Why Americans Ought To Reevaluate What They Were (Falsely) Taught about Child Birth
Written by Sarah C. Corriher http://healthwyze.org
Doctors used posters such as this one to demonize midwives, and spread messages of terror about competing alternatives. Some things never change.
In the early part of the twentieth century, a campaign against midwifery began, which was led by the allopathic establishment. At that time, 95% of deliveries happened in the home with midwives present. The young medical industry was campaigning that midwives were unclean, and that midwives were the last option, reserved for those who could not afford real medicine. The industry jealously spied birthing as a potentially profitable option, so began a massive marketing blitz. Hospitals were being presented as the cleaner and safer option, with supposedly better trained professionals. Every one of these statements was untrue. What made these assertions most disturbing is the fact that doctors in those days received no hands-on training in birthing at all. The attacks against midwives continued for 30 years, despite the statistical proof that midwife-assisted births were categorically safer than those conducted in hospitals. Home birthing is still safer, over a century later.
The slander against midwives was successful. By 1955, only 1% of U.S. births took place in the home. Only 8% of the births in the United States are now attended by midwives, while 70% of the European and Japanese births are attended by midwives. As a result, the United States has the second worst newborn death rate in the developed world. Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 births, has a higher infant mortality rate than the United States. The U.S. also has the highest maternal mortality rates. The safest country to give birth in is Sweden, which has a midwife (or two) at almost every birth, and these same birthing professionals actively involve themselves in prenatal care too. The Swedish do not treat pregnancy as a disease that needs pharmaceuticals, intensive hospital care, and intervention by doctors. Their babies are the better for it.
When preparing for a birth in the United States, doctors present a wide range of choices for the mother, but these options do not materialize on the day of labor. In fact, the great majority of doctors in the United States have never witnessed a completely natural birth. Hospital policies encourage American doctors to always intervene in the birthing process, for the sake of making it as fast and profitable as possible. Thus, American doctors typically seek excuses to intervene, and unnecessary interventions are always dangerous.
During a natural birth, the mother's brain releases a hormone called oxytocin. It is nicknamed "the love hormone", because it fosters a loving emotional bond. It may equally affect the child as much as the soon-to-be mother, but this is impossible to know. This hormone is also believed to induce the contractions that are necessary for vaginal birth.
The chemical marketed as petocin is the drug industry's closest equivalent to oxytocin, but as is usual with synthetic imitations, the body does not react to it in the same way. The pharmaceutical version causes more pain, and as usual for chemical therapies; it comes with an array of side-effects. Petocin is used to induce deliveries prematurely, and such premature births have intentionally been made the norm in the United States.
The Hospital Birthing Procedure in the U.S.
At some American hospitals, up to 70% of infants are delivered by way of cesarean section. These unnecessary interventions are the reason why so many American newborns die at birth, or within the first months of life. Despite the overwhelming army of specialized doctors and neonatalogists, the United States has never had "the best health care system in the world", as many Americans so love to believe.
"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn [death] rate is higher than any of those countries."
-- 2006 State of the World's Mothers Report
C-sections continue to rise in popularity for several reasons. The first reason is that the natural birthing process has been demonized and mocked by the entertainment industry. It has driven terror into expectant mothers. Modern women often expect, and even hope for a C-section well before they enter the delivery room. If women demonstrate discomfort with the prospect of having a C-section, or with any other interventions, then they are told that such interventions are in the best interest of the baby. These are lies in most cases, but doctors know that mothers will always stop questioning when implied threats and guilting about their child's safety are issued.
Statistically, vaginal births are much less dangerous than cesarean sections. C-sections are a major surgery, which often cause infections that do not respond to antibiotics. Despite this, they are the most common surgery performed on women, because they help doctors to avoid lawsuits. In the event of a lawsuit, the use of a C-section supposedly proves to juries that the doctor "did everything he could" to assist the baby and mother. More often than not, juries believe it, and another doctor gets away with murder.
The costs of giving birth in the United States are at least twice as high as any other country in the world, yet its results are the worst in virtually every category. Here are the current average prices for different births in America:
After a C-section, women are told that they must continue getting C-sections for every birth thereafter. Thus, each birth doubles the hospital's profit. Each subsequent birth is more dangerous for both the mother and child too.
Insurance companies often refuse to cover home births, because supporting the alternatives would eventually eliminate our need for their health insurance. In other words, the American medical system's prices are kept artificially high, so that customers are forced to buy insurance, which has policies ensuring that medical prices continue being high for the sake of perpetuating its own wealth-generating existence. Insurance companies have an incestuous relationship with the medial establishment, and neither would support anything that might decrease our dependence upon them, or decrease cost. Insurance agents have a tendency to seek only advice from in-system doctors, who predictably claim that home births are dangerous. The statistical evidence overwhelmingly proves the opposite. For example, America has the most births performed in hospitals, but it has the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Statistics prove that the more medical care a child receives, the more likely he is to die.
"Designer Birth" is a new term in which a caesarian-section is scheduled for a certain day and time, and then a tummy tuck is done immediately after a delivery. The only part missing is a drive-through. These have become more popular, due to their use by celebrities such as Victoria Beckham and Britney Spears. Such unnecessary interventions are madness, and they decrease the chances of a healthy mother and child. Regardless, this irresponsible practice is being adopted by a new generation of rich women, who favor glamor over the welfare of their own children.
Allopathic Birthing History In All Its Shining Glory
The track record for Big Medica's interventions with the birthing process is miserable. The doctors still treat pregnancy as a disease, and the unborn children are treated like tumors needing extraction. Perhaps eventually they will stop experimenting on human beings and tampering with God's handiwork. Such a day is unlikely to come until parents start refusing to allow their children to be the test subjects for the industry's current fad, or whatever it finds most profitable.
Getting Pregnant, Curing Infertility, and Balancing Hormones
Low Platelet Counts, Thrombocytopenia, and Pregnancy
Special Investigative Report: Why You Should Boycott the Susan Komen Pink Ribbon Foundation and Its Sponsors
Beware of Deodorants, Especially The "Safe" and "All Natural" Ones
Unless I am mistaken, I believe that the issue of using "Twilight
Sleep" was one of the many horrors of medical practice that
Michael Crichton wrote about in his autobiography, Travels. In case you aren't
familiar with that book, Crichton started out wanting to be a doctor, but what
he saw in medical school and his internship and residency horrified him so that
he realized that he could never morally work as a doctor. He finished medical
school so that he could say he had not quit, but he never practiced medicine and
instead, became a filmmaker (probably the most known for his scripts of
"Jurassic Park" and "The Andromeda Strain". but there many others, as well).
According to Crichton, there was an irony regarding the Twilight Sleep; women who were in the hospital where he worked as an intern who were unwed mothers were "punished" by the system by not being given any drugs of relief at all, which meant that they escaped the Twilight Sleep and therefore ended up experiencing a more natural birth experience than the "non-punished" mothers undergoing the horrors of Twilight Sleep, whom he described as elegant Boston women screaming and swearing like sailors.
By the dates you listed of when this was used, I know that at least with my birth in 1948 and my sister's birth in 1951, my mother must have had the Twilight Sleep. She was told after my birth that the birth was so difficult that the next one would kill her. She went on to have three more children, although the third one in 1954 and the fourth one in 1960 were Caesarian births. They surely didn't use Twilight Sleep on Caesarian births, did they? If so, then they were guilty of performing no worse tortures than the Japanese did to prisoners in World War II in their unit 731 with its non-anesthetic medical experimentation war crimes.
Referring back to your wonderful radio show about hypnotherapy, I would say that every single woman in the United States giving birth under Twilight Therapy would need to undergo hypnotherapy healing of their giving-birth traumas. I feel like having that therapy, myself, from simply having undergone a transesophageal echocardiogram and the subsequent shocks of electro cardioversion (which corrected my atrial fibrillation for only about a week before it came back again). They used some kind of "not an anesthetic but you will forget" drug for that and by the time I was back home after those procedures, my tongue looked like Shamu the Whale, nearly totally back and filled up my oral cavity completely. I was driven to the ER in a panic and taken in right away due what this (different hospital) immediately declared a life-threatening emergency. The ER doctor said my tongue was so badly traumatized that combined with the heavy shots of anticoagulant caused me to bleed heavily into my tongue. I cannot imagine what level of pain, fear, panic, suffering, and screaming I must have gone through to endure all of that. My conscious mind may not remember, but SOMETHING does--my subconscious, my body, my soul, maybe even a portion of my brain. Any system that subjects any patient to things like that must be pure evil, obviously.
I am actually amazed that there are no comments on this article.
Labor and Childbirth have become dirty words in America, and are to be avoided at all cost - doctors are encouraging their patients by scheduling inductions (that goes hand-in-hand with epidural anesthesia) or even routine primary C/Sections. All done between 9 and 5, Monday thru Friday.
Patients who may have optioned for a VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarian) - following C/Section for breech or fetal distress in an earlier birth, are being turned away by doctors and hospitals claiming liability. A hospital in Northern Arizona threatened a former patient with a court order if she showed up in labor and refused a Caesarian, even though she had previously given birth via VBAC there. She ended up relocating with her three young children for the remaining months of her pregnancy - in order to avoid unnecessary surgery.
Thalidomide was routinely given to pregnant women for nausea and insomnia in Europe, Canada, Africa, South America, the Far East and Great Britain, after it was marketed in Germany in 1957. It was billed as a wonder drug - pain reliever, cold medicine, tranquilizer and antiemetic. When the drug was pulled from the market between 1961 and 1962, more than 10,000 babies had been born world wide, most with life threatening birth defects, due to the prenatal use.
The drug was never authorized for sale in America, thanks to the efforts of pharmacologist and M.D. Frances Oldham Kelsey - Kelsey refused to give FDA approval to the Richardson-Merrell company, claiming further studies were needed - but millions of tablets were distributed to physicians during clinical testing. It is unknown how many pregnant women took the drug to help alleviate morning sickness, or as a sedative.
Cytotec is marketed to be used with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to decrease the chance of developing an NSAID-induced gastric ulcer. It was determined that patients who became pregnant during it's use were at high risk of birth defects (use during the first trimester of pregnancy caused skull defects, cranial nerve palsies, facial malformations, and limb defects) also spotting, cramping and miscarriage.
The vaginal administration of Cytotec, OUTSIDE OF IT'S APPROVED INDICATION, is being used when the cervix is not ready for labor (UNRIPE) - prior to administering Pitocen. Hyper-stimulation is a serious adverse effect that causes pain, maternal and fetal distress, impairment of the blood flow to the placenta, fetal bradycardia, amniotic fluid embolism and uterine rupture - irregardless of prior uterine surgery.
Severe pain, uterine tetany causing hemorrhage, retained placenta, shock, fetal and maternal death - have all been reported. Obviously the presence of a uterine scar, only adds to the risk. Approximately 1/3 of the patients given vaginal Cytotec have no response - IMO that is a lot of risk - for very little possible gain.
Misoprostol can be purchased on line, allowing women to perform an abortion thru the 8th week of pregnancy - in the privacy of her own home - the possibility of retained products of conception (incomplete TAB) can then treated like an incomplete miscarriage - (spontaneous abortion) or even bleeding of unknown cause - all treated by a D & C.