On April 1, 2011 “ACOG” issued an unexpected press release about elective C-sections. Here’s how it read:
For Immediate Release: ACOG ANNOUNCES PLANS TO STOP ELECTIVE C-SECTIONS
(April 1, 2011) For Immediate Release—ACOG ANNOUNCES PLANS TO STOP ELECTIVE C-SECTIONS
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) announced today it is devising a comprehensive plan to lower C-section rates in the United States.
C-sections in the U.S. have gone up 700% since they were first measured in 1965, when the C-section rate was only 4.5 percent.
“The nation’s C-section rate has been rising steadily for the last eleven years. It’s now over 31 percent,” said an ACOG spokesperson. “This is a deplorable situation that harms women and their newborns.”
An organization that advocates for quality healthcare for women, ACOG is asking obstetricians to halt elective C-sections.
“C-sections should only be a last resort. They should never be performed for the convenience of the doctor,” the spokesperson said, “or for financial or liability reasons.”
Since the use of electronic fetal monitoring has been shown to increase unnecessary C-section rate without any proven benefit to the mother or infant, ACOG is also calling on American hospitals to stop the routine use of electronic monitoring during labor.
ACOG’s new guidelines encourage women to have freedom of movement during labor, labor standing up or squatting, and to eat and drink at will.
“Cesarean can save lives. But doctors and consumers have to remember that this is major surgery that carries major risk,” the spokesperson said, pointing to the example of 29-year-old Abbie Dorn, who suffered severe hemorrhaging and brain damage after her uterus was nicked during a Cesarean section at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2006), 32-year-old Diane Rizk McCabe, who died following complications from a Caesarean section at Albany Medical Center Hospital (2007), and Karen Vasques, 27, who died during a C-section at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (2008).
Maternal mortality has risen every year in the United States for the past 25 years, while over the same period the rate of C-sections has gone up 33 percent.
“The skyrocketing rate of C-section in America has had devastating consequences,” the spokesperson said. “ACOG, the most highly respected organization of obstetricians and gynecologists in the United States, is leading the fight to stop it.”
The press release first appeared on CNN.com’s iReport. It was then picked up by dozens of other on-line outlets and listservs around the world, including on my blog at Mothering Outside the Lines. Soon thereafter, CNN took it off their site, as it was discovered to be a prank. I was also asked to take the April 1 “ACOG” press release with the winking ACOG eyeball down from Mothering.com on Monday, which I did.
A blogger at Babble.com, DANIELLE625, wasn’t sure what to make of it:
Are elective c-sections becoming a think of the past? According to a suspicious press release making its rounds around the internet today, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are kissing the elective procedures goodbye and making them a thing of the past.
But as someone who knows better, I am more than certain this release is nothing more than an April Fools Day Prank!
The press release which was first spotted this morning through CNN.com’s iReport feature which allows viewers, and readers to add their own stories has made it virtually everywhere!
…
Considering today, April 1st marks the start of Cesarean Awareness Month this certainly could be trick.
What do you make of this? Real? Fiction? And who is behind it?
Another Babble.com blogger, KATETIEJTE, used the opportunity to weigh in: As the press release indicated, the subject of the press release–America’s skyrocketing C-section rate which is in violation of women’s fundamental rights–is anything but funny.
Like many of you, I read the ACOG’s “press release” on eliminating elective c-sections (and internal fetal monitoring) a little while ago. My initial reaction — not knowing it was only a prank, and one in very poor taste — was to actually have some respect for the organization. Perhaps, if they were willing to admit that it’s best to use interventions where medically necessary, we could trust them!
But no.
It is, in fact, only an April Fool’s prank. If you look for the press release now, you can’t even find it anymore. I’ve tried. I’m sure ACOG is out in force, removing it from everywhere they find it. Maybe they’ll release a real statement in the next few days as “damage control.” (And won’t that be a hoot….) In the mean time, though, this has actually brought a real women’s rights issue….
While searching for the press release, I happened to find some notes from a 2002 conference of ACOG members. The section I read was “Elective C-Sections: What’s the Big Deal Anyway?” One doctor argues that c-sections don’t produce any increased rates of mortality for women and that they should be able to choose one if they want. He goes as far as to say if women can choose abortion, they should be able to choose elective c-sections. Other doctors expressed concern over this view (rightfully so), but this doctor’s thoughts were that vaginal births, especially repeatedly, lead to “worse” outcomes in the long run (lack of muscle tone, pelvic floor injury, pelvic organ prolapse).
I disagree that we should be so cavalier about elective c-sections, but okay.
Let’s just suppose that we accept this line of reasoning. Women, if properly informed of the benefits and risks of elective procedures, can freely choose them. They have the right to birth how and when and where they want to, as long as they are using informed consent (doctors must research the outcomes of elective procedures thoroughly and must inform women of the true benefit v. risk).
The same organization that would support this choice…is anti-home birth.
I don’t like that at all. If we support women who choose, for their own reasons, to have elective inductions or c-sections, then we need to support women who don’t want these procedures, too. Women who walk into their OB’s office and say, “I really want to be induced at 39 weeks so my husband, who travels a lot, doesn’t miss the birth.” And most doctors, after a conversation explaining some of the risks and benefits, are likely to say “okay.” There is no hostility towards this choice. Concern, perhaps, and a few doctors may refuse to do it. But in general, this is an accepted choice (even in cautiously).
If a woman walks into an OB’s office says, “I want to go to a birthing center and have a natural birth. No pain medication, no IV, no continuous fetal monitoring” (and so on) “…unless there is a problem or medical necessity.” This will be met with anything from serious caution to outright hostility. There are doctors who will drop women from their practices, or belittle them, for saying these things (I had one!). These women — in most cases — are perfectly willing to birth in hospitals, and are willing to accept interventions if and when they become medically necessary. They are not stupid. They are not saying, “I will never allow these things under any circumstances,” they are saying, “Let’s exercise extreme caution.” But they are not supported. There is token support, at best.
Certainly individual doctors vary widely, and it’s possible to find one who is truly supportive of natural birth. But the culture isn’t. And if we choose to support women in having a medically managed delivery (even if it is elective and not medically necessary), then we should support women who do not want a medically managed birth, too.
I was extremely disappointed to find out that ACOG truly doesn’t feel this way. They truly believe that it is better to err on the side of “too much” intervention than “not enough.” They do not and will not support women’s right to choose a natural childbirth, during which (as the fake release stated), women would be encouraged to move around, be checked minimally, and use different birthing positions. No, this is too dangerous. In all cases, no matter what. The ACOG as a large organization could never support a blanket policy allowing low-risk women to labor and birth naturally.
I hope that this climate and attitude changes, soon. We need to support women’s rights to birth no matter what they choose — completely natural or medically managed.
Both blogs generated interesting discussions. Some readers expressed outrage about the press release, others admiration.
As the press release circulated via email and Twitter, other bloggers continued to write about it:
The Deranged Housewife chimed in: “It’s clear to me that when it comes to the birthing choices of women, ACOG doesn’t really give a crap.”
The C-section Recovery Kit Blog had this to say:
ICAN Conference And ACOG April Fool
April 1, 2011
April is Cesarean Awareness Month and the biennial International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) conference begins in a week in St Louis (Apl 8-10).
The keynote speaker is Dr George Macones who will be speaking on ‘Trends in VBAC research’. Dr Macones has published more than two dozen studies about the safety of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). He was consulted by the National Institute of Health during the study that led to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) statement last year in support of VBAC
Dr Macones reviewed nearly 25,000 women’s records from several hospitals concluding that the risk of uterine rupture (c-section scar breaking apart during labor) is less than 1 percent.
Overall research indicates that 60 to 80 percent of women with prior C-sections would succeed in attempting a vaginal birth. In fact the latest statistics forVBAC are just 8 percent.
According to the national institute, various surveys show approximately a third of hospitals and half of physicians no longer offer trial of labor to women who have previously delivered by caesarean.
Today is also April Fools day and saw the circulation of a fake press release from ACOG stating “ACOG ANNOUNCES PLANS TO STOP ELECTIVE C-SECTIONS”
It has upset quite a few in the birth blogosphere who dared to believe the ACOG would suddenly be so progressive. For myself, I think anything that gets people talking about the unprecedented c-section rate (latest figure from 2009 is 32.9%)
While not being fro ACOG the fake press release made many valid points…
“C-sections should only be a last resort. They should never be performed for the convenience of the doctor,” the spokesperson said, “or for financial or liability reasons.”
“Cesarean can save lives. But doctors and consumers have to remember that this is major surgery that carries major risk,”
being among them.
Let’s hope that there is some increase in awareness from these April First shenanigans. One thing we can be sure of, there will be between April 8th and 10th in St Louis!
Nothing on this site is intended as medical advice. For all medical decisions please consult your caregiver.
Then there was Owning Pink, a blog written by obstetrician-gynecologist Lissa Rankin, M.D. She kept her sense of humor in a post entitled, “I Got Punked,” about being duped into believing the ACOG press release was real:
Wow, Really?
As an OB/GYN promoting self-healing, reclaiming the heart of medicine, and ditching the over-medicalization of health care, they got my attention. Like, seriously.
Certainly, some advances in modern medicine have been good for us. We can cure some cancers, eliminate or control most infections, and safely repair diseased organs. But C-sections have not served us well. As C-section rates have risen, so have death rates for Moms. And the truth is that while C-section rates have gone through the roof, we haven’t done much to help protect babies. In fact, the trend of rising elective C-section rates may actually harm babies, since data demonstrates that labor helps prepare a baby’s lungs for birth. Those born by C-section are more likely to have respiratory distress at birth.
So when I read this press release, my first thought was, “Wow, seriously? How awesome! With fewer C-sections and no required monitoring, women might actually get to feel like they’re in the midst of something natural, rather than relinquishing all rights to feeling human as they’re poked, prodded, strapped in, and bedridden.”
As an OB/GYN, I watched things change over the years. When I first started my training in 1991, C-section rates were about 20%, and we thought that was exorbitantly high. I had never heard of elective C-section. C-sections were a last resort to save mother or baby, not some drive-thru convenience stop for busy mothers.
Back then, we thought monitoring babies would help save lives. That’s why you would want to labor in a hospital, rather than at home, right?
But science has proven us wrong, and I was delighted to hear that ACOG was motivated to make some changes.
WE’VE BEEN PUNKED!
So what did I think of ACOG’s announcement? Well, first I was PSYCHED — and then I was bummed, because I was like, “Wait, who are they to dictate what a woman can or can’t do with her birth?” And then I started researching it further and started to get suspicious.
Why did the ACOG logo on the press release have a smiley face winking in it? Why did I see it reported on CNN and then it disappeared? Why couldn’t I find a single reputable news source reporting this GIGANTIC news?
So I checked ACOG’s press releases online, and I couldn’t find a thing.
I THINK I’VE BEEN PUNKED! It’s April Fools Day, after all. I forgot. Huffington Post is playing tricks on their readers. Google is too with “Gmail Motion” and “Comic sans”. I should have been more suspicious before I spent three hours on this!
So I put out a call out to my friend Elizabeth Cohen, the Senior Medical Correspondent at CNN, and after a few hours her team confirmed that it is a big, stinky hoax. From Elizabeth’s team: “The information did not come from ACOG, and the CNN posting has since been removed. This was an April Fools joke ACOG has been dealing with all day long. Bottom line, ACOG has not and does not plan to issue guidelines to stop elective C-Sections or electronic routine fetal monitoring.”
Yeesh.
So What Was I Going To Write?
Because it’s such an interesting topic, I wanted to share what I drafted up this morning:
I applaud ACOG’s efforts to reduce C-section rates. I wholly support natural childbirth. I think elective C-section has gotten out of control. And I agree that electronic fetal monitoring causes more harm than good.
I’m all about de-medicalizing childbirth. I think we’ve lost the heart of medicine in many ways. We’ve forgotten that childbirth can be a deeply spiritual experience, and we’ve replaced it with monitors, drugs, and surgeries. So I’m all for trying to reduce the C-section rate.
But I don’t think this will be easy. After all, patients have come to expect that they have the right to ask for a C-section if they want one. They also expect perfect babies, and if some freak accident happens to their baby while they’re wandering around Labor & Delivery unmonitored, and if that baby winds up disabled or dead — I guarantee you there will be a lawsuit. Someone will argue that, if she was being monitored, that accident of nature — a prolapsed cord, a placental abruption, whatever — could have been prevented. And some jury will feel pity for the broken-hearted mother who lost her child, and they’ll likely award a 10 million dollar payout, because in our society, when something goes wrong, we feel someone’s gotta pay.
Plus, I’m not sure I want some organization mostly run by men dictating whether or not we can choose how we deliver our babies. After all, we don’t ban plastic surgery even though it’s risky and unnecessary. Shouldn’t a woman ultimately be involved in what happens to her body, even if it means incurring extra cost and risk? Again, I’m not a fan of elective C-sections, but I’m a HUGE fan of women.
What’s The Solution?
Most importantly, we need to reset our expectations so we understand that childbirth is risky, bad things might happen, and high C-section rates and electronic fetal monitoring just won’t prevent that. Until people understand that we can’t control much of what happens in Labor & Delivery, C-section rates will be high because doctors and hospitals are afraid. We need tort reform to protect doctors and hospitals from runaway lawsuits that lead doctors to make soft calls on C-sections for fear of getting sued. We need to educate people about the benefits of natural childbirth, the safety of vaginal birth, the risks of C-section, and the fact that childbirth is full of mystery. Patients should be included in the decision of whether or not electronic fetal monitoring should be employed. The risks and benefits should be discussed, and patient autonomy should be respected.- While I fully support ACOG’s desire to eliminate elective C-section, I think it’s gonna be hard to turn the tide. You can’t just change the rules mid-stream. I think we need to respect patient autonomy, but be very clear about risks. If a patient wants an elective C-section, let her attend a class and pay cash for it, rather than expecting her insurance to pick up the tab. That will stop 99% of elective C-sections.
So anyway, take my words with a grain of salt. Given that the whole thing is a prank. CNN is writing a blog post on the whole hoax and asked for a quote from yours truly. Here’s what I provided: “What sick person would do this? You’re talking about pregnancy, childbirth, and babies here. I wish people respected women’s issues enough not to joke about them. This is serious stuff. After reading this press release, some women got their hopes up that things might be changing. Learning that it wasn’t true was heartbreaking for some people. Making fun of something that touches a nerve only hurts people. It feels mean-spirited, rather than clever.”
Let’s talk about it! What if this had been true? What would you think about this? Do women have the right to choose whether their baby is monitored or whether they get an elective C-section? What do you think will help reduce C-section rates? How can we turn the tides without a bazillion lawsuits?
And what do you think about April Fool’s Jokes (personally, I’m feeling a bit foolish right now, so don’t ask me…)??
Feeling punked,
Lissa
Lissa Rankin, MD: Founder of OwningPink.com, Pink Medicine Woman coach, motivational speaker, and author of What’s Up Down There? Questions You’d Only Ask Your Gynecologist If She Was Your Best Friend and Encaustic Art: The Complete Guide To Creating Fine Art With Wax.
Yes, the ACOG press release was a prank
I know because I wrote it.
Is it really a surprise that ACOG didn’t suddenly decide to advocate that women have their babies in the safest way possible?
Here’s how the press release should have read:
For Immediate Release: ACOG HAS NO PLANS TO STOP ELECTIVE C-SECTIONS
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has made no announcement that it is devising a comprehensive plan to lower C-section rates in the United States. Instead, Greg Phillips, Associate Director, Office of Communications, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has said that the April 1 press release indicating the organization would be spearheading a campaign to end elective C-sections “did not come from us and is clearly an April Fool’s joke.”
C-sections in the U.S. have gone up 700% since they were first measured in 1965, when the C-section rate was only 4.5 percent.
The nation’s C-section rate has been rising steadily for the last eleven years. It’s now over 31 percent. This is a deplorable situation that harms women and their newborns, but one that ACOG has continually downplayed or ignored.
Advertising itself as an organization that advocates for quality healthcare for women, ACOG has no plans to ask obstetricians to halt elective C-sections.
Though many birth advocates, obstetricians, gynecologists, nurse practitioners, midwives, and women’s rights advocates believe that C-sections should only be a last resort and should never be performed for the convenience of the doctor or for financial or liability reasons, C-sections are routinely done in this country when there is no medical necessity for them, often for the convenience of doctors or for fear of lawsuits.
Though the use of electronic fetal monitoring has been shown to increase unnecessary C-section rate without any proven benefit to the mother or infant, ACOG also has no plans to call on American hospitals to stop the routine use of electronic monitoring during labor.
ACOG has no new guidelines to encourage women to have freedom of movement during labor, labor standing up or squatting, and to eat and drink at will. In fact, given the organization’s repeated negative stance on out-of-hospital births, it can be inferred that ACOG actively opposes freedom of movement during labor.
Cesarean can save lives. But doctors and consumers have to remember that this is major surgery that carries major risk. Some examples: 29-year-old Abbie Dorn, suffered severe hemorrhaging and brain damage after her uterus was nicked during a Cesarean section at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2006), 32-year-old Diane Rizk McCabe died following complications from a Caesarean section at Albany Medical Center Hospital (2007), and Karen Vasques, 27, died during a C-section at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (2008).
Maternal mortality has risen every year in the United States for the past 25 years, while over the same period the rate of C-sections has gone up 33 percent.
The skyrocketing rate of C-section in America has had devastating consequences but ACOG, the most highly respected organization of obstetricians and gynecologists in the United States, refuses to lead the fight to stop it.
Many people took offense at the original satire. But that satire was written for a reason. I wrote the press release to highlight how serious the problem is.
I had no intention of duping or disappointing those who really are leading the fight to stop a systemic problem in our medical system that has spiraled out of control.
I know that OBs who do not rush to C-section breech births, twins, and women who have had prior cesareans are often under tremendous pressure from the hospitals where they work, and from their colleagues, to do more surgery.
Of course, there are many wonderful OBs who do not overuse the C-section operation, and they, too, advocate returning to a healthier balance and letting a woman’s body do what it evolved to do.
My dear friend who’s having a baby on Friday via C-section was told by her OB that he “forbids” trial of labor. She’s young and healthy. She has big bones and wide hips. But since she had an unnecessary C-section in her twenties, her doctor will “not allow” her to go into labor naturally.
A new mom recently posted her birth experience on a baby message board. Unfortunately, the only atypical aspect of her experience is that the doctor pretended to allow her to try for a VBAC.
Here’s part of her story:
“After switching doctors several times during the course of my pregnancy, at the time I delivered I was under the care of an OB & Midwives group. I was told that I was a good candidate for VBAC, was offered water birth if things went well, and believed that I was in the best possible circumstances to avoid surgery & any un-needed medical intervention.
I arrived at the hospital dialated to 4. An hour & a half later, my water had broken on its own and I was dialated to 6.
Since I was laboring on a birthing ball, the midwife wasn’t confident about the fetal heartrate monitor, it was showing decels, so I was asked to consent to an internal monitor (screws into the baby’s scalp during labor). I refused the first time I was asked, then consented the second time. I consented because I thought my husband was beginning to panic and hoped that it would ease his stress. When I consented to it, I looked at my husband & said “That is medical intervention #1.”
Before the monitor was even plugged in, we were told that we were going to be moved to the OR “just in case” while being monitored more closely. The midwife had called an OB to consult & we expected to meet him in the OR.
On the way to the OR, my husband was sent to a dressing area to change into scrubs & I was sent straight into the OR. My husband & I were separated.
As soon as I reached the OR, the staff began prepping me for surgery. I stated that I did NOT want a c-section. I demanded to see my husband and stated that IF I was to receive a c-section my DH & I would make that decision together. I was told that my husband was on his way. I was also told that my baby needed more oxygen & I was told to breathe deeply in a new mask because it had a better seal on my face (the oxygen I was breathing before was thru a smaller mask).
The new mask wasn’t oxygen, I was gassed against my will.
I am unaware of what was done to me from the time I was gassed up until I awoke in recovery. I am assuming that I only had a C-section. Any further details have not been shared with me.
When my husband exited the dressing area & went to go to the OR, he was told that he couldn’t go in because I was already being anesthetized for surgery. He was not asked to consent on my behalf. He was not told that I had refused consent. He was not told that I had requested his presence. He was not told WHY I was having surgery.
I found out that my son had been born, and that I had been operated on, when I woke up in recovery. No medical professional came to me and spoke to me about my surgery. I have never been told WHY I required a c-section. I only know the name of the delivering physician because it’s on my son’s birth certificate. I never met him. He never came to talk to me before or after surgery. I also never saw the midwife again after I was wheeled into the OR…
I’m having an extremely hard time coming to grips with having been lied to and operated on against my will. I love my son, but I did not give birth to him. I was not present at his birth. That moment in my life has been taken from me … I don’t know if I’ll ever again be capable of trusting a medical professional to respect me as a whole person, instead of just a slab of meat ready for their whim. I thought that it was required of medical professionals to obtain informed consent whenever possible prior to performing surgery.”
So … can we all put on our big girl pants now and agree that what’s really cruel are experiences like these of forced C-sections, not my April Fools joke?
Published: April 6, 2011
Last update: February 4, 2020
Can you tell us more about why the post was pulled? Why you’re no longer blogging with Mothering? Maybe you can’t. Maybe you don’t want to. I must admit, however, to being incredibly curious.
Are you going to be blogging here regularly?
I appreciated your satire, but I was fooled at first. Wishful thinking, I guess.
Thanks for asking Natalie. Your comment got stuck in a spam filter, which is why I only just posted it now.
Since this is my personal blog, I think I can tell you more about what happened!
The communications director at ACOG, Greg Phillips, wrote to two of the editors at Mothering and asked that the prank post be taken down.
In his email he wrote: “This did not come from us and is clearly an April Fool’s joke. How it got posted on your website without review is unclear, but certainly raises concerns about credibility.”
Although no one elaborated, I suspect Mothering decided to comply with the request in order to avoid a possible law suit. One blogger who wrote about the post mentioned how she was confident a reputable company like Mothering would not agree to censor it even if asked directly from ACOG.
It may be that times have changed.
But it also may be that many people in the birthing community were furious for the prank post and Mothering wanted to be sensitive to their sense of outrage.
Here’s one particularly angry response I got:
“I have been a childbirth activist and midwife going on 30 years this spring and this is one of the meanest pranks I’ve ever seen. It has a lot of people really angry. That’s not a good way to get a trusting conversation going about such a delicate, emotional, and life-and-death topic, in my opinion. It was a highly unprofessional use of an email list. And it wasn’t funny. It was in poor taste and disrespectful to the women who have been victimized by the obstetrics system. If you wrote it I do hope you will send a note of apology to all those who received it—-many of whom felt “played” by it. The traditional way to celebrate April Fools is to say APRIL FOOLS with the prank. Having just spent Monday evening negotiating a natural vaginal delivery for a woman who lost her baby at 28 weeks in a hospital system that wanted her in the OR, asleep, with the baby out and gone before she could see it—-I did not find the humor in it at all. The issues go a lot deeper than profit and convenience. I don’t think making fun of the people that hold the purse strings or the legal things is going to get them to think the better of your standpoint, either. I work with them every day. It is going to take intelligent and respectful conversation to recognize the pressures that bear from hospital risk committees, lawyers, and insurance companies. It is a tangled and confusing enough web without confusing jokes that play on peoples’ emotions. And email is too delicate a medium to require people to have to sort through what is real and what is a joke. Just not fair. Please, restore us to the day when what a journalist says can be trusted.”
Here’s another:
“I’m usually interested in your posts and I’m sorry to hear that Mothering is going out of business but I am really unhappy about your “prank” press release. My best friend is going in for a necessary c-section THIS FRIDAY MORNING. She has a doctor who is passionate about doing VBACs and my friend unfortunately is not able to try for a VBAC in her specific medical case. The fact that her dream of a vaginal birth will never come true is very painful for her to accept. Your e-mail terrified her to the point that even after the hoax was announced, she is still having nightmares and anxiety that have put her in a very uneasy state as she prepares to welcome her daughter into the world. Of course, just as in any major surgery, she is aware that there are dangers with c-sections but sometimes modern medicine can save lives like the life of her wonderful 5 year old son who was saved by a c-section when he was born with complications. I am so grateful for the babies and moms who might not be here today if it weren’t for medical intervention. I agree that we need to reduce the rate of unnecessary c-sections but when you talk about mothers who died from complications in c-sections, you fail to mention the little ones who didn’t survive the VBAC attempts who may be with us today if they had had medical attention earlier. It’s a complex issue. Although I had two totally natural water births in the hospital with no intervention whatsoever, I’m glad for monitoring and modern medicine that was available if I had needed it. Your “fake” press release would have been better with a disclaimer that it was indeed fake from the get-go. Your intention was a good one but the careless delivery, in my opinion, was in very poor taste.”
Natalie, I wanted to reply to your other questions as well. I am no longer blogging at Mothering.com because they are no longer in a position to pay me.
They’ve laid off the vast majority of their staff and the company is going through some massive changes and reorganization that I’m not at liberty to talk about (but I am hoping Peggy will make public sometime soon.)
This is my writerly blog, which means I usually just post boring updates that no one really cares about about articles I’ve published and whatnot. I don’t see this as a place for writing about controversial topics related to parenting, women, and children, but maybe I should…
In the meantime, I plan to look for another outlet. I have been thinking about starting a new blog, that I own (so none of the posts will be censored, for one), but I’m not sure I can take that on right now. The book I’m writing is very research intensive and includes a lot of investigating, and I had already been fretting that the blog–and my other paying work–was taking too much time away from that.
So, the answer to your question is I don’t know! But I will try to figure it all out. And soon.
Your advice/thoughts/ideas more than welcome!
The woman whose story you told in this post ought to retain an attorney and sue. I don’t think it is a typical story, however, although I agree with you that many c-sections are unnecessary.
Thanks for answering. I wondered if I had asked questions that were too sensitive. I didn’t want to offend you. I loved your mothering blog, and would love to see you find another outlet. I always tell my husband that I think the internet is boring. Your blog was one of only three things that I find entertaining on the internet, and now it’s gone. I can’t wait for your book, and I’d love to read your other articles. It would be great if you kept a list here (I don’t usually pick up some of the magazines you mentioned in your good-bye post.)
Best of luck!
Thank you Natalie! I’m laughing that you would worry about offending me (considering I have inadvertently offended so many people lately. Sigh.) My mother always said an honest question deserves an honest answer, and I think she’s right. I really appreciate your support and kind words. I hope to find another place where I can get paid to do a parenting blog. I do promise to let you know! What are the other two things that you read on the Internet? (I find it hard to wade through all that’s out there)?
I’ve been following Katie Allison Granju’s story about her son Henry. I believe that you posted something about that once. Because I read her work, I was funneled to Babble.com, but I’m trying to avoid that site now. As one of the few readers there who is a strong advocate of breast feeding, baby wearing, and as someone who’s opposed to sleep training (maybe I should just go ahead and call myself a co-sleeper, since my five-month old sleeps in our bed), I found that I was getting wrapped up in some toxic comments conversations. I used to be a fan of the Mothering site since I discovered it 3 years ago around the time that my older daughter was born, but I’m not a huge fan any more. They recycle so much content, that I’ve read a lot of the articles on the site already. I’m hoping that they deal with that as part of whatever kind of restructuring they’re doing. So right now, there’s not much for me to do online. This is probably a good thing, since I don’t have much time for internet anyway.
I read and replied to that same thread on that baby forum. The OP said she was given gas without her consent or knowledge. That is she was told it was oxygen but it was gas. Then when she woke up she found they had done a C Section on her WITHOUT her consent. She did not consent to the c Section and neither did her husband. Yet if you read all of that thread 21 pages of it she said that no lawyer will take her case. And that same hospital has since done the same thing to another woman. I find it unbelievable that a hospital can behave like that. What happened to that mum was illegal as she was given something to put her to sleep without being told what it was. And she was operated on without her consent and then they falsified her medical notes to say she had an episiotmy not a C Section. I think that hospital should be shut down and those doctors and nurses involved should be instantly dismissed and have their credentials taken away. I am hearing more shocking stories every day of women who have been abused by their care providers and hospital staff in American hospitals and none of the USA childbirth groups or the government are doing anything about this. Not only that but other barbaric practices such as forcibly strapping down women to operating tables that is women having C Sections in the USA are forcibly strapped down by their arms to OR tables without their consent. I am just grateful that I live in the UK where such things don’t happen here and would never be allowed. I don’t know what it is with the USA system in America they don’t seem to care very much about the patients well being.