"Casting the Public Hospitals Adrift" Guest Blog by Marie O'Connor

Casting the Public Hospitals Adrift

Guest Blog Post by Marie O'Connor

First you cast the public hospitals adrift, then you turn them into business entities. That's the idea, anyway, behind the formation of the new hospital trusts. The Hanly Report has been resuscitated, this time in the guise of the hospital trusts report, which lays the foundation for the privatisation of our public hospital services. Under Universal Health Insurance (UHI), "the distinction between public and private health care will diminish" (page 62). Public hospitals will no longer be public: they will be "independent". Even the ambulance services are to become a trust, denationalised, like the maternity services, to enable them to be "configured to complement the hospital groups". For configuration, read reconfiguration.

The newly published report is short on detail: each hospital group, soon to become a trust - there are only six of them - will provide "a maternity service". That leaves a wide margin for manoeuvre. Maternity units in Cavan and Drogheda could close. The hospital trusts report commits only to maintaining maternity units in Tralee, Letterkenny and Wexford, so the future of the rest, including those in Portlaoise, Mullingar, Kilkenny, Clonmel, Ballinasloe, Castlebar and even Sligo, will depend on the new boards being created. These interim boards will decide on the cuts and closures within each hospital group, so the Government will no longer have to take the flak. Pure genius.

Nowhere does the report acknowledge that people have a right to accessible hospital services. The struggle of communities to maintain local hospitals is described on page 50 under the heading "Emotion", not equity. Smaller hospitals, we are assured, will provide more services, not less, but the history of Monaghan General Hospital shows otherwise. Ireland has one of the lowest allocations of acute hospitals per head of population in the European Union, and we are now preparing to slash and burn even further: children under five will not be seen in a local injuries unit.

All staff, clinical and non clinical, will be appointed to these hospital groups. With a further 4,000 jobs to go in the HSE, the new structures will pave the way for redeployment - and redundancies, presumably. There is a strong emphasis on "international" inputs. Hospital trust CEOs will be appointed through "open international competition" and each trust will be expected to tag onto a hospital "of international repute" and to "health service systems" overseas. My guess is these systems will be located in the US.

The new hospital landscape is called "managed competition". Hospitals will be "like private enterprises", cutting corners in the name of profit, presumably, to be reinvested in the enterprise. Creating an internal market, splitting the purchaser (still the State, mostly) from the provider (so-called not for profit hospitals), as Thatcher did in England in the 1980s, will lead to a massive increase in bureaucracy, which is the last thing our health service needs. Trusts can buy services as well as provide them, and private hospitals are hoping for a share of the cake.

UHI is modeled on the Dutch system, which has strong parallels with US-style managed care, where tens of millions are uninsured. Holland’s two-tier health system has been abolished––and replaced by a three-tier health system, where half a million people are either uninsured or in arrears. Under UHI, everyone will be legally required to take out private health insurance, but the cost of this has more than doubled in the last seven years. Bringing in the Dutch system, a gravy train for doctors, won't help. Premiums in Holland rose by over 40 per cent in the first five years of the new system. Household health insurance costs on average €4,and 500- €5,500 annually: the basic package costs over €1,200 per person, with employers deducting a further 7 per cent (up to a ceiling of €2,200) at source and the State dipping into social welfare payments. On top of all of this insurance-related extortion, people have to pay out of pocket for certain items and the standard basket of healthcare is so inadequate that anyone who can afford it takes out top up insurance. The pressure to drive down costs has also driven down quality, as it often does in for profit systems.

The government will now pay for services over which it has little or no control, and this loss of autonomy will extend to many hospitals. The biggest hospitals will rule: smaller hospitals may be managed directly by bigger ones. Clinical staff will also lose out to the managerial class. The new corporatised system is one where managers have "complete control of over the production of services" and "liquidation is the ultimate consequence of not remaining in budget" (page 47).

Cost control is widely acknowledged to be one of the main weaknesses of the Dutch system. That system, just seven years old, is untried and untested. More than 50 per cent of hospitals in the Netherlands were facing bankruptcy in 2011, five years after the introduction of universal health insurance.

So why are we doing this?

"No Means No" whether its in a Double-bed or a Hospital Bed

"No Means No" whether its in a Double-bed or a Hospital Bed

"No Means No".  Whether its in a Double-bed or a Hospital Bed.
It seems ridiculous that it even needs to be said. But apparently, following another report today, it does.

To Health Care Professionals: Assualt for Dummies 101

You must obtain consent from a woman in order to perform a procedure.
If a woman says 'no' or 'stop' during a procedure, YOU MUST STOP.
If a woman physically tries to distance herself from you during a procedure, YOU MUST STOP.
If a woman tries to push you away, YOU MUST STOP.
If you need to physically restrain or hold down a woman to do a procedure (force a woman's legs apart), IT IS ASSAULT.

To Birthing Partners and Dads: If your partner was being assualted on the street, would you do nothing?

The same rules apply in childbirth. During birth, if a woman does not consent to a procedure, or consents but then asks for the health care professional to stop and they don't, it is assualt.

What can you do?

Take responsibility. Reinforce and support your partner's expressions of consent. Be on her side.
Repeat your partner's wishes "She said no" or "She said stop"
State the obvious, "She said no, this is assault"
Request a change: "She said no. We want a different midwife/doctor."
Supervisor: "She said no. I want to see your supervisor."
Report  " She asked you to stop/said no. I have your name. I am reporting you to the ABA (midwife)"
             " She asked you to stop/said no. I have your name. I am reporting you to the Medical     Council (doctor)"

If you don't have their name, get it.



An Bord Altranais - reporting misconduct: http://www.nursingboard.ie/en/reporting_misconduct.aspx

Medical Council - reporting misconduct: http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Public-Information/Making-a-Complaint-/

Have you been forced to travel to give birth?

Have you been forced to travel? 

 AIMSI have spoke to several women who have travelled to the UK to get the birth they wanted as they do not meet State criteria here. AIMSI are documenting these stories and others. Have you been forced to travel? We'd like to hear from you!

Please contact us at support@aimsireland.com or chair@aimsireland.com

"The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013" : Removing the Woman, in Rights and in Name. (updated 2/5)

 "The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013": Removing the Woman, in Rights and in Name.


Over the last few months, Ireland has been gripped by debates surrounding abortion.

The failure to legislate despite two referendums from the Irish people, despite a push from the ECHR to legislate, all came to a head following the  unnecessary and tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, who died of sepsis during an inevitable miscarriage, despite requests for an abortion. A whirlwind of debate ensued and finally, last week, we were told the end was near; that draft legislation would be soon.

The speculation has been emotive, intense, and constant. The silence and wait nearly unbearable. There was nearly a collective sigh of relief, when it was announced legislation would be published by the Summer and then, apprehension as the Government indicated it would follow the terms outlined in the X case. Where would the compromises lie?

Legislating for abortion under the terms of the 'X Case' was always going to be restrictive. The X case recognizes the right to an abortion where a pregnant woman's life is at risk, including suicide, as a result of her pregnancy. No right to autonomy. No right to bodily integrity. No right to choice in instances of rape, incest, health, or any other area. But there was still ground to play for, and the rumour mill was on high alert.

  This week, The Labour Party and Fine Gael hashed out the details through what we believe were intense negotiations. We heard rumours of 'bottom lines'. We hoped legislation would be woman-centred.

 During negotiations, something happened. Something almost subtle but yet so pointed.....Something so poignant it encapsulates women's struggle for rights in Ireland. The "Protection of Maternal Life Bill" suddenly became "The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013". All traces of women, removed. Removed in rights and in name, from pregnancy.


"The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill" proposes:


• One consultant in the case of emergency.
• Two consultants in the case of a physical risk.
• Three consultants in cases of a suicide threat.

In the Case of Suicide, the Bill proposes that the woman must go before a panel of 3 consultants: 2 psychiatrists and 1 obstetrician and their decision must be unanimous. Should the woman wish to appeal a decision, she must go before a further panel of 3 consultants, whom also must reach a unanimous decision.

So, in other words, where a woman is pregnant- suicidal-wants an abortion, she must go before a panel of doctors to 'prove' how suicidal she is. She will have to put her life in their decision, without knowing their personal stance, opinions, biases... and she has to accept if they believe her or not.


Assuming. Dictating. Humiliating. Degrading. Distressing.
Ireland: No Country for Pregnant Women.

What measures will be taken to alleviate personal bias vs appropriate care on review panels? 

In maternity care, a woman's accessibility to appropriate care often depends on the care provider she is assigned on the day and their clinical recommendations/personal opinion often influence practice, which can vary greatly. Ireland has no standardization of care in maternity services and practice and policy varies greatly regionally, between units, and between individual care providers.

What happens to the woman who gets an anti-choice obstetrician or psychiatrist on her review panel? What are the Government doing to alleviate personal bias vs appropriate care?

This morning, AIMS Ireland were sent a letter from 11 Consultants opposing opinion expressed in the Savita Halappanavar inquest. (see footnotes)

Will these Consultants be available for appointment on a review panel?


Assuming. Dictating. Humiliating. Degrading. Distressing.
Ireland: No Country for Pregnant Women.

"The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill" also suggests a 14 year jail sentence for women who self-induce abortion and medical professionals who perform 'illegal' abortions. Just for comparisons, the average rape sentence is 5-7 years.

This is the second piece of legislation from this Government to oppress and control pregnant women and criminalize professional practice which respect women's right to bodily integrity. This proposed Bill gives a 14yrs sentence to a woman or medical professional who performs an 'illegal' abortion, regardless of the woman's informed choice, autonomy, bodily integrity, desire, health....This Government enacted the Nurses and Midwives Act, which gives a 10yrs prison and/or €60,000 fine to a midwife who provides clinical care to a woman choosing to birth at home who doesn't fit State approved criteria, regardless of the woman's informed choice, autonomy, bodily integrity, desires, health.....

Assuming. Dictating. Humiliating. Degrading. Distressing.
Ireland: No Country for Pregnant Women.

And here lies the crux of the issue. Pregnant women do not have the same rights as other citizens in Ireland. Where other jurisdictions strive for 'woman-centred' care in reproduction, pregnancy, birth; we remove women from her experience.

The State.
The Government.
The Courts.
The HSE.
The Electorate.
The Consultants and Psychiatrists.
The foetus.

All have been given the right to make choices for pregnant women.
Only the pregnant woman has no power over her own rights and choices.

Draft HSE Guidelines state that pregnant women need a separate guideline for consent in their health care. Pregnant women are not protected to make informed decisions, practice autonomy or bodily integrity where there is or may be 'risk' to the foetus. Regardless of if this risk is perceived or otherwise.....

AIMSI have spoken to women who have been threatened to have their baby made ward of the State for attempting to exercise their informed choice on where/how to birth. The State considers the High Court appropriate action should pregnant women refuse medical advice.

HSE: The Draft National Consent Policy - section 7.8.1 'Refusal of Treatment in Pregnancy'

"The Consent of a pregnant woman is required for all health and social care interventions. However, because of the constitutional provisions on the right to life of the 'unborn', there is legal uncertainty regarding whether a pregnant woman's right to refuse treatment extends to the refusal of treatment which puts the life of the foetus at serious risk. This matter can ultimately only be decided by the Courts. Thus, where a pregnant woman refuses treatment and this refusal may impact on the life of the foetus, it is essential that the consequences of the refusal are fully and clearly explained to the woman, and legal advice should be sought if she persists in the refusal"
Draft HSE guidelines here

Go back again. To the start.
 
During negotiations, something happened. Something almost subtle but yet so pointed.....Something so poignant it encapsulates women's struggle for rights in Ireland. The "Protection of Maternal Life Bill" suddenly became "The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013". 

Once again, the woman has been removed.
In rights.
In name. From pregnancy.

Assuming. Dictating. Humiliating. Degrading. Distressing.
Ireland: No Country for Pregnant Women.

** BILL UPDATE: Women could face spending pregnancy in psychiatric unit : "Irish Examiner writes, "A woman refused a termination on the grounds of suicidal intent could be forced to spend the remainder of her pregnancy in a psychiatric unit, Health Minister James Reilly has said." http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/women-could-face-spending-pregnancy-in-psychiatric-unit-230085.html

To recap, this is how the State treats women in Ireland in 2013:

If a woman is suicidal and requests a termination....lock her up and force her to continue the pregnancy.

Pregnant women who go against medical recommendations in maternity care....... doorstepped by social workers, threats to have their baby taken into State custody, threats with High Court, forced intervention via High Court, threats to have mental health assessments.

Why don't we have them do unpaid laundering services while we are at it?

Assuming. Dictating. Humiliating. Degrading. Distressing.
Ireland: No Country for Pregnant Women.


References and more info:

Analysis: Average sentence for rape is 5 – 7 years: http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-sentencing-ireland-772129-Jan2013/

AIMS Ireland: What do Human Rights in Childbirth look like? http://nocountryforpregnantwomen.blogspot.ie/2013_03_01_archive.html

AIMS Ireland: HSE say women don't have the same rights: http://nocountryforpregnantwomen.blogspot.ie/2013/03/hse-says-pregnant-women-dont-have-same.html

AIMS Ireland: Realise Your Rights: http://nocountryforpregnantwomen.blogspot.ie/2013/03/realise-your-rights-birth-of-aimsi.html

Letter from 11 Consultants sent to AIMSI April 30, 2013:

Dear Sir:

The recent inquest on Ms Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar's life. We would suggest that that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr. Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand that they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan's opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the Coroner, or the jury, of the Inquest.

Obstetric sepsis is unfortunately on the increase and is now the leading cause of maternal death reported in the UK Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the USA, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a "return to basics" and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented amongst Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more - not fewer - deaths in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist,
Portiuncula Hospital, Galway.

Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist,
Cork Clinic, Cork.

Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist,
Mount Carmel Hospital, Dublin.

Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist, St. Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny.

Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist,
Letterkenny General Hospital.

Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist,
Galway Clinic, Galway.

Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology,
Trinity College Dublin.

Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology, NUI Galway.

Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine,
Cork University Hospital.

Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist, Cavan General Hospital.

Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist,
Mercy University Hospital, Cork.

PQ Reply: HSE Draft Consent Guidelines breach Women's Human Rights

QUESTION NO: 1159

DÁIL QUESTION addressed to the Minister for Health (Dr. James Reilly)
by Deputy Clare Daly
for WRITTEN ANSWER on 16/04/2013

* To ask the Minister for Health with regard to the Draft National Consent Policy in relation to refusal of treatment in pregnancy, if the guideline which says that a woman's refusal of treatment which may impact on the life of the foetus must require a legal opinion to be sought and if this is not a serious breach of the woman's human rights regarding her own decision making with regard to giving birth.

Clare Daly T.D.


REPLY.
An adult with capacity can refuse all forms of treatment (including life-sustaining treatment) even where such a refusal may be considered unwise and/or conflict with prevailing medical advice and could lead to his/her death. The case [In the matter of a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 IR 79] established that an adult with capacity has the right to refuse medical treatment to facilitate a natural death. A number of subsequent court cases have reinforced the rulings from the Ward of Court case, in particular JM v The Board of Management of St Vincent’s Hospital[2002] 1 IR 321 and Fitzpatrick v FK (No.2) [2008] IEHC 104. However, this situation becomes more complex in the case of pregnancy given that the rights of both parties (i.e. the mother and unborn) need to be considered. As the HSE's Consent Policy remains in draft form it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this stage. I expect the policy to be finalised shortly

Women continue to raise concerns over early pregnancy concerns/miscarriage care in Galway

Since the death of Savita Halappanavar, AIMS Ireland has been contacted by concerned women regarding their care in early pregnancy and during miscarriage in Galway's UCGH. Many women prefer to remain anonymous, others ask to share their stories.

In March, AIMS Ireland shared the story of a woman who was left waiting three weeks during a miscarriage without care. As a result she travelled abroad for treatment.
Her story is available here: STORY

AIMS Ireland has been contacted by another woman today with regards to her treatment and delay for early pregnancy assessment despite bleeding and GP referral. This is her story in her own words.

I want to make you aware of a particularly unhappy situation in Galway University Hospital at present at their EPU.

The wait time for a scan at the early pregnancy unit is currently between a week and two weeks. They do not offer any scan services at weekends.

These scan appointments are following GP referral for bleeding and cramping.

I myself have been spotting, yet following a letter from my doctor, they offered me a scan date 2 weeks later. This is with a previous history of miscarriage. My symptoms worsened and I presented myself at the unit, to be offered an internal and a blood test, but a point blank refusal to scan me despite severe pain and heavy bleeding. The doctors that I dealt with at the EPU this time were actually very nice, but you could see that their hands were tied also. It is difficult to endure any kind of bleeding in pregnancy, but at least a scan gives you peace of mind either way, be it a good or bad outcome. Nobody should have to wait so long to learn of that outcome. I have been so stressed and anxious - difficulty eating/sleeping - as a result of this huge almost inhumane delay to be scanned. It is not good enough. Nobody should have to wait so long to learn of that outcome.

In the end, I resorted to a private scan as I needed to know. Luckily all is ok. But what about those for whom a private scan is not an option? Are we women in Galway not entitled to equivalent care as received in Cork or Limerick or Dublin?

If I broke a bone, would I have to wait two weeks for an X-ray? No. Why then, if a woman bleeds in early pregnancy, should she wait two weeks for an ultrasound?

If you have an experience you would like to share or if you would like support following an experience please contact us at support@aimsireland.com

Guest Blog: Does your doctor love your baby more than you do?

Does your doctor love your baby more than you do?

Guest blog byCristen Pascucci, ImprovingBirth.org, USA

 

The gift of motherhood has been called divine.  To be given a baby—to nurture him in the womb, give birth to him, and bear responsibility for his every physical, emotional, and spiritual need even after that—is perhaps the greatest responsibility we are given as a species. 

 

The physical ability to create this life and release it into the world is what distinguishes women from men.  It’s what we do.  It is what makes our bodies different.  And it’s what often makes our lives very different; our responsibility as mothers is embedded in our chemistry, in our bones, and in our souls.  We never forget that we are mothers.

 

It is an odd thing to me, then, that so many women are expected to forget what we are during the very event that makes us mothers.  We sacrifice our bodies, time, energy, youth, and our own needs so that we may give to our babies while they are in the womb and after it.  Yet, at the life-changing event of their actual births, we are often expected to hand over the reigns to someone else.  Why is that?

 

A woman is not less deserving of respect at birth.  She is more deserving of respect as she undertakes her greatest responsibility in life.  We were not given the gift of life to be undermined by others as we bring it into the world.

 

Let’s examine the expectations of a mother giving birth.  Ideally, she will have a glowing, healthy baby, and she will come through birth healthy and ready to mother, as well.  She cannot wait for that first precious moment when she catches sight of her mysterious little roommate, and she longs to hold him close, to smell him, to protect and warm him, to nurse him from her body with the best food on the planet.  Her goal is the safest, smoothest birth possible so that she is physically capable of caring for her newborn and no complications are created for future births.  And, of course, because his birth is a major life event for them, she wants her memories to be good ones.

 

If she’s done her research, she’ll know that science firmly backs what she instinctively wants—the skin-to-skin contact regulates his temperature and heart rate, the proximity to his mother and the sound of her voice soothes him.  He cries less than if he is away from her.  The breastmilk he receives supplies him with perfect nutrients.  Science has not come close to duplicating that formula, nor can it reproduce the benefits of bonding that occur with it that are so beneficial to the brain and social development of our babies.

 

Perhaps her care providers have the same expectations; perhaps they don’t.  The truth of the matter is that even the best of care providers is under competing pressures: pressures of time, of cost, of administrative policies, of practices that are meant to keep the healthcare machine running at a certain pace and with certain outcomes as priorities.  Each of these pressures and priorities serves to push the optimal well-being of mom and baby just a little further down the list.

 

In the U.S., for example, we know that the single biggest factor (see here and here) as to whether or not a low-risk woman receives a Cesarean section is the practice patterns of the providers with whom she gives birth—not her individual circumstances.  The odds of a woman giving birth by surgery are as much as 15 times greater in one hospital over another.  In our case, scheduling constraints, legal liability, and insurance reimbursements are very real factors in the care we receive.

 

When other factors take precedent—when surgery, induction by drugs, or instrumental deliveries are used a little more frequently than is necessary for mom’s and baby’s sake—we end up with births that are more traumatic, more complicated, and more risky than they might have been.  We end up with babies whose systems are flooded with drugs at birth, who are bruised and upset, who may be separated from their mothers in those first critical moments.  We end up with mothers who are dealing with negative physical and emotional consequences of birth, feeling “blue,” rather than enjoying their babies at this defining period of attachment.  And when surgery is employed, we end up with women for whom each subsequent birth by surgery is more and more dangerous for her and her babies.

 

Imagine a doctor whose individual practices and preferences lead him to cut open 50% of the women who come to him for his services.  Or, perhaps it's a doctor who believes that Cesarean surgery is "almost risk-free"--contrary to every scrap of current evidence (see here, here, and here).  Would we give these men unilateral authority to decide whether or not we give birth by surgery?

 

These things are not acceptable, in the United States, in Ireland, or anywhere else.  Respect for motherhood, for the mother-baby cycle, and for the life event of birth is a human right.  It’s time to demand that we are respected as the decision-makers about our bodies and our babies. 

 

The state does not have a uterus nor does it have breasts.  It was not given the gift of the creation of life and it is not entitled to your body or your baby.  It is not more invested in our children than we are.

 

Does your doctor love your baby more than you do?  Does your government lie awake watching him breathe at night?  If the answer is “no”—and I believe it is—then who dares to come between a mother and her baby?

 

As American parents, Irish parents, any parents, it is our right and our responsibility to make decisions that affect every facet of our children’s lives.  It is no different in birth.  

We must protect our bodies if we are to protect our babies. And no one can protect your baby like you can.

References:
Huffington Post, March 6, 2013, "C-Section rates vary across U.S. hospitals"

ImprovingBirth.org, January 23, 2013, "U.S. Hospitals held accountable for C-section rates"

VBACFacts.com, December 9, 2012, "Why cesareans are a big deal to you, your wife, and your daughter"

Childbirth Connection, 2012, "Cesarean section: what you need to know about c-section"

American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists' News Release, March 21, 2013, "Vaginal delivery recommended over maternal request cesarean"

For more current, science-based research, go to www.EvidenceBasedBirth.com

Cristen Pascucci joined ImprovingBirth.org--a national nonprofit in the U.S. run by and for mothers--after the birth of her baby in December 2011.  She is now vice president of the organization, which advocates for evidence-based care and humanity in childbirth, and she writes regularly about the need for respect in childbirth.  Prior to that, she was a political and communications strategist in Baltimore, Maryland.