Why I don't do vaginal exams ~ Wisdom from a Traditional Birth Companion
I let my new client know what would happen when I arrived at her home when she was in labour. We talked about sanitation measures, spending time in the kitchen, setting up the pool, and where I could take a nap if she needed some privacy. I said I would not be doing any vaginal exams as I think they’re rude, and she wept with relief.
I specialise in trauma and the majority of my clients are refugees from the medical system, running from ritual abuse and routines that protect the industry. They want someone to mentor them through to a healthy birth without the traps and trappings of the industry that removed their choice, and violated their autonomy and their dignity.
As a traditional birth attendant, I don’t do vaginal exams.
Beyond the Shot: Preventing Postpartum Haemorrhage ~ Wisdom from a Traditional Birth Companion
Postpartum haemorrhage is a complication that can happen in any birth setting, although it’s more likely in a hospital. Despite the universal application of “active management” as a prevention, the rate of haemorrhage due to uterine atony has been steadily climbing in developed nations.
“Active management of the 3rd stage”, is an intervention for the birth of the placenta, the time when women are most likely to lose a significant amount of blood. It involves injecting the mother with a uterotonic (something to make the uterus contract), usually synthetic oxytocin, as soon as the baby is born, and it may include some other steps like early cord clamping or pulling on the umbilical cord depending on the protocol used. This intervention is applied to all birthing women in all hospitals, birth centres, and homes with few exceptions.
You’d think if every mother everywhere gets this injection, then it must be a good thing. Well, that’s the thing about obstetrics. It tends to take an intervention that might be suitable for some clients in certain situations and applies it to everyone. And the results are increasingly worrisome.
Birth Hijacked – The Ritual Membrane Sweep
I’ve written about many topics over the years but nothing has ever generated as much discussion, opposition, and vitriol as challenging the cherished routine membrane sweep/stripping, aka stretch-and-sweep. A few years ago, I wrote a post about how I’d like to see the routine, prior-to-40-weeks, without-medical-indication membrane sweep banned from obstetrical and midwifery practice. I talked about its risks and the fact that the clients I worked with called it a sexual assault when done without consent
The post went viral and I received hate messages and emails from around the world defending this procedure. In general, the sentiment was that I should most definitely be having sexual relations with myself, after which, I should be locked up and forever silenced. I also heard from hundreds of women whose births were ruined by days of painful, non-progressing contractions triggered by a membrane sweep that ended up in a fully medicalised all-the-interventions arrival for their baby that they didn’t want. And horrifically, even more hundreds wrote to share their stories of non-consenting, painful, and violating membrane sweeping when there was no reason for it, aside from the care provider’s decision that they had agency over their patient’s vagina and could do what they wanted when they wanted.
So what is it about membrane sweeping that is so cherished that challenging it generates death threats?
When not to induce – reason #408 – a placenta with calcium deposits
I received yet another phone call from someone who was trying to sort out the risks of staying pregnant versus the risks of being induced. From what the client could share, it was hard to know if the practitioner wasn’t fully informed on placental calcification at term, or wasn’t fully forthcoming about the non-clinical indications of that particular development in a healthy pregnancy.
To be sure, there are times when the benefits of an induction to rescue a compromised baby far outweigh the short and long-term risks of an induction.
Unfortunately, when trying to make an informed decision, clients often need to learn what their practitioners don’t know or won’t tell them.
Hocus Pocus - The ARRIVE study says inductions reduce caesareans
In an epic sleight of hand, the US obstetrical industry has managed to produce a study that affirms the “benefits” of universal elective induction of labour at 39 weeks. Headlines have trumpeted this remarkable accomplishment! Inducing labour early “prevents” c-sections!
The conclusion of the much anticipated ARRIVE study are presented in their abstract:
“IOL (induction of labour) in low-risk nulliparous women (first-time mothers) results in a lower frequency of CD (caesarean delivery) without a statistically significant change in the frequency of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes.”
Obstetricians now have the much-desired go-ahead to routinely induce healthy first-time mothers prior to reaching 40 weeks under the guise that it will reduce c-sections with no additional negative outcomes to the mother or baby.
This is the same outrageous chicanery that brought us the ridiculously executed Term Breech Trial that changed obstetrical practices around the world. It was the excuse the industry was looking for to do what they already wanted to do: surgery.