Wow! February is almost over—and I'd just like to remind you all that we're having ourselves a little baby in May or June. That soon, already?
For some that may seem like a long time off but for us, whose lives are about to change Big Time, it 's not very long at all. We've been preparing for almost five months now (we found out in October, a month after the fact), and with just over three months to go, I can say, for myself (me, Papa), I still have a lot of preparing to do. Sure, is anyone ever fully prepared? Maybe not. But, like I said, "I still have a lot of preparing to do!"
I've been reading books, magazines, setting the house in order, so to speak, and I've even felt some of those biological, inner-workings starting to take over; all that, and more time is all I ask.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm super excited. But can't I just set the world straight before the due date?
I heard an interview on NPR in which a Rabbi and author said something interesting; he said, "Parenting is the hardest job, and it's given to amateurs."
It's true, really. And it makes good sense: you're going to do some things right, you're going to do some things wrong, and you're going to do the best that you can. So prepare all you want, but leave yourself some room to make mistakes.
Feb 23, 2008
pregnancy and the pharmaceutical industry
This week, I've been struggling with a nasty cold. Due to changes in the immune system during pregnancy, I have been more prone to come down with any and all of the viruses that have been going around. In addition, there's the typical nasal congestion that a lot of pregnant women suffer from (rhinitis of pregnancy) due to hormonal changes and higher amounts of blood. Since pregnant women are advised against taking medications during pregnancy, I have been doing some research this week on the safety issues surrounding various medications, in particular nasal spray. What I've found is that while the active ingredient in most nasal sprays--oxymetazoline (as in Afrin or Vicks Sinex) or xylometazolin (as in Otrivin or Zycomb)--causes blood vessels to contract (to open passages), and thus could affect the supply of oxygen, it is most likely quite safe to use during pregnancy since only a small amount will reach the maternal circulation, hence fetal exposure is love. One study even stated that pregnant women may use more than the recommended amount of nasal spray. The bigger problem, as I found out, is that most nasal sprays distributed in the US contain the preservative benzalkonium chloride, even though an overwhelming amount of research shows that this preservative aggravates serious side effects that basically make you addicted to taking the nasal spray. Around 1985, it was noted that the number and severity of cases of rhinitis medicamentosum increased with increased use of benzalkonium. Rhinitis medicamentosum means that the nose gets stuffy and congested after use of nasal spray; research shows that the symptoms worsen and arrive sooner when the nasal spray includes benzalkonium chloride. The more the nasal spray is used, the more "rebound" when the drug wears off, that is, the worse the patient gets after the spray wears off, requiring more and more use of the nasal spray. The spray becomes effectively addictive, and worse, the nose is always stuffy anytime the drug is not active in the nose.
In Norway, the medical industry seems to have taken the research findings into consideration; only one nasal spray (Iliadin) of those available for purchase includes the preservative benzalkonium chloride (benzalkonklorid). In the US, on the other hand, benzalkonium chloride is the default preservative used in nasal spray; neither my doctor nor pharmacist could find any nasal sprays that did not include this preservative.
Is it possible that the pharmaceutical industry in the US wants us to get addicted to certain medications so that we will keep buying them? How concerned is the pharmaceutical industry about our health? Why did it take the pharmaceutical industry ten years from when mercury (thimerosal) in vaccinations was first shown to be unsafe (1991) till we had mercury free vaccinations (2002)? Today, Dr. Sears wonders if aluminum is the new thimerosal. And as a parent-to-be, I'm learning that I can't trust or rely solely on my doctor or local pharmacist in recommending what's safest for me and my baby; we have to be pro-active about our own health and speak up about what we learn.
In Norway, the medical industry seems to have taken the research findings into consideration; only one nasal spray (Iliadin) of those available for purchase includes the preservative benzalkonium chloride (benzalkonklorid). In the US, on the other hand, benzalkonium chloride is the default preservative used in nasal spray; neither my doctor nor pharmacist could find any nasal sprays that did not include this preservative.
Is it possible that the pharmaceutical industry in the US wants us to get addicted to certain medications so that we will keep buying them? How concerned is the pharmaceutical industry about our health? Why did it take the pharmaceutical industry ten years from when mercury (thimerosal) in vaccinations was first shown to be unsafe (1991) till we had mercury free vaccinations (2002)? Today, Dr. Sears wonders if aluminum is the new thimerosal. And as a parent-to-be, I'm learning that I can't trust or rely solely on my doctor or local pharmacist in recommending what's safest for me and my baby; we have to be pro-active about our own health and speak up about what we learn.
please leave a comment!
Thanks to those of you who've left comments! We really appreciate receiving them. To make it simpler to leave a comment, we've changed the settings so that no sign in (or sign up) will be necessary; just write a comment and submit it! Thanks!
Feb 19, 2008
Feb 11, 2008
Feb 3, 2008
midwife care: the right match for us
I can't remember what first got me interested in homebirth, maybe something from my yoga training, but I remember thinking, many years ago, that if I ever had a child, I'd like to give birth at home. The first book I read when we found out that I'm pregnant, was a book on natural birth that a dear friend gave me. This book led me to Sheila Kitzinger's book on home birth, then Ina May Gaskin's, which another good friend gave me, and soon we were interviewing midwives. One of the first midwives I talked with over email, wrote to me that "I believe it is important to talk to as many midwives as you can and then decide who you would like to sit with, for truly to find your match can take you on a bit of a journey." This has certainly been true for us.
At first, I was sure I wanted an older grandmother-like midwife with lots of experience, calm, grounded, spiritual, but earthy, non-puritanical and nonsensical, and with a sense of humor. Kind of a combination of Ina May and Sheila. Leighton suggested we also meet with some younger midwives; I was not very positive to this idea at first, but went along with it. -- I would never have thought that we would end up with a younger midwife, but we did. How did we get here?
Out of all the email conversations and phone interviews, we finally set up meetings with 5 midwives. The first midwife, Kim, works with another midwife, Kathy, both in their 50s and each with about 20 years of experience. They have both been active in establishing legal recognition and standardized certification for midwife care. Kim struck us as the spiritual one, whereas Kathy was earthy. We met in Kim's home in Edina, a quaint older home, but not the most inviting meeting room. This is where all the prenatal care would take place. Kim & Kathy have a large practice, and we wondered if we'd typically have to sit in line, waiting, for our appointment.
The second midwife, Vanessa, was younger, probably close to my age, though she felt older than me. More of a hippie bohemian appearing woman, we felt drawn to talking with her. She was more inclusive of the both of us in our conversation than Kim and Kathy, and her home was so inviting; we met in her open dining room, which smelled like bacon and pancakes. Her husband teaches at a local Rudolf Steiner school, where she subsitutes, which also appealed to us.
The third and fourth midwife were both in their twenties. Compared to the others, their approach to midwife care struck us as more standardized, not quite medicalized, but suggesting a new trend in midwife care to come across as more professionalized, maybe due to a concern that midwifery is not quite recognized as a legitimized field among professional health care professionals? The fourth midwife in particular struck me as more of a doctor, but with a naturopathic spin. This did not appeal to me; it became clear to me that I would prefer an unlicensed midwife with confidence in the ancient art of midwife care to a midwife certified in standardized care.
The fifth meeting was canceled (due to her busy schedule navigating between children and clients, which made me think she was not necessarily a good fit for us; also, we had at least two good option to choose between at this point: Kim & Kathy and Vanessa). Then a woman in town who teaches Bradley method classes to natural childbirth told us about a midwife she'd heard of and we contacted her. She, Rachel, lives about an hour south of town, but would do all visits at our house (unlike the others we met with who'd require us to meet in their homes for most of the prenatal visits). Many factors made us drawn to her: sure, she is younger, but--as a former client said--with an old soul. We felt reassured by her training and experience, and confident that she is competent. She is not certified nor licensed but with good reasons for both, exuding confidence in her decision to rely on the solid heritage of traditional midwifery. She does not have children of her own, but, as she explained, midwife care has a tradition both among the city elders (the grandmothers) and among nuns. She used the analogy of a doula who before giving birth herself, relied in her care on all the experiences of women she's assisted, whereas after she gave birth herself, she would rely primarily on her own experiences. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we felt so comfortable with her, free to ask her all our questions, no judgment in her responses, warmly including both of us in the conversation. With Kim & Kathy I felt that Leighton was slightly excluded and I also did not appreciate how they dismissed a couple of my questions. Vanessa, likewise, ended up disappointing us through our email conversation after our meeting, responding rather defensively to some of our questions.
Rachel, on the other hand, invites trust and a sense of stability; we feel that she is the right match for us and that she will ease into our home quite seamlessly, providing a reassuring but unobtrusive presence during and after labor and delivery.
Finding the right match for us has been an incredible journey. Now we are excited about the journey ahead, meeting regularly with our midwife, learning from her and working together as we prepare for the birth. It is such a different experience from what the prenatal visits with our ob/gyn have been like. Though I have to add that this ob/gyn is by far my favorite, more attentive than any other I have seen throughout the years (I have established with her my dissatisfaction with all the ob/gyns I have seen since I was 18, their quick diagnoses and easy dismissals, and she has seemed determined to make up for that by being quite attentive to our questions and concerns), she nonetheless approaches us as the doctor who'd prefer to make all the decisions. She is open to negotiations, and has ultimately conceded several times that when everything looks fine, there is no need to assume things aren't, and thus we've been able to opt out of various superfluous screenings. Yet, her inclination is to suspect rather than trust, to double-check and look for problems, rather than approach birth as a natural process.
The midwife approaches birth in a more balanced manner: attention to the mother's diet and exercise is crucial, as is the baby's growth and well-being, but she does not assume trouble before unusual signs are present, and even then she knows that there is a tendency to over-diagnose. Our ob/gyn knows this too, yet she would more likely to do just that, causing needless stress and concern.
Our ob/gyn is more open to natural childbirth than many ob/gyns in the United States, and has offered to serve as a back-up to our homebirth. I appreciate maintaining a working relationship with her, but regular check-ups with her will be unnecessary now that we'll be seen by a midwife. Whereas meetings with our ob/gyn can be stressful, the visits with our midwife are something we look forward to. Based on a holistic approach to health, they are not just physical check-ups, but educational and therapeutic, mentally and emotionally, during pregnancy and as we approach the birth and parenthood.
At first, I was sure I wanted an older grandmother-like midwife with lots of experience, calm, grounded, spiritual, but earthy, non-puritanical and nonsensical, and with a sense of humor. Kind of a combination of Ina May and Sheila. Leighton suggested we also meet with some younger midwives; I was not very positive to this idea at first, but went along with it. -- I would never have thought that we would end up with a younger midwife, but we did. How did we get here?
Out of all the email conversations and phone interviews, we finally set up meetings with 5 midwives. The first midwife, Kim, works with another midwife, Kathy, both in their 50s and each with about 20 years of experience. They have both been active in establishing legal recognition and standardized certification for midwife care. Kim struck us as the spiritual one, whereas Kathy was earthy. We met in Kim's home in Edina, a quaint older home, but not the most inviting meeting room. This is where all the prenatal care would take place. Kim & Kathy have a large practice, and we wondered if we'd typically have to sit in line, waiting, for our appointment.
The second midwife, Vanessa, was younger, probably close to my age, though she felt older than me. More of a hippie bohemian appearing woman, we felt drawn to talking with her. She was more inclusive of the both of us in our conversation than Kim and Kathy, and her home was so inviting; we met in her open dining room, which smelled like bacon and pancakes. Her husband teaches at a local Rudolf Steiner school, where she subsitutes, which also appealed to us.
The third and fourth midwife were both in their twenties. Compared to the others, their approach to midwife care struck us as more standardized, not quite medicalized, but suggesting a new trend in midwife care to come across as more professionalized, maybe due to a concern that midwifery is not quite recognized as a legitimized field among professional health care professionals? The fourth midwife in particular struck me as more of a doctor, but with a naturopathic spin. This did not appeal to me; it became clear to me that I would prefer an unlicensed midwife with confidence in the ancient art of midwife care to a midwife certified in standardized care.
The fifth meeting was canceled (due to her busy schedule navigating between children and clients, which made me think she was not necessarily a good fit for us; also, we had at least two good option to choose between at this point: Kim & Kathy and Vanessa). Then a woman in town who teaches Bradley method classes to natural childbirth told us about a midwife she'd heard of and we contacted her. She, Rachel, lives about an hour south of town, but would do all visits at our house (unlike the others we met with who'd require us to meet in their homes for most of the prenatal visits). Many factors made us drawn to her: sure, she is younger, but--as a former client said--with an old soul. We felt reassured by her training and experience, and confident that she is competent. She is not certified nor licensed but with good reasons for both, exuding confidence in her decision to rely on the solid heritage of traditional midwifery. She does not have children of her own, but, as she explained, midwife care has a tradition both among the city elders (the grandmothers) and among nuns. She used the analogy of a doula who before giving birth herself, relied in her care on all the experiences of women she's assisted, whereas after she gave birth herself, she would rely primarily on her own experiences. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we felt so comfortable with her, free to ask her all our questions, no judgment in her responses, warmly including both of us in the conversation. With Kim & Kathy I felt that Leighton was slightly excluded and I also did not appreciate how they dismissed a couple of my questions. Vanessa, likewise, ended up disappointing us through our email conversation after our meeting, responding rather defensively to some of our questions.
Rachel, on the other hand, invites trust and a sense of stability; we feel that she is the right match for us and that she will ease into our home quite seamlessly, providing a reassuring but unobtrusive presence during and after labor and delivery.
Finding the right match for us has been an incredible journey. Now we are excited about the journey ahead, meeting regularly with our midwife, learning from her and working together as we prepare for the birth. It is such a different experience from what the prenatal visits with our ob/gyn have been like. Though I have to add that this ob/gyn is by far my favorite, more attentive than any other I have seen throughout the years (I have established with her my dissatisfaction with all the ob/gyns I have seen since I was 18, their quick diagnoses and easy dismissals, and she has seemed determined to make up for that by being quite attentive to our questions and concerns), she nonetheless approaches us as the doctor who'd prefer to make all the decisions. She is open to negotiations, and has ultimately conceded several times that when everything looks fine, there is no need to assume things aren't, and thus we've been able to opt out of various superfluous screenings. Yet, her inclination is to suspect rather than trust, to double-check and look for problems, rather than approach birth as a natural process.
The midwife approaches birth in a more balanced manner: attention to the mother's diet and exercise is crucial, as is the baby's growth and well-being, but she does not assume trouble before unusual signs are present, and even then she knows that there is a tendency to over-diagnose. Our ob/gyn knows this too, yet she would more likely to do just that, causing needless stress and concern.
Our ob/gyn is more open to natural childbirth than many ob/gyns in the United States, and has offered to serve as a back-up to our homebirth. I appreciate maintaining a working relationship with her, but regular check-ups with her will be unnecessary now that we'll be seen by a midwife. Whereas meetings with our ob/gyn can be stressful, the visits with our midwife are something we look forward to. Based on a holistic approach to health, they are not just physical check-ups, but educational and therapeutic, mentally and emotionally, during pregnancy and as we approach the birth and parenthood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)