interesting the comments that came from the woman representing the Royal College of Midwives.it's the same story:birth is only safe if I'm there. then - and only then - can we trust birth.*sigh*
This is kind of off topic, but here´s a link to Finlands biggest newspaper artickle about brestfeeding. And no, you dont have to understand any finnish, it´s the picture i love: a brestfeeding mom in a cafeteria. I love this.http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Ensimm%C3%A4inen+imetysohjelma+valmisteilla/1135231173688Ups, it´s a long link.Hope it works though..
hmm...Not working..www.hs.fi is the netpaper, the artickle calls "Ensimmäinen imetysohjema suunnitteilla".Well, just look so good to see the picture in a big newspaper.
Great article. It's nice how there seems to be less and less hysteria in these things.
Pam has such an interesting point! Imagine though, the Royal College of Midwives' spokesperson saying: "Go ahead moms, birth to your heart's content. You don't really need our expertise. We deserve no claim to authority in the matter." Oh, I would love to kick the risk argument somehow. Safety is, of course, wonderful. But I am dubious about the idea as expressed with 'risk'. Like I wonder: what if we grant this midwife her assumptions and imagine a hypothetical universe where evidence can exist --and indeed does exist proof positive that overall, in the aggregate, unhindered birth in privacy carries graver risks of morbidity than observed and managed birth. Okay, what then. Why does that give any authority figure the right to question any particular woman's urge to give birth privately and without intervenions? How would those generalities apply to an individual mother-baby? Risk assessment does not predict specific future events. No one can see into the future to tell Amy Smith about her upcoming birth. All we know is in the present: our own unique capabilities and desires, our individual intuitions about our own bodies, and our personal autonomy to choose to allow or disallow our bodies to function as they would. So what, then... what if I know the precise odds for a woman in my 'risk category' for a complication at a UC/HB/VBAC etc.? That information will not determine whether I will in fact have one. But statistical risk is always presented with such fatalistic overtones by the expert...