I think this proves I was right about birth stats

[The_Market]

It's a lengthy video, but all stats and arguments. So many times myself, and others, have said that we think the rates of common birth interventions are uncalled for and unacceptable and always people argue that it's reporting, immigration, system errors, etc. I think this makes a very solid case against such arguments being the sole "excuse" for our stats.

Birth By The Numbers (http://orgasmicbirth.com/birth-by-the-numbers)

[The_Market]

This is the second thread I've started this week that not a sole has posted on. Should I be taking this personally?

It's more than a bit discouraging to post serious subject matter and have it ignored while the trolls are fed heartily.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I'm having problems watching lengthy videos on my computer (it's old as hell, and it locks up). Can you summarize it?

[Meredith]

I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I have it bookmarked. I didn't see your previous thread. Maybe it's a time of day thing? I almost always read and comment on birth related threads.

[Joyto5]

I watched the video and really like how he brought a lot of the points out. It kind of snubbed the reasons some were using excuses as to why the US stood where it did on the charts. I fully agree that it's is about practice changes as to why the rates are so high.

I'm going to be posting this on my Midwifery board for some more discussions over there. Thanks.

[trylyn5]

I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I have it bookmarked. I didn't see your previous thread. Maybe it's a time of day thing? I almost always read and comment on birth related threads.


This!

[rock__]

It's a very long video. It's taken me a while to find the time to watch it all, especially with kids around. But from what I've seen it makes a lot of good points. But I don't have much to add.

[The_Market]

OKay, to summarize, Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, Professor of Maternal and Child Health, Boston University School of Public Health makes a VERY solid case to the point that our poor international ranking in birth related mortality (second to lowest of remotely industrialized countries, ranking below some developing countries) and rising c-section rates (about three times WHO recommended highs) are largely because of changes in practice and far, far less because of all the other reasons some people say (health care system, immigrants, lack of prenatal care, reporting differences between countries, etc).

I think he makes the case unarguably. It's something I've been saying for 2-3 years, but every time some people on various threads have said that medical practices surrounding birth are the main contributing factor to our appalling international ranking and ridiculous c-section rates, other people say we're anti-doctor and that the other factors (above) are the main contributing factors.

I feel so validated!!

[KatieLou]

I don't have sound on my somputer, which i hate. So, I avoid videos for that reason.

[AlrightyRoo]

The sound on my computer is broken. I am really anxious to watch this one, though. Thanks for the summary.

Did he mention anything about the role obesity and maternal age play in the stats? Those are two factors that I hear the most.

[Babyblue]

I am going to email it to my ob.

[The_Market]

The sound on my computer is broken. I am really anxious to watch this one, though. Thanks for the summary.

Did he mention anything about the role obesity and maternal age play in the stats? Those are two factors that I hear the most.
I specifically remember age, and I think obesity was covered b/c he addressed the actual pregnancy/birth issues that play into it, GD and Pre-E.

I'm going to see if I can find a text of it, but it would be a lot harder to read than watch, I think.

[HammBugga]

I've always agreed with that assessment. No need to even watch the video. I think the issue with you not getting responses is that the people who you really want to have this discussion with are the people who have vehemently disagreed with this sentiment in the past. But it is those people who are going to stay far away from this thread. Mostly because if they don't see it, it isn't real, kwim?

[The_Market]

You're probably right, Hamm. I've overcome the temptation to name names, as well. I think my gloating is petty enough. :p

[RaisingThemLeft]

Unfortunatly the sound isn't working on my computer. I agree with the premesis as I understand it though.

[The_Market]

I tried like crazy to find a text, but I can't seem to. I did email the doctor about it, though.

[vulturemom]

I admit that I didn't watch the video. But, I do agree with your summery.

I find the the difference between common interventions from the time I had Lisa (almost 19 years ago) and the time I had Kat (3 years ago) Startling. A few off the top of my head are... When I had Lisa Dr.s in my area wouldn't even talk to you about induction until 42 weeks. When I had Kat, very few dr's will even try to talk mother into going to 40 weeks. One woman I talked to said her dr. wouldn't induce until 40 weeks and she was having a fit and all the other ladies in our group were talking about how ridiculous and cruel her Dr. was.

Another when I had Lisa you were lucky if your DR did one ultra sound if you were having a normal low risk pregnancy. Now I don't hear of any one who doesn't do at least 2 US

[BeanBabies]

I have no sound. And frankly, I'm not interested in hearing you go on and on about the exact same thing all the time.

ANd to pre-empt the stereotypical "why did you open the thread?", I was just seeing if you were in fact patting yourself on the back, as the title suggested.

[Meredith]

The video does present a lot of factual, evidence-based, statistical information. It was non-biased and not at all alarmist, and I agree with the summary.

[Shaunsmom]

This is the second thread I've started this week that not a sole has posted on. Should I be taking this personally?

It's more than a bit discouraging to post serious subject matter and have it ignored while the trolls are fed heartily.

sole or soul? lol

I am sorry...I have not watched the video either. It's not that I don't care but I don't have time. A summary is better for me to read:)

[JudyJudyJudy]

OKay, to summarize, Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, Professor of Maternal and Child Health, Boston University School of Public Health makes a VERY solid case to the point that our poor international ranking in birth related mortality (second to lowest of remotely industrialized countries, ranking below some developing countries) and rising c-section rates (about three times WHO recommended highs) are largely because of changes in practice and far, far less because of all the other reasons some people say (health care system, immigrants, lack of prenatal care, reporting differences between countries, etc).

I think he makes the case unarguably. It's something I've been saying for 2-3 years, but every time some people on various threads have said that medical practices surrounding birth are the main contributing factor to our appalling international ranking and ridiculous c-section rates, other people say we're anti-doctor and that the other factors (above) are the main contributing factors.

I feel so validated!!
I think this is a part of the reason, but I'm not sure that it would be the main reason. How do you explain the difference between whites and blacks in terms of infant mortality and premature birth?

[The_Market]

I have no sound. And frankly, I'm not interested in hearing you go on and on about the exact same thing all the time.

ANd to pre-empt the stereotypical "why did you open the thread?", I was just seeing if you were in fact patting yourself on the back, as the title suggested.
Hey Hamm, now you can pat yourself on the back!

Bean that's just poor sportsmanship, old chap.

[The_Market]

I think this is a part of the reason, but I'm not sure that it would be the main reason. How do you explain the difference between whites and blacks in terms of infant mortality and premature birth?
I don't remember if you said, but did you watch the video? I don't mean that in an ugly way. I just don't want to repeat what you've already taken the time to watch, and I could cite the video parts more specifically, if you've seen it.

Assuming you've not seen it... He actually, at one point, controls for differences in race. The man in the video is known for working to bring to light (correct) the differences in race and maternity stats and he definitely addresses it in the video. If you want, I could try to find the exact spot in there where he addresses it.

At one point, he shows the differences, internationally, between other (overall) national averages and educated American white women's stats. We still come out depressingly low, much higher than we do with general stats, but still in the teens, IIRC.

[JudyJudyJudy]

No, I haven't watched the video. As I stated earlier, my computer is too decrepit for me to watch long videos. :p (Sometimes I can, but often it's just not worth trying.) I can't even run Firefox on here; it locks up.

It's interesting that he does adjust for differences in races. I'd be interested in reading the study if you can find it written out.

[The_Market]

Ah, see, it's not a study. The video is a presentation of evidence. It starts off showing where we rank internationally. Then goes through all the reasons that people give for our poor ranking, controlling for them, and showing how that affects our ranking.

For instance, our high immigrant population is one cause often cited. So, he shows the stats by immigrant status and immigrants actually have lower rates of c-section.

Another cause often cited (the first thing he addresses) is that we report differently than other countries. So, he removes the entire set of mortalities that fall under that issue and it doesn't even change our ranking!

So, he goes through all these things, showing the stats for each factor and then controlling for each in ways to show how our poor ranking might change for each.

None of these "other" factors bring us anywhere near a country of our wealth and technology should be.

He also talks about ideals in c-section rates. He shows how having a higher c-section rate would actually save more lives in countries where the rate is low b/c of lack of facility. So, up to a certain point the higher the c-section rate, the lower poor outcomes. Then, after a certain point, the higher the c-section rate, the worse it makes things. We've gone past that point. For a long time, the c-section rate inched up and more lives were savesd. However, at this point, the higher the c-section rate, the more mothers and babies will die.

So, apparently all interventions have that level; the point at which increasing the rate becomes harmful.

[Tweet]

I can't watch longish videos on my computer because it annoyingly freezes every minute or so.

I'll say this with absolutely no disrespect intended: This is something I'm just not passionate about. I do believe it's important, but it's not one of the things I tend to discuss a lot. That's one reason why I don't participate a lot in these types of threads. Who knows, maybe because I've had so many C-sections, I don't feel I can offer a lot of input.

Anyway, it's not because of you personally. I just don't discuss it a lot in general. I usually end up mourning the birth I could never have when it comes up. No sense in doing that to myself, kwim? But, I do believe it's an important issue.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Ah, see, it's not a study. The video is a presentation of evidence. It starts off showing where we rank internationally. Then goes through all the reasons that people give for our poor ranking, controlling for them, and showing how that affects our ranking.

For instance, our high immigrant population is one cause often cited. So, he shows the stats by immigrant status and immigrants actually have lower rates of c-section.

Another cause often cited (the first thing he addresses) is that we report differently than other countries. So, he removes the entire set of mortalities that fall under that issue and it doesn't even change our ranking!

So, he goes through all these things, showing the stats for each factor and then controlling for each in ways to show how our poor ranking might change for each.

None of these "other" factors bring us anywhere near a country of our wealth and technology should be.

He also talks about ideals in c-section rates. He shows how having a higher c-section rate would actually save more lives in countries where the rate is low b/c of lack of facility. So, up to a certain point the higher the c-section rate, the lower poor outcomes. Then, after a certain point, the higher the c-section rate, the worse it makes things. We've gone past that point. For a long time, the c-section rate inched up and more lives were savesd. However, at this point, the higher the c-section rate, the more mothers and babies will die.

So, apparently all interventions have that level; the point at which increasing the rate becomes harmful.
From what you're saying, he seems more hung up on C-section rates than mortality rates. I'd love to see this written out so that I can work with the data to see if his interpretations are truly accurate. I don't like just listening to something like this on a video.

[SingingMom]

I didn't watch the video either. I prefer to read stuff; I read much faster than anyone talks. And my time is limited here.

But another reason that I didn't respond to your previous thread was, well, duh. Not only do I agree that interventions are nutso in the US, my OB and her entire practice agree.

I do, however, have some sympathy for OB on this issue. I know there are lots of women- like one of my best friends- who demand interventions that I think are unnecessary. Like an elective C-section. Sure, she had good reasons, in her mind. But lots of women are asking for C-sections, inductions, amniotomy, you name it. Part of what has happened is that women have started to take control of the birth process, which is a good thing. But many women, honestly, lack a reasonable perspective on medical issues. An elective S-section sounds like a great idea to a busy woman who HAS to schedule her maternity leave from her own business, especially when dealing with a disabled family member and other issues.

But is it the best choice for that baby? Not really. It isn't even the best choice for her.

I didn't get into it on your previous thread because I don't see any easy solutions. I don't want women to be told what they can have. I don't want OBs to have mandated procedures. And I think everyone is trying their best. This isn't a huge issue, IMO. There are other maternal/neonatal issues that grab my attention more strongly- like getting prenatal care out to the uninsured.

[trylyn5]

I think, for me, the issue is that women who don't want all those interventions (or wouldn't want them if they were truly informed of risk/benefit) are having them forced on them. Forced in this case I think means everything from uninformed consent to presented as no choice and bullied/scared into consenting. I am passionate about this because of my experience. But I didn't watch the video because I don't have sound.

[rock__]

Like he points out. Women are often blamed for these changes in practice. But I don't really think that is really most women's experience. I had my two babies with two different doctors (though in the same hospital. And I underwent so much pressure to undergo intervention after intervention. Here are the interventions I told them from the begining that I did NOT want, but was pressured strongly to do, or not even outright asked; Pitocin, epidural, catheder, internal fetal monitor, episiotomy. I did not have any c-sections, thankfully. But I still feel many of these interventions hindered the natural process and left me completely without any control of my own birth. I was even pressured to stay on my back for hours.

[The_Market]

I do, however, have some sympathy for OB on this issue. I know there are lots of women- like one of my best friends- who demand interventions that I think are unnecessary. Like an elective C-section.
He even addresses this in the video. The most accurate stats we have show that about 2% of c-sections are by maternal (elective) request while about a third of c-sections involve the woman feeling coerced by her doctor.