doctor always right? Depending on who you ask, that might be subject to debate.

I've read some literature from at least one OB who said that oftentimes women are given a grave diagnosis and decide to abort based on that opinion alone. Some, he reported, sought him for a second opinion and were surprised that it might not be as terribly serious as they once thought (and some definitely seek second and even third opinions only to be told the same devastating news). Really, though, when you think about it: childbirth advocates and many others often realize that many obstetricians are taught that pregnancy is an illness, a pathology. What else can you expect?

If indeed her doctor's advice was premature, or he was unnecessarily trying to scare her, this again can point the finger at doctors who are quick to suggest abortion for anomalies that are not as life-threatening as once thought. If anything, his suggestion that her uterus would be "too weak" may have been misguided or bad advice, but it all depends on the degree of deformity. If her doctor's advice really wasn't that sound, then he failed her. How many times have you heard someone say, "Just trust your doctor!" How about when he's telling you "You're stupid for attempting a VBAC, it's so dangerous,""I can't believe you're planning a home birth - are you trying to kill your baby?"

How can we fault her for just taking her doctor's advice, something every pregnant woman is encouraged to do?

So to get to the details: this woman sought an abortion from a clinic and they supposedly announced her free and clear after the procedure, only for her to find out she was still pregnant. I'm sorry, but I don't see how they can even begin to deny her claim: if you go in for an abortion and something is allegedly done to you, if you remain pregnant it's clear that they didn't do their job, correct? How can they deny no wrongdoing or negligence?

This woman then spent the rest of her pregnancy wondering what would happen: would her baby be born prematurely? Would her water break at 18 weeks and the baby die anyway, compounded by the failed efforts of the abortion clinic? I can't imagine her fear - then wondering, once the baby was born, if there would be lasting complications. And lastly, wondering, if they didn't perform an abortion, what the hell *did* they do to me?!

The point remains: they were negligent. They screwed up. Whatever the case, they said they were doing something - for a fee - and they didn't do it. What if something terrible had happened? If she had had an ectopic pregnancy and they handled it this way, there's probably little doubt that she'd be dead by now. If they didn't get sued or at least called out by her, who else are they going to mess up with?

Birth as a "Marathon"

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:57:00 +0000

Photo credit: An Empowered Birth FaceBook fan page.

I love this photo. Interestingly enough, I wrote my blog post before placing it and realized pretty much everything I said echoed the sentiments in this photo.

If you were a marathon runner, would you try to run the Boston Marathon after only training for a week? A day? Probably not.

Preparing for birth can be like running a marathon - although to some women, "preparing" means different things to different people. It seems that few realize the mental and physical preparation that should go into preparing for birth.

When I look back on what I knew (or, rather, didn't know) before having my children, it honestly kind of scares me. I distinctly remember my first due date approaching, the baby was breech, and I was excited to meet my child. The doctor told me that if I showed up in labor (a very real concern of mine) they "wouldn't let me go too long" before sectioning me. That was about the sum total of his counsel when it came to the risks and benefits of surgical birth. I scurried (or waddled, probably) to my car in the parking lot, anxious about the impending arrival of my new bundle of joy.

I'm fairly certain that had I really known the risks of cesarean birth, I would have rightly been scared out of my wits. I'm also sure that the reason I wasn't worried about that aspect at all was because my doctor didn't mention jack crap about it. Any of it!

This is one inherent problem in obstetrics today, it seems: a sometimes complete lack of adequate, informed consent. How can we prepare ourselves for that birth marathon when we don't know what to prepare for? There has to be more to it than breathing through some contractions, grimacing through the pain while they place an epidural, and pushing out a baby. I have heard so many women, on the eve of their inductions, say in a panicked voice, "I'm being induced tomorrow and I have no idea what to expect!" Really??

When I think back on my experiences and how they've played out over three pregnancies, there is one central idea that pops out at me: essentially, you have to start planning future pregnancies before the first one is even finished.

It sounds ridiculous, and can be virtually impossible for many women, but that's about what it all boils down to.

Before your first pregnancy is even over, ideally you should ask yourself:

• What are the risks and benefits of cesarean? How will it effect any future pregnancies and births? (This is key!) Depending on how good or bad that experience turns out, it can not only influence how you give birth to future children, but can negatively impact your ideas on how future births may play out (which may or may not even be realized) - and some may decide to scrap their plans for a larger family and opt never to become pregnant again!
• What is my doctor's cesarean rate? More importantly, what is his/her induction rate? (Studies have shown that in first-time mothers, induction can dramatically increase the risk of cesarean section.)
• How can I avoid an induction or cesarean?
• How can I prepare myself for one if one or both become necessary? And how does my doctor define "necessary?"

Another thing that stands out to me throughout my experiences and in hearing others talk about theirs, is the idea that everything our doctors do to us and for us while pregnant and laboring is always for our benefit, and therefore always necessary. This is where you cross into a gray area, I think: some inductions and cesareans are unavoidable and quite necessary, while others are sketchy. It can be quite a conundrum.

• What if I need to be induced for having a 'big baby?' What *is* a "big" baby? I think you'll find a wide range of answers.
• What if my fluid level is low? How can I increase fluid levels? Is it really always cause for alarm?
• If I need to have a cesarean, can I request one that is more "mother-friendly?" This may entail delayed cord clamping, immediate skin-to-skin contact and immediate breastfeeding. If your doctor refuses to do this, ask why - challenge the answers if they seem hesitant or cannot give you any compelling reasons why you couldn't do this (barring an emergency or "crash" section, obviously).

Another unfortunate problem is the "bait and switch," where doctors appear to be supportive of your concerns and ideas but then mysteriously change their minds at the end of your pregnancy. This especially happens with VBACs, where a care giver seems to support the mother's wishes and then poof! Two weeks before your due date they're pressuring you to schedule a cesarean. It sounds paranoid and terrible, but all I can say is, be prepared. If your doctor is threatening you this way, know your rights, know the risks and stand up for yourself the best way you can. Hire a doula, if possible.

Something else I've noticed in talking with pregnant women and in the general population at large is that if it didn't happen to them, then it probably doesn't happen. *eyeroll* Birth trauma is an especially touchy subject for many to discuss, because so many people have come to accept these practices without question, not knowing any other way. One set of health care practitioners will be bold enough to assume that just because no doctor they've ever worked with does inductions without just cause, surely they all operate like that - while another group can vouch that many are truly "cut happy" and have a reputation for rushing through things. This tends to silence women who stand up to the bullying tactics of some care providers, marginalizing their experiences and making others think they're "conspiracy theorists" because they dare to care or push for something better for pregnant women.

If I could do it all over again, ideally I would've been more prepared with that first baby - asking more questions, demanding answers, and informing myself more. My suggestions to you are:

• First ask yourself what kind of birth you want. If you want an epidural and all that jazz, fine, have one! But be adequately informed of their benefits as well as potential risks and side effects. You have to have more of a knowledge of them than "they're safe, get one!" because that is garbage. If you're on the fence, research your options and know that there's more out there than just that. Keep an open mind about those options and how you can cope without them, including water birth, massage, walking, standing in the shower, etc. But certainly don't feel like a failure because you "caved" and asked for the epidural.

• Take a good childbirth class. This can be subject to personal opinion, honestly. To me, a "good" childbirth class entails informing you adequately about a number of options while not making you feel demonized for choosing an alternative. For instance, if you know you want a natural birth but your teacher is making you feel like an idiot for choosing one (especially issuing the ubiquitious phrase "You won't get a medal for doing it without drugs!") then perhaps that class isn't "good." Likewise, no childbirth educator should make you feel like crap because you want an epidural, nor should they gloss over the risks of them or make them sound like the Devil's poison, either.

• Read. There is a lot of material out there, (some really good and some really, really bad) and good material will back itself up with sources. However, I suggest getting your information from a lot of sources, not just one (that includes your doctor). Again, it all depends on what you want in a birth, but some sites will sway in one particular direction or another. An even mix is key: anyone that makes you feel bad for going off your diet occasionally or like everything in pregnancy is to be feared and avoided might be over-the-top. And likewise, someone that acts like there is only one way of doing things, ever! might not be an unbiased, objective source of information, either.

• Avoid people who cannot or will not give you encouragement. This is especially important if you are attempting something that most people consider unusual, risky or not "mainstream" (eyeroll) like home birth, VBAC or really, a completely unmedicated childbirth. More people than not are going to gasp, their mouths dragging the ground, and look at you like you have spontaneously grown four heads. While some people are just uninformed but well-meaning, it's probably best to steer clear of people who can't support you in your efforts and do nothing but tear you down (that includes care providers, too!).

• Realize that when it comes to labor pain, it's all subjective. If you haven't gone through it before, it's normal to be scared about it - but you never know how you are going to handle it. When people relate their horror stories to you, you have to realize that that's their interpretation of it, not necessarily how it's going to work out for you. There are so many ways you can manage and cope with it without having to immediately ask for drugs - although there should be no shame in that, either. Just realize one thing: that some hospitals make it intentionally difficult to use these coping strategies effectively, such as "not allowing" you to get into a different laboring/pushing position, insisting on continuous fetal monitoring (that can confine you to bed), among other things. Ask about a tub. Ask to move around. Don't be afraid to just ask and focus on your labor, not pleasing the staff or trying to be "nice" just for them.

• In the end, realize that sometimes the things you desire least may be unavoidable. Being emotionally prepared for this, while not dwelling too much on the negatives and "what ifs," as well as being involved in the process and made to feel like you are an active participant, rather than just a helpless bystander, can help tremendously when it comes to accepting those outcomes. When it comes to being empowered and informed, it may not prevent every intervention, but it sure can't hurt.

Childbirth education is important!

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:50:00 +0000

Someone shared this meme on FaceBook and I totally loved it, because it was so true:

It's been said that women spend more time researching and shopping for major appliances than they do their birth options. And when it comes to your wedding day, you go to great lengths to make sure everything turns out just so - even though it sometimes doesn't - spending countless hours in preparation.

I once heard someone say how when a wedding doesn't turn out as planned, when a detail doesn't work out the way you wanted or it pours down rain during your beautiful outdoor ceremony, people are sad for you. They express regret and sympathy for you that "your big day" might have somehow been marred. Yet, when your plans for childbirth are totally derailed or you feel that you were denied something during the process, they basically tell you to "deal with it!" or "Get over it, you don't get a medal!" "That's just the way it is, so what?"

They wouldn't tell you that if your bridesmaid ditched you a week before the wedding, or if the cake was the wrong flavor.

With a good childbirth class, it can not only help you prepare for that big day, but fully realize just what your body is capable of - as well as help you realize that sometimes, the routine practices in maternity care are not always evidenced-based, or the "best" thing for everyone.

Would you want a cake decorator to say, "You must have a chocolate cake. That is the only flavor that's any good, and even though you're allergic to chocolate and don't like the taste of it, I'm making you a chocolate wedding cake!"? Probably not. Just like flavors of a wedding cake, there are options in childbirth; you just have to know what they are.

There are all kinds of childbirth classes. Fortunately I had a great one with a nurse midwife who herself had had normal births and a VBAC. She discussed a wide range of options, the realities of choosing them, advantages and disadvantages. What she did not do was paint a picture that said, "You are a bad person for choosing to have an epidural!" Nor did she act like they were terrific and every woman should have them and no woman can ever make it without one.

I chose the long, six-week whatever class, because there was a lot to learn! Some choose the condensed, intense version that is over and done with in a few hours. Personally, when you consider that it seems like many women don't fully understand the process of childbirth and what it entails, it sounds like the long version might actually be a better option. It's hard to work that out with busy schedules and work, etc. but this is your body - and your baby - we're talking about here.

Would you buy a brand new car or go on a cruise without spending time and effort researching it? Hopefully not.

When it comes to birthing options, especially VBAC, it seems that not many women know they do have options. Studies have shown that women often choose the mode of delivery that's preferred by their doctors - which likely means a lot of physicians are influencing their patients to choose a repeat cesarean. Unfortunately, many are limited because of the hospital they plan to deliver at, where VBAC is either banned or there is a de facto ban (meaning, the hospital "lets you" attempt one but no doctor will agree to attend you. Especially with regards to cesarean section and induction, childbirth education can mean all the difference. What are the risk factors? What does the procedure entail? Sometimes you cannot always count on your doctor to tell you this information up front. And I can't even begin to tell you how many people I've heard say, I'm being induced tomorrow and I have no idea what to expect! Does their doctor not tell them anything? Do they do any of their own research?

I once sat in on a childbirth education class and was extremely disappointed to find people talking and chattering amongst themselves when the instructor mentioned risk factors for cesarean section. Ladies, don't ever think "This will never happen to me." Sometimes it happens for very necessary reasons that are beyond our control; sometimes it could have been avoided. I think prevention is key - and sometimes the very things we consent to in labor can often be risk factors in cesarean delivery. It's hard to focus on future births and how they might be impacted by decisions and choices you make today, but that's pretty much how it often works. How can you truly give informed consent when you aren't fully informed?

I don't ever want to blame a mother for not being "educated enough" about the process. Sometimes you have all the facts and it's still not enough to prevent something from happening. But being educated about the process and feeling capable of making informed choices and educated decisions can often help tremendously when it comes to accepting with the outcome.

Did you take a childbirth class? Did it help you or not?

Mom nurses triplets!

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:44:00 +0000

I love this picture: a Florida mom (who birthed them naturally!) is nursing two of her three babies, while the third one presumably sits patiently in line, waiting his turn... LOL

Photo: *The Milk* Sunshine Coast Lactation Consultant
FaceBook fan page

I want to post this here to make a mental note of it, because I just like this picture so much. Breastfeeding is hard enough with just one sometimes, between pressures with work and family, well-meaning but crappy advice, and just everything else. To nurse multiples?? I can't imagine, but if I had them I know I would do it, come sleep or no sleep (but that's just me). So it's great to see a positive image of someone managing to do it.

Of course, somewhere along the way FaceBook had a hissy fit and reprimanded some fan page admins at Peaceful Parenting for sharing it. Even though they supposedly support breastfeeding mothers, "as long as the baby is actively nursing." A screenshot of FaceBook's TOS on breastfeeding is as follows:

Those babies sure look like they're actively nursing to me. So before it gets yanked by the powers-that-be, I'm sharing it here.

Of course, when there is no baby in the picture, those fully exposed breasts are just fine.

Maternity leave rates around the world

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:10:00 +0000

It may come as a shock to some, and not to others, that the US is one - if not the only - nation that does not offer mandatory paid maternity leave to new mothers.

It makes the US sound pretty darned bad to be stacked up against third-world nations who seemingly offer better for their women. Maybe, maybe not. Even working a dead-end job you hate is arguably better than no prospects at all. Some of the countries on this list made me wonder: What is it like giving birth in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What's it like living and working there?

My husband visited there last year and he could probably tell you better than I: if you are lucky to have a job, you will get, according to statistics, 14 weeks of partially paid maternity leave. Among the Congolese, however, about one in 13 women dies during childbirth, ranking them 17th in the world for maternal deaths. My husband was awestruck by the dichotomy of living conditions there: in the villages, at least one man took in many children (almost a dozen) who were either his own or orphaned, doling out food to the family and himself often not eating for days at a time. On the flight in from Brussels, only the wealthiest of Congolese could even begin to afford a plane ticket, and you would be sitting amongst only the upper crust of businessmen and women, not average citizens. In the city of Kinshasa, he noted the absolute dismal filth, and the children who would crush rocks and pebbles into sand to sell for a little extra money. He even got a tour of the local hospital (where Hillary Clinton once visited), which has a large wall around it to keep out the 'dregs.'

Yes, the same country that requires a woman's employer to grant her maternity leave and a part of her wages is also the same government that employs soldiers who help themselves to your possessions and house, because the military is grossly underpaid and pissed off that they can't feed their own families. They are also the same government that sanctions rape of their women, sometimes upwards of 100 victims at a time. In many aspects of life there, much of the female Congolese population are treated like shit. So who cares if they get paid maternity leave? (It's a wonder, really...)

One would wonder, then, especially among these poorest nations, what percentage of those women really get maternity leave? Likely precious few.

More reading:
Congo-Kinshasa: Where giving birth is deadly
In US, maternity leave benefits are still dismal
Women for Women International

OB complains about patient on FaceBook

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:22:00 +0000

This happy little post has made the rounds today over at Jezebel.com - an obstetrician is openly venting her frustrations (well, now her wall is private) over a patient who has shown up late repeatedly for her prenatal appointments, and is now three hours late for her induction. The physician snarkily asks, May I show up late to her labor? (Gee, I think it's been done before...)

Apparently, she tells her friend, the only reason she's been putting up with it is because the woman has a prior history of stillbirth.

Hmm... On one hand, showing up late is not such a good thing. On the other, perhaps this mama doesn't want an induction. Doesn't like you as her doctor, but is afraid to tell you. Who knows what her issues are. All I know is, it seems like doctors have the market cornered on making people wait, often without any explanation, and you're just supposed to sit there and deal with it? What, like my time isn't important, too?

Someone said they had seen other posts on the good doctor's wall, including comments trivializing circumcision and complaining about having to return to the hospital later on in the day to do one. For some reason, her wall was public - duh! - and I hope her patient didn't happen upon it. How heartbreaking.

It kind of irritated me how both her friends and the commenters on Jezebel blamed the mother and acted as if the physician's time was way more important. "If it's elective, cancel the induction!" one friend trumpeted. I kind of agree. She might be better off if you do.

More reading:
Being censored: By your OB?

Facelift!

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:08:00 +0000

Time for a new look here. Bear with me, because Blogger likes to make things ridiculously difficult when uploading templates, etc. and changing things around. It took me like ten whole minutes just to find out how to make a new post. It seems like every template that initially looks good ends up looking like crap once I make it go live, so it might take a while before anything is legible! And being as extremely anal as I am, this could get ugly. I am also having major computer issues so I'm wondering if that's part of the problem.

Blogger, you stink. But you're free, so I'll take what I can get. Hopefully the whole thing won't crash and blow up while I'm not looking.

Reproductive rights don't end with abortion

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:56:00 +0000

Everyone's talking about the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade, especially celebrities. They are lending their voices and faces to the movement in hopes to get better access to reproductive health services for women everywhere.

That's all fine and good, but I think part of that puzzle is missing. What no one wants to talk about, it seems, are what happens if you want choices in childbirth. Aren't those reproductive rights, too?

Many pro-choice advocates like to say that Republicans "don't care" what happens if you decide to not have abortion. Maybe, but from the looks of it, they don't care, either - if you want a VBAC, home birth, natural hospital birth, unassisted birth, etc. where are they?

Many celebrity faces of the pro-choice movement include Meryl Streep, Ani DiFranco, Demi Moore, Cybill Shepherd and many others. Meryl Streep had at least one home birth, but I don't hear her ever mention it, much less do a commercial for it. Both Ani and Demi also had home births. Cybill Shepherd searched tirelessly for a doctor who would "let her" give birth vaginally to her twins. Why are none of these women on the street corner with other birth advocates holding signs that say "Stop banning VBACs!" or "Fight for normal birth!"? Demi Moore starred in the movie "If These Walls Could Talk" - perhaps she could play Laura Pemberton, the Florida woman who was taken from her home during a homebirth after cesarean and forced by the court to undergo a repeat cesarean?? I won't hold my breath.

While there are many childbirth advocates, one of the few celebrities standing on that side of the fence is Ricki Lake. A face and name you are likely to remember, with enough leverage to get her advocacy out there, she is equally praised and hated, it seems. While one side praises women for standing up for their rights to not carry a baby if they don't want to, others are demonizing those women who stand up for their rights to birth that baby in the manner of their choosing. Why are so many in the pro-choice movement silent on this?

I just read an article from the feminist site Jezebel that in a nutshell says, "Home birth is dangerous. Natural birth advocates are stupid," and unbelievably lists one of her sources as "Hurt by Homebirth," a website run by Dr. Amy Tuteur (who, I think we can all summarily agree, is someone who hates all women that exercise their childbirthing rights more than anyone I've ever known).

Why aren't they saying, "I personally wouldn't have a home birth, but applaud Ricki Lake for standing up for birthing women?" Instead of basically saying "I only support the reproductive freedoms of some women, not all." They similarly malign Michelle Duggar, mom of 19 kids.

We readily support advocates who sail into international waters to provide abortions to women in need, but where is the support for victims of forced abortions in China? I am not saying that providing abortions to women in countries where they are strictly illegal and maternal deaths are high is not a necessary service. But why are you only focusing on one aspect of reproductive care? What are you doing to improve birth outcomes and make childbirth safer for those women?

Where are Meryl Streep, Kyra Sedgwick and others when...
• a woman's doctor won't "let her" go beyond 40 weeks?
• a woman's doctor dispatches the police when she wants a natural birth and refuses the induction appointment?
• every hospital you turn to has banned VBAC?
• you want to have a home birth but your midwife could be arrested for attending it?
• you are bullied endlessly about scheduling an induction or cesarean when you don't want one?
• you want a doula but your doctor or hospital "won't allow" it?
• you are removed from your home during a home birth in progress, only to have a judge sign a court order and demand you have a cesarean? (see the Laura Pemberton link above)
• your doctor, nurses and anesthesiologist repeatedly badger you about accepting an epidural even though you don't want one?
• hospital workers dispatch CPS when you refuse a cesarean, or because you birthed a breech baby at home?
• hospital staff treats you badly during a homebirth transfer?
• your local hospital has a VBAC ban in place and says they will get a court order to force you into surgery even if you show up in labor?

Excerpt from the ICAN VBAC database (currently under construction
and now only open to paying members)

Please note: The state of New York, or any other state, for that matter, does not have a ban on VBACs. Individual hospitals may have outright bans, or "de facto bans," which means they would allow it but no physician will support you in your efforts.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with abortion; what I'm saying is that vocal pro-choice advocates should not draw the line at abortion. They should not turn their heads or walk away from those who advocate for choices in childbirth, call them "crazies" or degrade their efforts. If you are pro-choice, I merely ask you to consider directing your energy and focus into supporting the reproductive rights of all women, not just some of them.

Breastfeeding in Public: Crappy Toilets

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:39:00 +0000

I can never understand why people are so casual and quick to tell a nursing mother to go into a bathroom to nurse when, like most everyone else, they'd hesitate to go pee there. Many of us will hold it - maybe until we find someplace else, or until we get home - and yet many times the first thing out of someone's mouth is, "You should go to the bathroom to nurse that baby," in disgust.

Why is it perfectly okay to reject that same bathroom because it's even unfit to pee in, but perfectly okay to feed your baby in?

Recently a nursing mom-restaurant manager made headlines when she nursed her baby as she was clearing tables in order to help out her staff. I imagine the baby must've been in a sling, otherwise she was pretty darned coordinated to hold a baby while nursing and clear tables at the same time. At any rate, the child would likely have been held comfortably against her breast, and since most babies I know of nurse with their mouths open and are secured firmly to the breast, the milk really has no opportunity to go anywhere except into the child's mouth. Even if it doesn't, it will likely drip down your stomach, onto the baby or be absorbed by clothing before it shoots across the room and hits someone.

Restaurant patrons were apparently offended by the "display," and food safety inspectors were dispatched to tell her to nurse the child in a separate area. Some claimed "food safety concerns," as if somehow her breastmilk would make it into the food. (Even the health inspector sounded dubious.) Since she said she never nurses while preparing food (presumably because she's smart enough not to want to burn her child by accidentally spilling hot food or beverage on the baby) I think the chances of that happening are slim.

Again, it occurred to me that patrons are worried about their own safety when eating around a breastfeeding woman, but couldn't give a crap about 'food safety' or anything else when they suggest that same mother breastfeed in a public toilet.

When you're in and out of a public toilet to do your business and leave, that's one thing: exposure is at a minimum, and hopefully, you wash your hands (although many admit to not washing their hands after using the bathroom - disgusting!). It's not uncommon to see used toilet paper and paper towels on the floor, urine on the seat, or much worse - and that's just the stuff you can see. What about what you can't see?

Pretty much every surface in a public bathroom is covered in germs, among them including streptococcus, staph, e. coli, as well as many others. While the toilet seat itself is usually the cleanest part (unless someone "missed") other surface areas are generally pretty gross. They're on surfaces, even in the air every time someone flushes (multiplied by X number of stalls) - and yet, your baby is supposed to eat in there?

Combine that with the pressure to nurse in secret when you have other children in tow: how are you supposed to feed the baby and prevent other children, who touch everything with reckless abandon and quickly insert fingers into their mouths, while you're hovering over the toilet?

Several years ago, I happened across a sight in a public bathroom I will likely never forget. Thankfully my children were not with me, and I didn't have a hungry baby to hide while nursing - because you know the restroom would have been full to the brim except for that one, lonely, extremely disgusting stall.

I casually walked in and stopped in my tracks. Some poor soul obviously didn't make it in time, because there was fecal matter, to put it delicately, on the toilet seat. On the handle. On the wall. Horrified, I backed up and quickly left to go find an employee, and ran into one that I knew.

I hesitated, not exactly sure how to tell her that she was in for a monumental job. "I'm really sorry, but the restroom...." My voice trailed off, while she just looked at me with a sad expression.

"Let me guess," she said, turning around to open a supply cabinet and extract a super-duty pair of rubber gloves. "The stall's a mess. It happens all the time." I so did not envy her at that moment. I think I was so horrified and distracted by the whole thing I actually forgot that I had to pee. Whatever - it could definitely wait because I was not going back in there.

As much as people hate to use public toilets, it seems like they suspend all disbelief when they decide that while it's unfit to urinate in, it's okay to breastfeed in.

More reading:
Public bathrooms are filled with various types of bacteria - LA Times

Moms kicked out for breastfeeding - again

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:47:00 +0000

At least two reports have surfaced this week - one in the US, and one in Canada - that breastfeeding mothers were harassed and asked to leave when they were seen nursing their babies in a public space.

Brittany Warfield was nursing her baby, with a jacket covering the infant, at a Houston-area Hollister store when a manager accosted her and asked her to leave. According to Warfield, she was sitting in chairs near the front of the store, with her baby covered, when the manager approached her and made a scene, to the point where others were stopping to look at what was going on.

As usual, the comments spark controversy. Basically, if you aren't runway-model perfect and drop dead gorgeous, they assume you're a "cow" and don't want to see you nursing your baby, because, after all, breasts are primarily sexual tools and serve no other function whatsoever.

The mom appropriately noted, however, the scantily-clad mannequins posed in the windows as she was getting yelled at for having the indecency to nurse her baby.

Interestingly, the same chain received a complaint back in 2010 because a manager kicked a shopper out for nursing in the fitting room. Which sort of blows that whole "You need to do it in private!" argument right out of the water. I can understand if there were dozens of people waiting in line to try on clothes, but really - I kind of doubt this was the case.

Another mom in Nova Scotia, Canada, was shopping in a mall on Christmas Eve when she asked an employee at Claire's for a chair so she could sit down, at the back of the store, and nurse her baby. Even though she reported that her baby was covered by her husband's coat, the manager of Claire's kicked her out of the store. Of course, the comments were inane as usual, including one person who harps endlessly on the fact that the woman had the audacity to ask for a chair. I'm guessing that if this were anyone else (like an elderly or disabled person), that would be okay, right? This one kills me. It's her fault because she wanted to shop on Christmas Eve, with a baby! Oh, the NERVE of some people!

Funny how when you're harping on chairs in aisles and public safety, not once do you consider the potential unsafe conditions of feeding a baby in a dirty bathroom. It's like we've suspended all disbelief for a moment!

It seems people really don't like to be confronted on their views that they consider the breast's primary function to be a sexual one. They will often come up with a million other reasons why it's wrong, unclean, inappropriate, etc. often finishing up with, "But breastfeeding is a basic human right!" (As long as you're doing it in a way I deem appropriate) It underscores how comfortable (or tolerant) our culture is of breasts that are performing their sexual function in a public place, but not when they're being used to feed a baby. Asking themselves, "Why do I feel this way?" would cause them to examine their own ideas about it and might possibly make them look like a fool. I mean, really, if our breasts are innately designed to produce milk, then ... what's the problem? It would force them to admit that they don't understand the mechanics of it (like why it "spilling" on the clothes is not really a credible threat) or why our culture is so against it (and why you see so few women doing it in a public space). Many dissenters' arguments just don't hold up to logic.

Once upon a time in America, you were considered weird if you
didn't breastfeed. These women apparently don't give a crap that the
person next to them has just "whipped it out" and is feeding her child.

Hyperemesis gravidarum: not your garden variety morning sickness

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:19:00 +0000

So the tabloids have finally broken the real news that yes, Will and Kate, everyone's favorite Royals, are really, truly, pregnant. This time it's for real! And wouldn't you know it, Kate is making headlines for yet another reason: because of her recent hospitalization with hyperemesis gravidarum.

Many pregnant women have suffered through it and can relate. Many of us, like myself, have not, and find just regular old run-of-the-mill morning sickness utterly a royal pain, if you'll excuse the pun. When I wanted a second child, two things worried me: the recovery (as I planned at the time to have another cesarean), and the morning sickness. I don't know what it is, but even while not pregnant, I cannot stand being nauseated. I crocheted a lot while pregnant and now, can't even think of crocheting because the thought of doing so makes me queasy. So Kate is probably pretty miserable right about now.

HG is probably one of the most poorly
understood conditions of pregnancy,
and its sufferers sometimes find
themselves marginalized, ignored,
and made fun of or told to
"just suck it up." If you wouldn't
say this to a recovering cancer
patient, then don't say it to a
pregnant woman - who likely is
experiencing daily debilitating
and excessive vomiting and nausea,
weight loss and severe dehydration.
For more information, visit the
Hyperemesis Education Research
website at helpher.org.

HG, as it's called, can be a nightmare for sufferers. Many women I've talked to or know suffered for months, sometimes the entire duration of the pregnancy. One friend was finally, to her great relief, hooked up to a Zofran pump (like an insulin pump) that helped her manage through the feelings of constant nausea, complete loss of appetite and many, many trips to the toilet. If you've ever suffered through a day or two of stomach bug, you know how easy it can be to get dehydrated. Now think how that would feel day after day, for months.

When it gets bad enough, a hospitalization for IV fluids can sometimes be in order. In order to differentiate between it and just normal morning sickness, severity is a consideration: if your nausea and vomiting are especially bad, to the point of being able to keep nothing in your stomach, then you're probably the lucky winner. The author of this Washington Post article humorously noted (although probably not funny at the time, I'm sure):

"I have often told people that I knew my condition was bad when a helicopter flew over my home and instead of listening to its rumble to make sure it passed safely overhead, I thought to myself, 'Well, at least if it crashes into my apartment I won't have any more morning sickness.' Death would have been an improvement...I mostly slept, and carried a trash can wherever I went. All my husband wanted was an omelet, but the thought of eggs made me want to kill him."

One of the women who commented on The Washington Post article said that her daughter had it - and was hospitalized for the better part of her first pregnancy. Unlike Kate, however, the traditional remedies (and we're talking the big guns here that you get only at the hospital) did not work. To top it off, she became pregnant again, only to have it worse than the first time, which resulted in TPN (total parenteral nutrition, a form of IV that basically gives you all of your nutritional needs in IV form. *insert completely horrified face here*.) That would basically make you never want to have any other children, ever again. (As a side note: I used to make that stuff for patients when I worked in a pharmacy, and it basically meant you were pretty sick.)

I was glad to see that it made news, though, because of one thing: this horrible, not-your-average-pregnancy symptom is often delegitimized by people who think it's just regular old puking and feeling yucky. They often say terrible things like, "Suck it up!" or "You're just doing it for attention!" Sadly, I've even heard things like that from labor and delivery nurses, one of whom basically said, "You were the one who wanted to have a baby, so deal with it." She didn't seem to believe that it could be debilitating. I asked on my fan page if anyone had dealt with it and if they could share their comments:

"It was debilitating. I had little to no support. I was told to eat crackers, sip ginger ale, and it would just stop. I vomited around the clock for close to 7 months. When it did ease and I could eat, I had lost a lot of weight and began to develop very severe pre-eclampsia...The comments which hurt the most were when I was told I was doing this 'for attention' and that morning sickness is "all in your head." I could have died, my son could have died. I *wanted* to have a baby. I *wanted* to enjoy being pregnant. Why in the HELL would I then bring such suffering upon us both for 'attention?' It caused a lot of heartache and created a rift in my family relations for a long time afterwards." - Rebekah

"I was unable to hold down water, let alone food. Even with meds I'd have to crawl into an E.R. once a week for IV meds and fluids....The worst is when the doctors don't want to believe you...not sure I could ever put myself through being pregnant again. Which sucks because I long for another child." - Noel

"Meds didn't work. I spent my whole day either throwing up or trying not to. I lost my job - had to be hospitalized for dehydration. I lost my baby as a result of being so sick...The comment that hurt the most especially at the end where I was still but knew the baby was gone was when everyone would say the baby would be worth it." - Robynn

"I threw up daily around the clock for 88 weeks out of my three pregnancies...it was worse with each child. The puking and never-ceasing nausea is hard, but the time you lose being completely debilitated is the hardest part. Your children don't understand. Your mother-in-law doesn't understand or people think you are exaggerating. When people ask "How are you feeling?" you learn to simply say, "Hanging in there." Reading or looking at a computer screen might exacerbate it. Grocery shopping becomes a challenge - beat the clock before you hurl. Your ribs ache from dry heaving. You eat and eat because you are worried your baby isn't getting enough. Your partner stops being empathetic. It becomes "normal." You clean your own puke off the wall behind the toilet. There is no one to take care of you. You will have days where you will cry clinging to the toilet as you dry heave bile and over and over again say "I'm so glad my baby is healthy!" to keep your affirmations as positive as possible." - Green Births

"Green Births is totally spot on. Eventually no one around you cares or will even help. Honestly it's so emotionally, physically, mentally crippling. I feel so awful for my daughter who has no idea why mommy can't do fun things with her very often, the strain and stress it has put on all my relationships, I just feel miserable and helpless." - Aimee

"I was losing a pound a day. I had to leave university because I was constantly running out of class to throw up...most of my day was spent with my head in the toilet or laying on the sofa." - Catherine

"Favorite moments were pulling over to puke in front of a bunch of teens in town. Puking in my work car park and simultaneously weeing. Puking on my steering wheel because I couldn't get out in time. HG destroyed my life for 9 months." - Sian

What's really sad, is that for some women, hospitalizations are really the tip of the iceberg. For some, the meds do not work, and it's speculated that as many as 6,000 abortions a year are performed on women who are at their wit's end dealing with HG and just can't take it anymore. Honestly, if you are experiencing misery day in and day out for months on end and then someone comes along and tells you "just deal with it," wouldn't you be reaching the end of your rope, too?

Those who think it's "all made up" might need a little education as to what it actually is: that big-sounding Latin word might trip them up. Maybe they need to be shown? Who knows. If you were a cancer patient going through the rigors of chemo, would they dismiss you as creating drama and trying to attract attention to yourself and just "suck it up?" I highly doubt it.

My best to Kate - I hope she responds well to treatments and gets better soon.

More reading:
Our lady of hyperemesis gravid arum - The Washington Post

WTH Wednesdays: "What not to buy my kids for Christmas"

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:07:00 +0000

I love the holidays. And yet, on some level, when it comes to gift-giving, I dread it.

Tonight my daughter was determined to save her half-eaten Girl Scout cookie as a treat for her first-grade teacher. I tried to explain to her that perhaps that wasn't the best gift; perhaps we could find something more appropriate to give instead. I then launched into a discussion with my son about "remember that car wash kit you picked out for her one year? That was probably the best gift ever, because it was something she could really use." I tried to explain to him that sometimes, we buy gifts for people that they can neither use nor want, just to "fill a void" that says, "Hey, I got you a gift. Isn't that nice of me?" (I'm not sure he got it, but whatever.)

This mom's blog post highlights exactly what I'm talking about, and why I dread the gift-giving season: friends and family, well-meaning and good-intentioned, buying your kids scads of cheap junk that breaks, falls apart, makes more noise than a jet engine...you get the idea. Why, oh why, do they do that?

We usually travel and spend Christmas Day with my mom, who never seems to disappoint when it comes to the sheer volume of gifts she gives. I don't know how else to tactfully suggest quality over quantity; I've tried to explain that the kids don't really need a lot, really anything, and not to buy so much. She's getting better, but only after one particularly rough year where there were eleven presents under the tree for him from her alone. As she kept handing them over, my husband and I glanced at each other uneasily as the greed kept mounting. When oldest son was finally done opening gifts, he glanced around and said, rather frustratedly, "Is that it?!"

Unfortunately, a lot of toys end up missing pieces and
parts not long after they're opened, which only
leads to copious amounts of tears and frustration.
Photo: Joel Messner/stock.xchng.hu

I must admit, we kind of both went ballistic on him. In a loving way, of course. I think my mom's eyes were really opened, though. Too bad she didn't see how the remote control truck broke within five minutes of arriving home to play with it; how the other cheap stuff eventually ended up in the trash because it just fell apart.

Unfortunately, so do some of the nicer toys you can still get. The well-chosen Etch-a-Sketch the kids got from my dad, the world's best gift-giver, fell apart too - because as they say, they just don't make them like they used to.

But just because stores like the Dollar Tree gives you lots of purchasing power, doesn't mean you should totally capitalize on it and go nuts.

A lot of toys, like the especially annoying Dora guitar, went to the basement after less than one year, to be hidden away and hopefully never heard from again. Unfortunately, I didn't burn it in time and the kids found it. I hate to sound like an ingrate, but even after politely joking that "you only buy all the loud toys so you can send them to my house," I was serious. Really. So sometimes, I pack up those loud toys and they go back to grandma's house. So the kids have something to play with while they're there, you know.

I know that "it's the thought that counts," but what if there's no thought put into it? The gifts don't have to be many in number, and they don't have to cost a small fortune or take a chunk out of your retirement savings. It's estimated that families spend an average of $700 a year on Christmas gifts, and I often wonder, why? What are you buying? If it's for children, you know that every year you have to up the ante more and more to make up for it.

I love my kids, but am not buying them an iPod. Or an iPad. Or an i-anything, really. In fact, I'll make a secret confession: when my kids get gift cards as a birthday present, they usually whip them out and throw them around, even when I remind them that they're just as good as money. That usually doesn't mean anything to them, so I secretly gather them up and put them in my wallet. And I spend them. Oh yes, I do. Sometimes on groceries - things that we can all use, and sometimes on Christmas gifts that I know they'll like or use (and yes, even some of my selections are hit or miss). My kids do not "need" money; they have everything they need already, and besides, just having people give you money is not teaching you how it's earned or its value. They can't even keep track of the money the Tooth Fairy lovingly puts by their bedside, and quarters are just shiny and sparkling and making tinkly sounds, quickly forgotten. In fact, I just gave them $4 for pizza money today that they got from grandma for Halloween or some such "holiday." Money well-spent.

WTH?! Wednesdays: Pinkwashing Hall of Fame

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:33:00 +0000

Now that we're seeing pink ribbons literally adorning everything, I've become acutely aware of them when I'm out shopping and doing things. They're everywhere. They're multiplying, it seems, and can be found on the strangest of items.

This Pinterest board is worth sharing, as it highlights the absurdities and questionable practices surrounding the breast cancer awareness campaigns. One thing is quite clear: whether they donate to research or not, it's an industry - a marketing ploy that gets you to feel better about spending money. I wonder, what do cancer victims and survivors think of that? That someone is basically making money off of their disease? Has anyone ever asked them or are they just "bitching?"

This election cycle we're constantly hearing about the "war on women." I argue that there are many of them being waged, some silently, some not so much, and this is just one of them. Because it won't take long before someone criticizes your "poor attitude" in questioning the ethics of raising money for cancer awareness, or where the money really goes. If you dare question it, you're unfriended, blocked, criticized, told to "get a life" because you want to show what real awareness looks like: maybe a recovering mastectomy patient, not someone decked out in pink and white and prettied up for the cameras. It seems to be the one real truth no one wants to see.

One thing that really makes me shake my head are the campaigns to raise awareness that are from products that can actually raise your risk of cancer. Some of the companies responsible for donating millions (hey, good for them!) are also simultaneously marketing products that are putting their very user at risk for the disease. Go figure. Here's a short list:

Nestle has donated probably gagillions of money (Ok, I don't have a source for that LOL) towards breast cancer awareness and research, yet is only "phasing out" the cancer-causing plasticizer BPA from their water bottles. While I don't necessarily fault them for that, I do fault them for their long-standing heavy marketing of infant formula to mothers who are either in vulnerable populations or just being part and parcel of convincing otherwise capable women that breastmilk is inferior. You can slap the words "breast is best, but...." on your container a hundred times, but it doesn't help. Guilty of sending in official-looking "milk nurses" into poor African nations, Nestle effectively 'hooked' mothers on the stuff and had them believing their own milk was inferior. Not only would their breastmilk then dry up, but they'd be forced to buy more of the product they had no money to buy, and reconstitute it with contaminated water, leading to sickness and even death of the baby.

While only recently has the link been made to breastfeeding and cancer prevention, the health benefits to both mother and baby have been well-established. The presence they and their counterparts had (and continue to have) in influencing cultural trends and thus destroying any chance of a successful breastfeeding relationship could very well have lead to increasing cancer rates among women for decades.

Exposure to cleaning products is one plausible link to breast cancer, according to some studies. When you think about it, females are generally more likely to be in more direct contact with these products, and for longer periods of time (no offense to guys who clean). It's reasonable to suggest that products can also be leached into the bloodstream and can affect the offspring of their users as well. Have you ever looked on a bottle of cleaning solution? The ingredients are usually not listed - either because there wouldn't be enough room on the label, or they're too scary to think about.

Many of the products that contain known carcinogens are manufactured by companies that donate heavily to breast cancer awareness and research. One marketing ploy I find kind of annoying is how many of these products are geared towards women - even though yes, men do clean, and men do get breast cancer. A pink mop or Swiffer? Pink dishwashing gloves? Gee, thanks a lot.

The cleaning aisle at Walmart was awash (no pun intended) with a sea of pink ribbons, mops, dusters and other garbage. As far as I could tell, when I looked closely for the "We donate money to the cause" disclaimer, there was nothing on the label - or on Swiffer's website - that indicated any money went towards breast cancer anything of any kind. Not surprising.

The chemical industry also produces plasticizers that have known feminizing agents in them, that have been in use for decades. Plastic wraps, containers that are re-heated again and again and leach into your food, as well as agents in shampoos, makeup, personal care products, children's toys and baby bottles are also points of controversy, and many of these byproducts would be found in the bloodstream of just about anyone - including unborn children.

Photo credit: USAToday, 10/5/2010

The alcohol industry has also been quick to jump on the bandwagon, but not without notice. Many are questioning that one, since studies have shown that alcohol consumption can be a risk factor in the disease. The image above angered some cancer survivors, and I can see why. Another article from CNN with the headline "Buy a bottle, save a breast" irked others who felt - and I agree - that we're focusing more on the breast than the person attached to it.

The sex industry seems to be the most recent player in the "awareness" game. Although I can't prove it anymore, this image was taken last year from the "Save the Boobies" breast cancer "awareness" fan page on Facebook, but when I went back to look for it, it had been taken down. This is their idea of a "breast exam."

The porn industry has graciously? donated a penny per view of their breast-related content towards breast cancer awareness, but I argue that really the only thing we're aware of is breasts. Not the illness itself, the risk factors or prevention techniques, not the reality of it at all, but simply breasts. It's another way to use controversial, if not completely offensive images, slogans and questionable marketing ploys to get people to support a feel-good cause. It goes much further to damage any real awareness, though, because we are so used to seeing images like this one in public - yet one very good way to lower your risk is to breastfeed, which no one wants to see you do. With the combination efforts of the infant formula industry and overt sexualization of the breast, an important preventative measure has now been nearly quashed.

Using cutesy slogans like "boobies," "tits," "hooters" and other sexualized euphemisms is equally offensive, in my opinion, because it not only sounds degrading and juvenile, but tends to make light of a very serious, often debilitating, disfiguring and deadly disease that can devastate entire families. I know we can't all be serious all the time, but I think because we often see too much of this kind of "advocacy" we don't take it seriously enough.

The food industry is equally guilty of just slapping a ribbon on things and calling it "good." I can't even begin to detail the chemicals and other crap we're ingesting every day, meal after meal for years, that likely contributes to breast cancer (if not a whole host of other cancers). Some additives actually have estrogen-like qualities and therefore could contribute directly to estrogen-fed cancers. Of course some foods have naturally-occuring estrogen-like properties (soy, for instance).

It's impossible to pinpoint so we use terms like "could" and "probably," because there are so many factors it might be impossible to tell for sure. But just in reading the list of ingredients, you know it can't be all that good, can it?

Ultimately there is so much we don't know, at least for now. I don't want to come off as a complete wacko conspiracy theorist, but even these obvious links should be enough to make you wonder where we get our information from, and make us question the motives of people and companies who want us to think we're helping for a good cause. Questions we should ask ourselves before we "think pink" include:
1. Does this product contribute to cancer in some way?
2. Does this product or slogan objectify the breast and women in general?
3. Is my money even going to the cause?
4. How much money is this group actually donating to research? To raising "true" awareness?
5. Does this campaign, slogan or product do more to hurt cancer victims and survivors than actually help them?

More reading:
Buying pink may not mean what you think - YouTube
Seven controversial pink products for breast cancer awareness

WTH?! Wednesday: Defining sexy and "scary beautiful" shoes

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:21:00 +0000

Two articles caught my eye yesterday: one featured Mila Kunis (sorry, the name sounds vaguely familiar but really I have no idea who she is) voted by Esquire readers (insert eye roll) as the "sexiest woman alive." The second featured a short video clip of a model attempting to walk in some of the most bizarre high heels - if you can call them that - that the world has ever seen. I can't help but notice connected these stories are to each other.

Photo: Esquire Magazine

Mila may be pretty to some - but surely there is more to sexy than pretty. She might fit into one tiny definition of sexy, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of homelier-looking women out there who are considered pretty sexy, too, especially by the people who matter most to them. That's far more important to me than a pool of readers "voting" on my physical appearance. The whole thing sounds like a big popularity contest - like, haven't we left high school behind already?

To each his (or her) own: I guess this just isn't my definition of sexy. I asked this question: what defines sexy? How can you determine if someone is when you don't even know them? Just based on what you saw in a movie or a video - a side of them that isn't even real?

What if she had great brains, a nice figure, and was ugly (which is a relative term)? What if she had acne, or gapped teeth? Is it possible for someone to be sexy then? I personally find Lauren Hutton and her gap tooth smile to be very sexy and appealing, and am glad she decided all those years ago not to get her teeth fixed. The industry often sees these actresses (Anna Paquin, Madonna and others) and wants them to change to conform, and so far, they haven't.

The next piece is a video clip featuring a model "walking" in a pair of bizarre high heels. They're thankfully not really meant for actual use, and when she walks in them, she more resembles a duck taking a dump than a pretty model on the runway. (I did notice in the video, by the way, that the model actually had some cellulite - woot!)

The shoes were created by a Dutch artist and a shoe designer to illustrate our "impossible standards of beauty." Amen to that. What is beautiful to one person might look absolutely stupid to someone else, and many fashion trends I see in magazines and on the racks often make me wonder, Who buys this stuff?!

The clip also reminds me of the age-old (and now thankfully defunct) practice of foot-binding, which Chinese women had done to them as young girls to conform their feet into a dainty, pointed position. The toes were literally broken and folded underneath the foot so as to fit into a shoe that is actually even too small for a child to wear. The pain was torturous, and yet, a sign of delicacy and femininity to the Chinese people for centuries. Although the practice has been discouraged and was banned outright by the Chinese government in 1911, it's clear that it still continued for several decades afterwards, despite the ban. In some villages, there are still a handful of elderly women tottering around in tiny shoes - and it was a gradual process before that standard of beauty was no longer considered beautiful.

Are there standards of beauty that we create for ourselves - or are they created for us? Can we ever live up to it? Why should we even want to?

The video is literally symbolic of the lengths women (and really, we shouldn't just blame the ladies here) will go to look beautiful, even if it causes them physical pain. I thought of Karen Carpenter and her very private battle with an eating disorder when I watched this video. I love watching her play drums - a girl drummer is awesome! - but it's very painful at the same time, because of the way she was slowly killing herself, and everyone around her realized it but her. It's hard to watch because you know how it all ended, how it ends for thousands of women every day. It may not always be a physical death, but when you're trying to live up to a standard of beauty that might not even exist in the real world, it can be an emotional and psychological battle we all, at times, struggle to conquer. We're not in the school yard anymore, but somehow the standards of who we are and the often shallow, outward expression of who we should be hasn't changed at all. For the young women watching, how many more Karen Carpenters (and now, Nicole Richies) will this false standard create?

More reading:

Airbrushed models are 'harming children and should have warning labels' - Daily Mail
Dove - Evolution of Beauty video
People Magazine, 1983 - an article featuring Karen Carpenter's brother Richard talking about her struggles with anorexia, the severity of which was poorly understood. How many celebrities can we think of today who meet this criteria, and look just as she did not long before her death?

Tongue tie and the breastfed baby

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:35:00 +0000

Breastfeeding can be a wonderful thing. It can also be difficult, especially if things aren't going especially well. There can often be bumps in the road that make you want to totally give up and call it quits forever.

When it comes to those difficulties and feeding issues, perhaps one of the most under-explored problems is tongue tie. The difficulties a tongue-tied baby often has at the breast can be quite profound, and yet if you - or your doctor - don't fully understand what they are, it can either make or break the breastfeeding experience.

The tongue obviously has a major role to play in breastfeeding. Tongue tie, or anklyoglossia, is when the frenulum - the tissue that connects the tongue to the floor of the mouth - is tight, making it hard for the baby to feed properly. Some can be mild, some quite pronounced, and can affect different babies in different ways, or not at all. While some tongue-tied babies have no problems, for others it can be extremely difficult.

An example of tongue tie in an infant.
Photo: http://newborns.stanford.edu/PhotoGallery/Ankyloglossia1.html,
Janelle Aby, MD

Sometimes it can be difficult to tell if your baby has tongue-tie; sometimes it's quite obvious. There are signs to look for, according to the La Leche League, that might be important identifiers in determining whether or not this is really the problem:

The tongue tip should be able to extend to lick the lips, lift the front half of the tongue to the roof of the mouth, and sweep along the gums. If a tongue-tied baby tries to extend the tongue, it may not be able to extend past the lower lip, or the tongue tip might be forced downward over the lower lip. If the tongue is particularly tight, the back of the tongue will lift while the front remains tied down to the floor of the mouth, which is sometimes called “tongue humping.” If the baby attempts to lift a tied tongue, it often leaves a dent in the tip of the tongue, reminiscent of the top of a heart. The sides of the tongue will lift more than the center if the baby is tongue-tied. When the tongue tip attempts to reach either side of the mouth, the baby will twist the tongue and will not be able to bring the tongue tip to the back of the gums. A severe tongue-tie will prevent the baby from getting the tongue tip over the lower gum ridge.

Both the connective tissue under the tongue and connecting the top lip to the gums can be tight as well, such as here:

Maxillary labial frenum.
Photo: www.tempestbeauty.com

Problems that tongue tie can create include a bad latch, which can cause nipple pain and soreness in the mother. Without proper latch and the full ability to suck, the baby may spend more time on the breast to get enough milk to satisfy him. He also may have weight gain issues, gassiness and fussiness. Mother's milk supply often goes down, leaving both mom and baby frustrated, and mom is left thinking something is wrong with her milk.

Unfortunately, doctors are often not entirely educated on the subject of tongue tie and what to do about it. My friend Amy, a mom of four, said that although her oldest two both had it, because they were gaining weight the doctor wasn't concerned. "My doctor said that their tongue tie was not a problem, even though it was causing problems, just not weight gain issues," she said. When her third son was born, she sought a second opinion when the initial physician found nothing wrong. "Within a few days" of getting the frenulum clipped, she said, "he was such a different baby, with nursing and just his disposition in general."

This is the problem: even if mom does suspect something is wrong, the doctor may not always act on your suspicions. I actually read a question from someone whose doctor told her tongue tie was over-diagnosed, which I find hard to believe. Based on the differences between each type of tie and the individual anatomy of the mother's breast, experiences may vary: some may give up nursing early because of painful, cracked nipples and low milk supply, and some may have no problems at all, which some speculate might cause doctors to not recognize it properly.

Third-time mom Christina is in the throes of trying to get her baby accurately diagnosed. She explains that her baby doesn't seem to be able to get a "deep latch," milk will dribble out of her mouth while nursing, and she makes "clicking sounds" when she eats. She also projectile vomits regularly and gags whenever a bottle or pacifier are used. The ENT specialist that saw her daughter pronounced her "fine," but Christina knows that isn't true. Upon getting a second opinion from a pediatric dentist, the dentist confirmed that no, she wasn't "crazy," and that she's 'heard her story hundreds of times' from other mothers, whose intuition "is rarely wrong."

Christina emailed photos to the dentist, who wrote back and said that her baby has the most severe form of tongue tie there is, upper and lower, and said that "signs and symptoms indicate that she requires tongue-tie and lip-tie frenectomies." (Does this sound like a baby that's "fine" to you?)

Although every baby occasionally spits up and has fussiness or gas, it seems like this leaves a wide door for the formula industry to step in. There are all kinds of formulas marketed for babies with "colic," gas and spitting up, and many think that tongue ties are going undiagnosed because of this. "This makes me seriously wonder how many breastfeeding relationships are destroyed by doctors telling women that everything is fine when it isn't," Christina says. That something is wrong with you and your milk, so why don't you just switch to formula instead?

Before the widespread use of infant formula, the birth attendant usually clipped a tight frenulum immediately after birth. Since the cultural shift to using formula, however, it's largely fallen out of practice.

When a Florida doctor's child was born with tongue-tie, she had her son evaluated by an ENT who agreed to do the procedure. I'm guessing it's because she was a fellow doctor, not because he thought she was just a mom with good instinct. A lactation consultant, she pointed out, noted how lucky she was to find a doctor who would take her concerns seriously. When her child was born, she asked the postpartum nurse about the telltale heart-shaped tongue, and the nurse replied, "That's a tight frenulum. But no one does anything about them anymore." If no one does anything, the mother may go weeks, even months, struggling to breastfeed, even giving up because it seems unsuccessful. Because infant formula use has become so engrained in our medical culture it seems to be the first suggestion for solving any problem, even when there are other solutions.

Amy's doctor made an interesting observation: that more second- and third-time mothers come in for this problem, because first-time mothers often don't realize what it is and may stop nursing altogether because of milk supply issues, etc. "Perhaps they just give up nursing or trudge through even though they are having a horrible time," she thinks. "I didn't ask for help because I wouldn't even have known what to ask about." With no other children to compare it to, it can be confusing and frustrating to figure out what's going on. Then you might get an uninformed doctor who mistakenly says nothing is wrong.

If you suspect your baby has tongue-tie, especially when it's not glaringly obvious, here's a partial list of possibilities that might help:

• In mom, persistent very sore, damaged or blistered nipples (because of a bad latch)
• excessive weight loss in baby
• slow or no weight gain in baby
• cannot maintain a seal at the breast or bottle, often has gaps at corners of mouth that milk may spill out from
• baby only swallows infrequently
• very frequent feeds; I've also read that babies who spend a long time on the breast before being satisfied (if they are at all) is also a sign
• excessive gas, colic, green stools
• unable to protrude tongue (depending on the degree of the tie)
• clicking sound when feeding, may pop on or off
• low milk supply in mother
• gagging

For the article and entire list, click here.

It's important to trust your gut - if something doesn't seem right, check with your doctor. Realize that doctors aren't perfect, and do not be afraid to seek a second (or even a third!) opinion. It's not unheard of - and quite sad, really - for parents to travel miles, across states, even, to find someone who will listen to their concerns and do the procedure. But once it's done, it can often make all the difference in the world.

More reading:
Tongue Tie: From Confusion to Clarity
Tongue-tied breastfeeding
Information on Tongue-Tied Babies: Breastfeeding Basics
Tempest Beauty: Maxillary Labial Frenum and Tongue Tie
Booby Traps: Docs who won't snip tongue-tie, thousands of breastfeeding moms and babies suffer - Best for Babes Foundation

WTH?! Wednesdays: Gardasil vaccine is "safe," at least according to Merck

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:30:00 +0000

Introducing a new feature: WTH?! Wednesdays, a time to reflect on the week's most absurd, weird, or amazing stories and photos.

Photo: Jan Christian/Wikipedia Commons

So this week's first post concerns a ridiculous article from the Wall Street Journal declaring that a study finds Gardasil "safe." I didn't even realize at first that it was from the WSJ, and since we subscribe, we have an online account. If only I could find the password, because there is no way I can resist commenting on that one...

However, the study is ... get this ... funded by freaking Merck! If that doesn't make you scratch your head, nothing will. And of the dozen or so people who commented on the article, none of them picked up on this and questioned the ethics surrounding it. I would have thought WSJ readers would have been a lot smarter than that.

Now check out this link to a study that basically says what I'm thinking: that there is less of a chance of an unfavorable outcome if the producer of said product is funding the study. Duh. Do you really think they're going to get unbiased results with Merck footing the bill? Do you really think we'd hear anything about it if they didn't?

From the BMJ study:

"Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors.

Conclusion: Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias."

It isn't exactly rocket science.

Tori Spelling and cesarean complications: why we need to hear about it

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:29:00 +0000

It seems like everyone wants to hear about celebrity baby gossip. And with Tori Spelling's recent birth complications in the news, it's something we should be hearing about.

At the very least, Tori Spelling's
post-cesarean complications could
be an important vehicle for raising
awareness about risks of c-section and
the importance of adequate
informed consent.

As Spelling underwent emergency surgery for complications after her fourth cesarean, the media was slightly abuzz about why it's such a concern, as they should be. I was elated that finally, finally someone was beginning to question the high c-section rate and how repeat cesareans can pose dangers for women. Not that I would ever wish those repercussions on anyone, but to have it happen to a high-profile celebrity, someone who's face we recognize, whose births are highly publicized - is perhaps instrumental in getting our attention when it comes to a very important topic that few people seem to really understand.

I don't know about Tori and her marriage, don't watch her show, or know what her motivations are, but it sounds like she wants a large family. She is in the minority, as more women are stopping after two children and therefore are not often exposed to the risks of what that number of c-sections can do to the body. Whether it's one, two or four or more, it always carries risks - but obviously with four surgeries under your belt you're going to be exposed to more risk than someone who's only had two. It's unclear, though, whether women really 'get' why this is important to understand - because many of them spend much time digging Spelling for 'not using birth control' (even though someone commented that yes, she was using it, and yes, it did fail). Some speculate that she did initially consider a VBAC, but decided against it when her first and second births were also close together (which can bring additional risk).

Instead of bashing her for having lots of kids, not 'getting fixed,' etc. etc. it should make us question why she wasn't encouraged to have a VBAC after her first birth, especially if she wanted more children. Although close births do pose a unique set of complications when considering VBAC, this is probably one case where why her first cesarean occurred is important to know: did she have a medical condition? Was she 'too posh to push' or did she simply want to schedule the birth? Who knows. Preventing the first scar is key, but sometimes it's not that easy, especially if you aren't sure how many kids you want. It's hard to gear up for a future birth when you're barely finished with the first one, but knowing before you get that uterine scar just how it could impact future births is very important.

After the birth of her first son, Liam, Tori said this:

"I had a c-section...One of the biggest misconceptions is that celebrities have C-sections because it's easier. If I had a choice, I would not have. The recovery is much worse."

To me, it almost sounds like her doctor was a "once a cesarean, always a cesarean" type of person. And while I'm sure there is some strong-arming going on when it comes to pleasing a celebrity client, these women are no different than we are: if a doctor tells you a VBAC is "unsafe, dangerous, and your uterus will shatter" then you are just as prone to believe it's true as any of us might be.

I'll never forget it: that's what Anna Nicole Smith reported that her doctor told her before the birth of her daughter, born by scheduled cesarean. That her "uterus would shatter," as if it's made of glass, as if one tiny contraction could forcibly blow the entire thing up like a bomb. I was so sad for her, because she naively believed him, much like any of us probably would have.

Some articles surrounding Spelling's complications ask an important question: are doctors doing enough to inform patients about the risks of cesareans? I was happy to see that headline, because I argue wholeheartedly that they're not. If you were scheduled for brain or open heart surgery, would a doctor simply tell you, "Everything will be fine, trust me! It's totally safe!" and walk away without so much as an explanation of the procedure? Highly doubtful.

I know my own physician, whom I saw for two of my three pregnancies, definitely did not. I still remember clearly our conversation prior to the birth of my first baby, who was breech: to his credit, he didn't schedule the cesarean until the week of my due date, but never went over any risks - if he did, I probably would have left the office that day in a panic instead of nervous excitement about the arrival of my child. Thankfully I did go into labor days before the surgery, which meant my baby (and most importantly, my body) experienced labor on its own, which is critical for future births. Yet I had no idea just how important that was at the time, because I was naive and very uninformed. No thanks to him.

When I became pregnant with my second child, my doctor gave me a 'choice' of what I wanted to do: the cesarean route, which I was already familiar with and had survived (isn't that a benchmark of just how casual our approach is to it?) or a VBAC, then proceeded to tell me that it could be dangerous and he'd had two women rupture on him. I decided the word 'rupture' sounded very unpleasant and I wasn't even going to consider it for a moment. Duh. What an idiot I was!

As my pregnancy progressed, I decided maybe having a VBAC wasn't such a bad idea. My primary motivation for choosing one was a) my baby wasn't breech and b) I wanted to avoid a potentially horrific recovery like I had with the first. I was terrified to tell him my intentions, because I had just three weeks until my due date. I stammered my way through our office visit, my husband at my side, while he proceeded to again tell me just how dangerous VBACs were and "I have one patient who's on her fifth cesarean!" I will never forget those words. That's when I asked him, "Well, what about this? That? Or this?" He had to concede that yes, those were definite risks to multiple cesareans. But reluctantly.

I know I'm not the only one. I've read so many accounts from near-panicked women that are on the eve of their inductions: "What should I expect? What do they do? Is this really necessary?" Something is clearly wrong with this picture. Either we trust our doctors too much, feel completely incapable of asking them questions, or they are completely inept at adequately informing their patients of risks and benefits to procedures. It shouldn't be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy; even if the patient says she has no questions, you should probably go ahead and tell her anyway. If she doesn't even know what to ask, then she's probably not even thinking about what could happen, what should happen, or what doesn't even need to happen.

I asked people on Facebook if they were induced or had cesareans, did their doctor cover the risks of the procedure? Of those that answered, all of them said "no."

It doesn't help that many doctors will discourage you from 'reading too much.' The internet be damned, because that means you're a religious follower of Ricki Lake and she only wants women to give birth in bathtubs. *eyeroll* Here, here's a copy of What to Expect When You're Expecting, now please - I don't have time to go over all the risks with you because there are none and it's perfectly safe so have a nice day. Does that sound like informed consent to you? Me neither.

So it's not a wonder Tori Spelling has had her fourth cesarean, and I don't think she should be blamed for it, either. Not because she's "old," or "a breeder," or any of those things. Stop blaming the person who just trusted her doctor, as you often blindly tell her she should. Start blaming the people who knowingly put vulnerable, often inadequately informed people at risk. Stop enabling the very system that allows this to happen.

The return of Ruby, the "Anti-Barbie"

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:12:00 +0000

My three-year-old saw this picture and asked,
"Is that a real Barbie? Is that a real doll? She is
cutting her hair." LOL No traumatizing here...

Remember Ruby?

A few years ago I posted a picture of Ruby, The "Anti-Barbie" and compared her with the current bizarre Mattel brainchild, Bratz dolls. A little backstory: a dad and his daughter were at the mall somewhere, caught a glimpse of The Body Shop's Ruby ad, and he basically flipped out and said his daughter was "traumatized." (I'm curious how many Victoria's Secret mannequins they had passed during that shopping trip.) Mattel then stepped in and took over.

After filing a cease and desist order to The Body Shop, the ad got pulled.

What I didn't realize was that this ad campaign originally debuted over a decade ago in 1998, before Twitter and Facebook, and as one writer put it, "If something went viral, it usually required a trip to the doctor's office." Now with the virtual explosion of social media, Ruby made somewhat of a comeback.

Since I first saw that ad two years ago, and I really haven't thought much about Ruby since, until I started making Barbie clothes for my daughter's dolls. As I studied patterns and then the mass-manufactured clothes, I remembered that ad and the freak out episode Mattel had surrounding it.

It seems that Mattel's energy is misdirected in their efforts to get the Body Shop to cease and desist: she looks, really, nothing like the "real" Barbie, and is merely a representation of a doll, any doll, not just Barbie. There are copycat Barbies everywhere, so why not go after those people, too?

Strangely enough, it didn't appear as though Mattel were going after the manufacturer of the doll, just the people who are showing us the image. So in other words, they can't stop someone from actually making a doll like this, but they can just try their hardest to keep us from seeing it.

Ironically, in the late 1950s, Barbie's creator had been to Germany and saw a similar doll, called Bild Lili, taking it back to the US to her husband, the co-founder of Mattel. The irony of Barbie's debut smacks of theft, in some ways. Later, Mattel acquired the rights to the German company, and Barbie's European cousin was no longer produced.

If Ruby were to really be created as a doll for the public market, it seems like she would threaten Barbie's livelihood about as much as Barbie moved in on Bild Lili's territory back in 1959.

There are countless styles of fashion dolls out there, many re-tooled and redesigned by adult collectors whose vast collections of Barbie-like dolls, clothing, shoes and furniture would make any kid envious. They are often produced in Japan, and can be made to look like celebrities, rugged men, glamourous women with excessively large breasts - just about anything you can think of - except overweight. And we know that even with two body redesigns (which may have been prompted by the Ruby ad, along with cries of protest by concerned parents), Barbie and her gorgeous body is still not really what the average American woman looks like, a size 14 - which is more like what Ruby looks like (as the ad truthfully suggests).

Because we all know that nurses everywhere
wear satin scrubs and sky-high heels. It was
either this or the astronaut costume.

As far as wardrobe choices, it seems like Barbie is devolving somewhat. Decades ago when she first came out, there were beautifully-styled dresses, jackets with linings and real tags, tennis outfits, all kinds of clothing - all of which looked very realistic. While it's true that changing times and hemlines are probably what Barbie's wardrobe reflects upon most, it's still not that true-to-life. The career dolls are still around, and I recently bought an astronaut suit (with matching helmet and boots!) for my daughter's birthday. But I made a pact with myself when I started buying those dolls for her - I'd rather see them naked all the time than with the barely-there clothing she often comes with. I contest that while ball gowns are very pretty and glamourous (I think girls prefer the long, flowing ones over the often tight-fitting, super short ones Mattel seems to be churning out), Barbie needs a good dose of reality in her wardrobe. Most of us do not wear negligee-type dresses out in public, or silk scrubs and platform shoes to our nursing jobs. If you want Barbie to have a realistic wardrobe that looks like a pint-sized version of your own, you have to make it yourself.

So Mattel was upset by the image of Ruby, yet condones the sexed-up, almost prostitute-ish look of Bratz dolls in their skimpy, barely-there clothing, platform shoes and heavy makeup. Barbie's own wardrobe generally consists of unrealistic, often revealing clothing, a complete departure from the original designs that were miniature versions of clothing real people would wear. Much like today, when the doll was first introduced, parents protested her unrealistic chest size. Despite the protests of parents now about the appearance of the Bratz doll, they still continue to be top sellers.

A rash of rashes (Don't fear the fever, Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:26:00 +0000

With all the fun and exciting things that happened to our family this summer, we also had two crummy illnesses thrown into the mix, just to keep us on our toes (or should I say, knees?).

My husband and I had planned a getaway trip to Boston at the end of June, but my daughter had other plans: she got pretty sick about a week or so before our trip. I blogged about the experience, and mainly how we were deciding not to overdo it on the Tylenol/Motrin thing and just let her body do its thing to fight whatever she had. And of course, people wanted to know how things turned out.

After a visit to the peds, he diagnosed her with Coxsackie Virus, based on her rash features: sort of random, slightly raised red bumps. She had it on her hands, and it definitely looked like HFM (hand-foot-mouth). She also had it in a cluster on her torso, but nothing on her feet or in her mouth. I thought perhaps some Tylenol to keep her comfortable and we'd just ride it out, thankful that she didn't have the telltale mouth sores that many kids get.

Well, I was wrong. We ended up in pediatric urgent care, where they observed that her rash features had changed - she had something called erythema multiforme. They decided they couldn't tell conclusively if it was a viral agent or something called Kawasaki Disease, a vasculitis (which causes swelling of the blood vessels) that seems to affect primarily Japanese and American children. While it's pretty rare, it can pose serious complications if left untreated, including catastrophic heart damage that can lead to sudden death episodes. (Think John Travolta's son) W.T.F. I freaked. I held onto the notion that perhaps this was a particular strain of Coxsackie Virus, which can cause erythema multiforme.

In the end, they decided to treat her as if she had Kawasaki's, because they felt that the benefit outweighed the risks. She had a mixed bag of symptoms, some of which met Kawasaki's criteria. They waited at least a day and a half to treat her simply because the medication is insanely expensive and they weren't 100 percent sure - they even called in a delightfully old gentleman in infectious diseases who, I later suspected with horror, was a retired physician they called in to consult. Heck - the guy even carried a doctor's bag.

She had fluid around her heart - a possible sign of Kawasaki's, or something viral, or simply from being sick. Red, strawberry tongue - also a sign of Kawasaki's, but not conclusive enough to diagnose, and could also be a sign of dehydration. Whatever it was, it was kicking her butt. They gave her a round of IV IG - intravenous immunoglobulin, purified blood plasma that is supposed to boost her immune system and apparently costs around $3,000 per dose. Thankfully she tolerated it well and was able to leave the hospital after 2 1/2 days.

I still don't want to "fear the fever," but when it's accompanied by a rash - especially one that you've never seen before - it's probably a cause for concern. In the mom's guide to rashes stuff I've seen, this one hasn't been listed, and even though Kawasaki's is rare, it does need to be treated swiftly. One definite cause for alarm with regards to fever is one that lasts more than four or five days, which was a concern to doctors - at one point I was out in the hallway with the attending and his medical students, and felt like I was stuck in a surreal episode of House M.D. I don't ever want to do that again.

Just for your memory files, this is what it typically looks like after the red spots change - target or bullet-like lesions that sort of fan out from the center. It kind of reminded me of a head of cauliflower.

Erythema multiforme. Photo: Wikipedia Commons.

Our last hurrah for the summer was a trip to my mom's in Ohio, where I unfortunately spent the week with a sore throat. It would subside some during the day, but at night it was almost unbearable, and Advil only made a slight difference. At one point as I tried to fall asleep, I thought I was choking on saliva and a moment of panic set in. But otherwise I could function - I didn't feel too terrible during the day, and if I did, chalked it up to crummy food and not enough sleep. I thought I had a cold, until I suddenly realized it was getting worse instead of better, and hadn't gone away in the usual time a sore throat from a cold does. Do I have strep throat?! I thought. I wasn't sure.

I think I've had strep throat once - I can't even remember if that's what it was - and wished I had thought more about seeing the doctor when we returned home. I had cold symptoms the following week after the sore throat went away, and didn't think any more of it. Until I developed quarter-sized red bumps on my lower legs, serious joint pain in my knees and ankles, and just generally still felt like crap. I thought maybe it was from shaving. After a few days I decided I couldn't take it anymore and headed to the doctor.

I had done some googling but wasn't sure what I was looking at was really what I was looking at. I ended up seeing the Pretend Doctor, and after that visit have decided never again. I like my regular doctor, but I'm not sure where he found this person: she said it looked like a vasculitis (similar to the rash my daughter had), and I silently freaked out. But she also blubbered on about a "chest X-ray, punch biopsy," and a bunch of other stuff that had me wondering. I absently said I would like a second opinion from the doctor (thank God he was there that day) and he cheerfully came in and examined me quickly. His diagnosis was pretty succinct and seemed to match up with what I had read, and Pretend Doctor got a tad defensive (and after Dr. Real Doctor left, said, "I know what I'm talking about," a little confidently), but who cares. No punch biopsy for me (which I read later is only required in cases where the cause cannot be determined, and mostly for localized outbreaks or something, whatever that means). I had to laugh when I came across the words "Any experienced doctor should be able to diagnose based on clinical symptoms. Rarely is a biopsy needed." Hahahaha (this is me laughing hysterically in my altered mental state)

The final word was that I had developed erythema nodosum, a rash that (most commonly, I read!) is caused by a recent strep infection. I felt like a detective. I now knew more about stupid erythematous rashes than most people would care to, and was sick of the word 'erythema.' I had punched in that stupid search criteria into my computer so many times I barely had to type the letters e r y before the term came up.

In case you've never heard of it, erythema nodosum is a bumpy rash that is most often confined to the lower legs and shins, and feels pretty much like you played rugby for six hours in high heels and then were kicked in the shins by the entire team. It also includes ankle swelling, joint pain and general malaise, and as a result I've been sucking down more Advil than I ever thought possible.

I know some are skeptical of the effectiveness of taking antibiotics for strep infections, but I'm wondering if this could have all been avoided if I had seen the doctor sooner. The pain at times is almost unbearable, and I have a pretty high tolerance for pain. Sometimes Motrin works well, sometimes not. I'd rather risk potentially disturbed gut flora from a course of prophylactic antibiotics (which I'm on anyway right now, just in case) than deal with this again. Cases of rheumatic fever are virtually non-existant in the US now as a result of antibiotics after strep throat, but some people report pockets recurring - which I'm wondering is either because parents aren't recognizing the sore throat or think it's unnecessary and don't want to contribute to antibiotic abuse. I can appreciate that, to some degree. But even if don't have strep complications, you can still have rheumatic fever, which can have serious, life-long (and sometimes life-threatening) complications.

Erythema nodosum. Photo: MedicalPictures.net

Rheumatic fever is pretty rare in adults and mostly strikes children (like it did my grandma as a kid, before penicillin was even discovered) but that doesn't stop me from worrying about it, of course. In the meantime, I have a date with the heating pad. This should hopefully resolve itself ... in about three to six weeks. *frown*

More reading:
Your child has a rash: do you know what to do?

How do we normalize breastfeeding?

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:17:00 +0000

So World Breastfeeding Week is over and now we're into "National Breastfeeding Month" in the United States. It would seem that we need literally a month to devote to this subject because when it comes to our attitudes on breastfeeding, the rest of the world thinks we're nuts and can't understand our problem.

How exactly do we normalize breastfeeding? And what does that mean?

Some are all about the doublespeak: "I totally support your right to breastfeed, as long as you do it in private or very discreetly." Which sounds an awful lot like "I think breastfeeding is the best thing for babies, but I just don't want to see you actually doing it."

This Victoria's Secret mannequin
leaves nothing to the imagination

Sometimes when I'm out and about I observe things that make me scratch my head like "Seriously?" It's not a wonder we have issues.

1. We need to respect the breast. I'm sorry, but one thing I can't stand is hearing (especially women, for some reason) referring to them as "tits." And when men start basically making cat calls like "I'm all for anything that involves seeing boobs in public," that doesn't really help, either. Sexual euphemisms for your breasts are not helping with the double-minded attitude that people have about breasts and what they should be used for, or that they even have more than one function.

The popular nursing cover "Hooter Hiders" further emphasizes my point: when we're talking about breastfeeding but referring to them as "hooters," I don't know about you but I automatically think of the restaurant chain. Completely pointless.

Not only does the giant apron draw more attention to you, but the name
"Hooter Hider" seems to sexualize the act of breastfeeding. I cannot
wrap my brain around the conflicting messages here. It's like
nourishing your baby, with a touch of vulgarity. Bleh. (And while
they say it's a "top must-have for breastfeeding mothers," I have never
seen anyone use one of these things.)

By sexualizing the breasts even when promoting breastfeeding, it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Case in point - these idiotic promo ads from the Ad Council. Are you serious? Is this really doing any good?

Once again, Americans prove how incredibly juvenile they are about using the breasts for something other than sex.

On the other hand, New Zealand takes a radical approach and actually shows (gasp!) someone breastfeeding. Wait - there's no tarp covering her and she's nursing - and you really can't even tell. How is this possible?

2. Sort of dovetailing off the above point, just say the word breast. I dare you to. Target has a clever tactic of calling it natural feeding in their stores. They can't even say "Breastfeeding" on the sign above the display, even though I'm sure 100 percent of the product packages featured in that section do. Maybe we could get over our sexualization of them if we just matter-of-factly, maturely, called them what they really are?

3. And dovetailing off of that, get rid of the ridiculous marketing. Again with the Target display, I was dumbfounded when I saw this there the other day:

Not only do they not call it "breastfeeding," they don't show anyone actually breastfeeding anywhere in the picture: there is an entire display of bottles with formula in them, and a canister of powdered formula in the foreground. What?!

This was even more disturbing. The mother and baby featured aren't nursing, either. This would have been a perfect opportunity for Target to actually feature a mother doing what the sign advertises, right?

Stranger still is the sign underneath - that immediately equates "natural feeding" with using a breast pump. Some women, obviously, will use them, but this seems to make you think you must buy one, you need one, so you don't have to actually be seen feeding your baby. Truly bizarre.

4. Just do it. I can't think of a better way to normalize it than actually feed your baby somewhere. Who knows - the more women we see nursing in public, the more it can possibly change attitudes and even encourage just one mom. As much as people complain about "exposing" little Johnny and Susie to it as kids, children do need to see that relationship to understand the basic function of the human body, whether mom likes it or not. I'd much rather explain to my child how their brother is fed than have to tell them why Susie's mother doesn't object when she wears next to nothing to school every day.

5. Be an advocate, whenever possible. This doesn't mean staging a "nurse in" or anything of that magnitude, but respectfully standing up for yourself and your rights as much as possible. I'm not saying defy police authority in the pathetic event that they might be called, but responding even keel and not getting angry probably helps a lot (no matter how much you want to smash the person's face in). Hand them a pamphlet with your state's breastfeeding laws. Tell them you're perfectly within your rights and carry on. It's sad that you even have to approach such a thing as infant feeding looking for a fight, but some people will confront you no matter how much you're covered simply because they know what you're doing under there.

Advocacy shouldn't include, however, being a "nursing Nazi" (a term I despise) and even if you do think formula is poison, keep those sentiments to yourself. Getting up in a mom's face for not breastfeeding is not going to make her turn around and lactate, either.

One way I could put my money where my mouth is, for instance, is to write a nice letter to Target asking them why they're complete asshats about the way they "promote" breastfeeding. Perhaps some positive changes will take place as a result; or maybe they'll just send me coupons for free formula. *snark*

A history of breastfeeding in public

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:48:00 +0000

When you're deciding on whether to make the commitment to nursing, undoubtedly for some the idea of nursing in public is daunting. Even experienced mothers have told me they never fully "mastered" it, and we all have our own individual levels of comfort when it comes to doing it. Add an older kid to the mix, and suddenly it's like juggling a three-ring circus with one hand.

Lots of people think breastfeeding
is the best thing for baby. They
just don't want to ever catch you
doing it. Isn't there a tarp or tent
somewhere you can use to huddle
under?

I've had to think really hard about those times I nursed in public, and honestly I can't remember a whole lot. I think I mostly hid out in fitting rooms (and even a few bathrooms, but usually not for the reason you'd think - usually because as soon as I sat down to nurse a baby, the sudden, overwhelming urge to use the bathroom often hit me). I preferred those places not so much because I didn't want people seeing me nurse my baby, although because I was a bit clumsy with things that might have been part of it; but more because when I nursed, I wanted to spread out, get comfortable, and just sit. That meant I could lean back, hang my leg over a chair and get comfy. Although yes, in some ways, I was not in the mood to be stared at, harassed - even potentially - and felt generally uncomfortable and paranoid.

To think - those feelings and anxieties, over something real or perceived - can actually keep a woman from wanting to nurse at all. I had one playgroup buddy who refused to nurse even in front of us other moms, women she'd known and worked with for nearly a decade. One day I saw her bottle-feeding and realized it wasn't so much to get her daughter "used to" the idea of getting a bottle; it was because she was embarrassed to be seen doing it in front of us. Other moms propped themselves up while at my house, and even though we weren't the closest of friends, they still found a way; and yet, as I sort of watched them, it made me feel slightly weird to be sitting there as they were feeding their babies. Why? I nursed my own children; I fully supported them and wanted them to feel as comfortable as possible while relaxing in my home. Why did I feel strange about it, then?

I think because even as a nursing mother, I had seen few moms like me - nursing their babies in the open, in private, anywhere, really. How sad. How pathetic. How trained we've become (some of us, anyway) because we don't want to invite criticism, controversy or because we are made to feel like we should give more of a crap than necessary about everyone else when really, it's our babies we should be focusing on.

When people say they "don't want to see you flash your boobs in public," I wonder if they have any idea, really, that women decades before us did just that to feed their babies, often in public. What else could you do - it's not like they had tank tops and two-piece sweatsuits at their disposal in 1946. Women typically wore dresses that buttoned up the top, and that was their idea of "nursing clothing." Some dresses were styled somewhat to accommodate, many images simply show a mother unbuttoning her dress or blouse and simply feeding her baby.

So when someone tells you they don't want to see a breastfeeding mother "showing her boobs," just tell them, "Really? Because that's the way they did it 60 years ago." You know, back when everyone was conservative and puritanical, right?

'The Cornstalk Madonna,' by Orin Crooker,
Hoopestown, Ill. c. 1916. One of my
favorites.

Yeah, nowadays barely-there bikinis, thongs and cleavage are all the rage. But I bet if you sat down and decided to feed your baby, you'd be asked to leave (as many mamas have been).

At the beach. In front of people. c. 1930s.
Photo credit: Joseph Schwartz/Corbis.

But if you're ever at the pool and happen to run into Ice-T's girlfriend, just remember that this is okay, got it?

Most onlookers drool in approval -
but if this were a nursing mother,
I'm sure there would be an
uprising and police would be
on the scene in minutes.

This one has always made me laugh - the only one
who apparently gets a rise out of it is a young boy who
is maybe 8 years old. The rest are like, "eh, whatever."
Source: Jennifer James/mothering.com

Babies sometimes get hungry in all kinds of places - regardless of whether they've just been fed or not - like just when you're getting ready to leave to go someplace. It looks like, throughout the ages and no matter what mode of transportation was available, this has always been the case. LOL

Notice how none of the women looks uncomfortable, and the one to the nursing mother's left doesn't seem to be saying, "OH. MY. GOD. I cannot believe she has the nerve to whip that thing out in public while we're all sitting here!"

Caption: "A mother is traveling from Louisville, KY
to Memphis, TN on a Greyhound bus. Here, she is
waiting in the Chattanooga bus terminal and breast-
feeding in public in September 1943."
Source: Jennifer James, mothering.com

I've included the above image in a past blog post, but I never realized that another image is also included in the set:

This could either be a look of consternation that says,
"Did I miss the train?" or "What was that, Gertrude? I
couldn't hear you." Now it's "Ok, when is the angry
flashmob going to show up with the police to
escort me off the property for feeding my baby?!"

This one has always cracked me up, too. This couple
is more excited about saving their farm after the
Great Depression than wasting time worrying about
what everyone thinks about her baby eating. Even
the adviser they're talking to is casual and normal
with them, not all "Mrs. Jones, would you like a
receiving blanket to cover up with? Shall I ask
if there is a nice bathroom stall or dark closet for you
to nurse your baby in?"
Source: Jennifer James, mothering.com

(It was always my dread that my baby would be hungry while I waited at the pediatrician's office - not that I didn't want anyone seeing me, but that a) all those sick people would be breathing on me and b) that I'd have to run to the bathroom, which was across two waiting rooms on the other side of the office. Then, while I was in there, they'd inevitably call my name...)

Anyway, I remember not long ago having a discussion with NICU moms that nurses actually wanted to put up a freaking screen while some of the moms nursed. I've also heard some horribly sad stories about NICU nurses being completely unsupportive - to the point of literal sabotage - of moms who wanted to nurse their babies there. Unreal.

Caption: "Mothers nursing their babies
while waiting their turn to see the doctor,
a nun standing nearby. Location: Paris, France.
Photographer: David E. Scherman.
Time/Life Magazine, August 1, 1946

There are lots more - if you want to see them, visit my gallery on Facebook here or the Facebook fan page Historic Photos & Prints of Breastfeeding.

Subversive marketing tactics: Nestle "milk nurses"

noreply@blogger.com (The Deranged Housewife) — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:58:00 +0000

In light of the recent flak Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been getting for his breastfeeding campaign in NYC hospitals, it's important to go back in history a little and explore the origins of that "little bag of freebies" - which might not be as harmless as we think.

For more than a century, Nestle has become a household name - associated with everything sweet and good. But what you may or may not know is that when it comes to marketing their infant formula, they often left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many mothers and infants worldwide.

"Milk nurses" in South Africa. "Some firms
used "milk nurses" as part of their promotions.
Dressed in nurse uniforms, "Milk nurses" were
assigned to maternity wards by their companies
and paid commissions to get new mothers
to feed their babies formula. Mothers who did
so soon discovered that lactation could not be
achieved and the commitment to
bottle-feeding was irreversible." -
Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and
Global Environment, by Marianne M. Jennings

Nestle made its presence known in South Africa more than half a century ago with "milk nurses," women who were either actually nurses or those dressed to look like ones - who represented the company. Poor women with little, if any, access to clean, running water were then persuaded to try their products, and soon the baby would be accustomed to getting a bottle of formula instead of mom's breast. In time, the breast milk would dry up - but so would the cash flow necessary to buy more formula to feed the baby.

Problems ranged from mothers reconstituting formula with contaminated water, which often led to diarrhea and even death, or watering it down to make the product last longer - which led to malnutrition. One blogger notes:

A fellow nutrition student of mine was formerly head of the Nestle milk nurses in Kenya. She told me that she and her staff not only were qualified, they were among the most senior nurses in the country and wore uniforms indicating this. She said that regular government nurses then had to “obey” the Nestle milk nurses!

Meaning, there is a systematic method of coercion: whether real or portrayed as such, these "milk nurses" were an established presence on behalf of the company, and by showing a special uniform as a display of power and authority, seems to suggest that anyone who questioned them was "in trouble."

Nowadays we think of those typical goodie bags as no big deal, and with heavy government subsidization of formula, it's not that difficult to obtain more when you run out. However, the problem of reconstituting weakly to make it last longer, doesn't seem to be isolated to foreign countries with indigenous tribal people: the same thing happens here in the US. Whether it's simply greed or ignorance, I don't know, but hearing comments like this one make me want to scream - is it still a mother's choice not to breastfeed, even if it's a completely ill-informed one?

People here in America do this too. I've seen a woman water hers down and sell the remaining WIC cans on craigslist.

Although there are WIC programs that do encourage breastfeeding among low-income mothers, it's obvious that the memo might not be as widely-circulated as it should be.

Some ask, "How is Nestle responsible for people who water down their baby's formula?" By marketing heavily to a nation who cannot sustain using their product. The level of abject poverty in many African nations is something even our poorest cannot comprehend, and seemingly few understand the role that these powerful milk "nurses" played in convincing a woman that her own milk was inferior.

One blogger says she was told by a high school teacher about this situation in South Africa, and promptly thought those women must be "stupid" for believing these nurses. Then when she grew up and nursed her own babies, she said, she ran across this image and it opened her eyes:

Photo credit: UNICEF. Source:
http://www.jemjabella.co.uk/2010/jemjabella-is-a-nestle-free-zone/

The babies in this photo are actually twins. At the mother's permission, she posed for this photograph, taken by a UNICEF worker, after learning that even some breast milk could have helped her daughter to thrive like her brother. Healthcare workers convinced this mother, however, that there was no way she could provide enough milk for both babies, so she faced a difficult decision. Her daughter apparently died the day after this photo was taken. Now that's guilt.

Some ask, "Why didn't workers do this? Why didn't workers tell her that?" Because they have a product to sell. Much like drug reps, hospitals and doctors are often given copious amounts of the stuff for those who truly cannot nurse or don't wish to, in exchange for other goods, I've read. When you have healthcare professionals spewing out this kinds of misinformation, vulnerable mothers are more likely to believe it.

Many have chosen to boycott Nestle as a result; still others ask, "How does this affect me?" The same thing happens here all the time: studies have shown that poorer families are more prone to water down infant formula to make it last, even while getting government subsidies. What if, when those women were in the hospital, they were actually encouraged to breastfeed? With generations of dysfunctional attitudes and perpetuating myths about breastfeeding, how can you expect them to?

More reading:
Poor parents found to water down baby formula: study
Cash-strapped parents warned after Florida infant nearly dies from watered-down formula
China finds cancer-causing toxin in baby formula
Nestle dupes moms, kills babies in Indonesia - DailyMomtra