From Andy
Great project - you identified an easy change that could be made in our birth practices - not cutting the umbilical cord for one or more minutes - and clarified why this change matters.
The change you propose symbolizes to me the basic binary between the medical model and the natural model. The medical model assumes the connection to the mother (literally in this case) should be chopped ASAP. The natural model assumes that the connection to the mother should be preserved and respected and investigated for health benefits. Is there any reason to chop the umbilical cord at 3 minutes? Would it be bad for the baby or the mother if the umbilical cord remained connected to the placenta while the placenta got pushed out?
You need to cite sources - otherwise your advocacy loses a lot of credibility.
Your flyer, that you showed in class, along with the prop, struck me as persuasive and well-made. But here on this site, the information gets listed but in an ugly and unuseable format. Why not scan the flyer and post it as a downloadable PDF or JPG? Then you could link to it and others could use it and you will be able to access it long after your little flyer gets crumpled and yellow.
Also, why only show it to 2 people? Why not more? Its worth sharing!
Thanks for your work.
From Naima
I really appreciated your work! You presented the medical approach as one that may not have an understanding or appreciation of the effects of allowing the umbilical cord to be cut after three minutes and presented the natural approach as being more welcoming to the literal connection between mother and child.
After reading the book that I was assigned to from class, this was brought up but not written about in detail. I was interested in this topic and I'm glad that you provided me with more information.
I liked the way this blog post was written, but perhaps you could have displayed it in a more creative way?
From Abdullah
Devin it seems as though your post was about a simple yet extremely important idea. Knowing when to cut the umbilical cord doesn't seem that important however, your blog helped show me and hopefully your other readers that it truly is. I sensed the battle between medical and natural in your blog because, you stated the perspectives of both natural and medical views.
One aspect of your post that I particularly valued was the fact that it seemed as though you tried to not be to biased with the side you picked. It was clear to me that you were pro waiting at least one minute to cut the umbilical cord. When you initially opened up your arguments you started off stating three reasons why the cord is cut. This was a smart decision because if your readers like me didn't know the reasons, we can learn them from you.
A reason why I think your project matter is because I think many Americans don't know how important the placenta is towards the babies and the mother's health. This obviously raises concerns because we want people that are directly involved in birth to know as much as possible, so that they can make the best decision for their family. I also agree with what Andy said in his comment, you definitely should have showed the flier to more people two is certainly not enough. This information that the public needs to get it's hands on. Please take Andy's advice and try and scan it so more people can see what great work you've done.
I would have appreciated more from you on this topic. Although you blog was solid and much better than mines, I think you could have tried to compare umbilical cord rates across the nation to find out where there were more and less cords being cut and why? You also could have compared umbilical cord rates between countries with better healthcare systems than us such as France? Clearly you didn't need to do any of this since your blog and elevator speech were solid, but there just suggestions.
Nicely done Devin I think your blog and speech were the best in the class. Keep up the good work.
From Mom
My reaction to this report about the benefits of waiting to cut the umbilical cord is great frustration that I did know about them at the time of giving birth to Devin and his brother. They were born in St. Vincent's Hospital in Greenwich Village (now closed) because at the time it had the lowest rate of cesarean delivery of any hospital in New York City and it allowed the father to stay over night with mother and baby I had a long "natural" labor (no epidural)that would have ended in a c-section with any other doctor, but I was semi-delirious at the end and have no memory of when the cord was cut. I also do not remember reading about asking to wait to have the umbilical cord cut in "What to Expect When You Are Expecting," a bible for mothers-to-be. My husband has no memory of the timing of the cord cutting either. Since Devin was born unexpectedly on Christmas Day, his dad had to spend time playing baseball in the hall with Devin's older brother! I hate thinking about babies not getting the full measure of all the nutrients, stem cells, T cells, and whatever else nature intended the baby to get from the placenta because of outdated thinking or to hurry things along (though in fairness the birth took place just before midnight and we had arrived at the hospital at 5AM -- a long day for everyone involved). If you had the time, Devin, or should I say if you ever do have the time, it would be interesting to spend more time documenting the benefits and risks and then presenting your work to a good maternity web site to create more awareness.
The subject is so compelling that any mother-to-be would want to make the request of her doctor before going into labor to let the umbilical cord finish its job.
From Dmitry
I wasn't expecting to find the subject of a project about "birth" of any interest to me, but I have to admit that what you wrote about the timing of the cutting of the umbilical cord seemed really important. It's amazing that something that has such obvious benefits isn't done all the time considering how long people stay in medical school. That's the "weird" part I guess.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Abdullah
You asked yourself what the government does to help poverty stricken pregnant women in New York City and then you visited an office in the Bronx of an organization called PATH, which you found out a little about online.
I really liked the way you describe the look and feeling of the office at the entrance making the point of how unwelcoming it must be to a poor pregnant woman coming there. But then you contrast this with the happy looking women who were staying there, making it seem like a good place overall. It seemed amazing when Mr.C said that PATH has an 100% success rate helping mothers to support themselves finnancially and not need temporary housing again.
The work PATH does is really important. These are babies, ones born to poor single moms, who are most likely to drop out of school and not have a chance of making a good life for themselves. They need to be brought into the society not made to feel like outcasts.
Myy only suggestion would have to be to ask what kind of jobs the mothers got so that they could be independent and not need temporary housing. But maybe he would not have wanted a direct question like that. I think you did a great job describing this visit and making it interesting.
For Natalie
WOW!!! You have really written a manifesto for the right of women to fight court-ordered cesareans when the mothers are of sound mind. You go on to make a strong case for why pregnant women's own health should come before the health of the fetus.
I was impressed with the way you documented your points, stating the legal rights of the mother as upheld by the Supreme Court.
A reason why I think your project is so important is because of the people in this country who would like to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court and ban abortion. Obviously, these people don't think that women should have control over their own lives and bodies, and I think they are completely wrong.
There is one area though that is complicated and that is that a pregnant woman cannot know all the dangers to her un-born child. She has to trust her doctor, and the problem seems to be that doctors, because of lawsuits and convenience are delivering too many babies by cesaerean section. This fact makes women not be able to trust doctors, and this is obviously a bad situation. My point is that there can be some women who might be willing to take a risk by not having a cesaearen and regret it later if the child turns out to be in great danger.
For Andy
You analyzed a specific 10 to 15 second exchange in "The Business of Being Born" that was a contradiction of the overall goal of the film which was to discredit the over-medicalization of the birth process and to emphasize the importance of midwives and the advantages of home birth. This "contradiction" involved the doctor givong information that was not true seemingly to protect the midwife, who did not make a correct diagnosis.
I really liked the way you came up with so many possible reasons why the doctor would have covered for the midwife, including the fact that his own mother was a midwife. These possibilities gave your blog a lot of suspense, and I hope you will tell us when you get an answer back from the filmmaker.
For me the story is interesting because the fact that the filmaker wasn't truthful makes her project that had a worthy goal unworthy. She ended up with an emergency cesearean because there was a real problem with the baby. Midwives are supposed to have a medical doctor backup. I think the whole idea is that in a birth with no problems, a midwife is a better option than a medical doctor. Bu t if there is a problem, then a medical doctor in a hospital is essential. So why not have that be the message of the film.
One thing that would be interesting to know would be when you discovered this cover-up. Did you notice it the first time you saw the film or on the second or third time?
No comments:
Post a Comment