I love the simplicity of this article...https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-most-scientific-birth-is-often-the-least-technological-birth/254420/1/ "When I ask my medical students to describe their image of a woman who elects to birth with a midwife rather than with an obstetrician, they generally describe a woman who wears long cotton skirts, braids her hair, eats only organic vegan food, does yoga, and maybe drives a VW microbus. What they don't envision is the omnivorous, pants-wearing science geek standing before them.Indeed, they become downright confused when I go on to explain that there was really only one reason why my mate -- an academic internist -- and I decided to ditch our obstetrician and move to a midwife: Our midwife could be trusted to be scientific, whereas our obstetrician could not.Many medical students, like most American patients, confuse science and technology. They think that what it means to be a scientific doctor is to bring to bear the maximum amount of technology on any given patient. And this makes them dangerous..." Of course Dr. Amy is posting in full force in the comments... :b
It's too bad that person couldn't trust their obgyn not everyone is in that situation.
Not every obgyn is going to push you into interventions you don't need and prevent you from walking during labour (i've only ever been told to walk more) and not all will push for more and more technology.
AS for suggesting not to bother with an ultrasound, that could be very dangerous to the baby. Everyone has to make their own choice but patients need to be aware of the good an ultrasound can do.
A close relative of mine just this week discovered her baby will need medical attention and if he makes it that far will need to be born in a different hospital so they can care for him properly. They found this out through a second ultrasound at 28 weeks. She has tested normally in every other test and she is low risk. She is 25, healthy weight, healthy girl overall, already has a healthy toddler at home.
I found the article to have a tone of "doctors aren't as good at birthing babies as midwives are" and that's just not true. She calls many of them 'downright dangerous' and that's just fear mongering.
EDIT Just as there is no need to bash midwives there is no need to bash obgyns.
I enjoyed the article as well. I didn't think it was Ob bashing at all; just celebrating the differences between the two types of care. Both are medical professionals but their approach is different and I think that is what the main thrust of the article was about. I have had both an experience with an OB and now a midwife (almost twice) and there really is a difference. It doesn't mean one is superior or safer, they are just different. The midwife is just more my style and is better suited for me and the approach I prefer, but I loved my Ob and think that she is exactly what I needed at the time.
9 angels in heaven-3 in my arms and 1 in the NICU Mono/di twin girls: Josephine born to heaven and Evangeline born Earthside at 25w
Of course Dr. Amy is posting in full force in the comments... :b
How does she have time to run her blog and comment in every NB related article on the interwebs if she's such a great OB?
She hasn't practiced in something like 10 or more years...she is basically a SAHM/W who used to be an OB.
Yeah she is a SAHM now. I think she is a loon. If there is one thing I have learned from TB over the years, it is that people who act like that on the internet are BSC.
Have you guys ever read the Academic Obgyn's blog? I much prefer his style.
Big sister {September 2008} Sweet boy {April 2011} Fuzzy Bundle {ETA July 2014}
Re: The Most Scientific Birth Is Often the Least Technological Birth
It's too bad that person couldn't trust their obgyn not everyone is in that situation.
Not every obgyn is going to push you into interventions you don't need and prevent you from walking during labour (i've only ever been told to walk more) and not all will push for more and more technology.
AS for suggesting not to bother with an ultrasound, that could be very dangerous to the baby. Everyone has to make their own choice but patients need to be aware of the good an ultrasound can do.
A close relative of mine just this week discovered her baby will need medical attention and if he makes it that far will need to be born in a different hospital so they can care for him properly. They found this out through a second ultrasound at 28 weeks. She has tested normally in every other test and she is low risk. She is 25, healthy weight, healthy girl overall, already has a healthy toddler at home.
I found the article to have a tone of "doctors aren't as good at birthing babies as midwives are" and that's just not true. She calls many of them 'downright dangerous' and that's just fear mongering.
EDIT Just as there is no need to bash midwives there is no need to bash obgyns.
9 angels in heaven-3 in my arms and 1 in the NICU
Mono/di twin girls: Josephine born to heaven and Evangeline born Earthside at 25w
How does she have time to run her blog and comment in every NB related article on the interwebs if she's such a great OB?
She hasn't practiced in something like 10 or more years...she is basically a SAHM/W who used to be an OB.
Yeah she is a SAHM now. I think she is a loon. If there is one thing I have learned from TB over the years, it is that people who act like that on the internet are BSC.
Have you guys ever read the Academic Obgyn's blog? I much prefer his style.