In this video blog, Bedrest Coach Darline Turner answers the question, “Should I take a childbirth education class?”
Not having taken childbirth education classes with her own children, Darline sees this as one area where she missed the boat. Having a traumatic delivery with her daughter, the hustle and bustle in the delivery suite, her daughter being whisked away to the NICU and the general chaos that left dad befuddled, Darline is sure that childbirth education classes would have helped immensely. Below she shares here some of the more popular education organizations and some of the childbirth educators that she likes, knows, trusts and recommends.
Organizations that offer Childbirth Education and train childbirth educators
Childbirth Educators I Like
Desirre Andrews-Preparing For Birth
Isis Parenting. A Boston Based childbirth and parenting education organization.
Many American hospitals and Obstetricians have put a “hard stop” on elective labor inductions. As a result many hospitals and physicians are seeing a significant drop in still births, NICU admissions, cesarean sections and post partum hemorrhage. Data presenting the effects of such hospital practice policies was presented at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 61st Annual Clinical Meeting.
The United States has long been noted to have adverse birth outcomes that, in some instances, rival those of developing nations with far fewer resources. With the world’s eye upon us, many hospitals adopted a no elective labor before 39 weeks gestation policy. This means that under no circumstances is a mama to be induced before 39 weeks gestation unless it is absolutely medically necessary; there is danger to the life of mama or baby. Otherwise, Mamas and babies have to “tough it out” to term. Additionally, many hospitals are adopting strict policies against obstetricians who perform elective inductions in an effort to deter the practice.
The results of the policy has shown the following results according to researchers Nathaniel DeNicola, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, Andrew Healy, MD, medical director of obstetrics at Baystate Medical Center, in Springfield, Massachusetts and Angela Silber, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine at Summa Akron City Hospital, in Ohio:
Dr. DeNicola’s Study (A Survey Study)
- Many hospitals have adopted specific policies against elective induction
- Nearly two thirds of more than 2600 hospitals have “no elective induction” policies in place.
- 67% of hospitals have a formal policy against non-medically indicated labor induction, and among those without a formal policy, just over half said it was against their standard of care.
- 69% of formal hospital policies were hard-stop, meaning strictly enforced, as opposed to soft-stop or strongly discouraged.
Dr. Healy’s study
- Compared 9515 singleton births before the policy and 2641 singletons after the policy found a significant decrease of 5.9 hours in the median time to delivery (P = .002).
- The cesarean section rate for elective inductions also decreased from 16% before the policy to 7% after (P = .05).
- NICU admission rates decreased by a third. Before the policy, 3% of term babies got admitted to the NICU and after the policy that went down to 2%” (P = .02).
- No increase in the stillbirth rate
Dr. Silber’s pre- and post policy comparison
- Decrease in stillbirths and NICU admissions
- Comparing 9806 singleton deliveries before the policy and 6041 singletons after, the number of stillbirths decreased significantly from 16 to 3 ( P = .023), with a trend toward significance in the reduction of NICU admissions (from 867 to 587; P = .06).
- There was no significant difference in macrosomia (Large for gestational age) rates (P = .718)
Other data not fully analyzed shows a decrease in cesarean sections as well as postpartum hemorrhage.
As a result of these studies, many obstetricians and hospitals are really questioning the practice of induction and no longer performing inductions unless absolutely medically necessary. According to these researchers, this data may be what makes elective inductions history!
Summarized from MedScape News, OB/GYN & Women’s Health by Kate Johnson, May 23, 2013
It’s a sad commentary on this country when we have to introduce legislation in order for people to treat pregnant women kindly; give them a little extra help and make a few logistical allowances for them to be able to work and support themselves and their families while pregnant. Be that as it may, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has been introduced to congress and is supported by democratic senators and representatives as well as a whole host women’s advocacy groups, unions and business groups.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act works to ensure that pregnant women are not forced out of jobs unnecessarily or denied reasonable job modifications that would allow them to continue working. Currently, pregnant working women around the country are being denied simple adjustments – permission to use a stool while working a cash register, or to carry a bottle of water to stay hydrated, or temporary reassignment to lighter duty tasks – that would keep them working and supporting their families while maintaining healthy pregnancies. The bill will require that employers make reasonable adjustments while also barring employers from denying employment opportunities to women based on their need for reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
Really?? You mean to tell me that if you are an employer and have an employee who is pregnant and a cashier, you can’t get her a stool? You’d rather fire her? Employers are unwilling to allow their employees to have water bottles to stay hydrated? (This is important for all employees, not just the pregnant ones!!) What type of country do we live in??
While I appreciate this legislation, I am saddened and sickened that it even has to be introduced. Where has simple human decency gone? Okay, let’s just put pregnancy aside for a moment. You mean to tell me that if you have a loyal employee who suddenly becomes stricken with a medical condition (either temporary or permanent) but who is committed to doing the job, you’d rather fire him or her rather than make some minor adjustments to their work environment? I completely understand if the employee is unable to perform most of the duties of the position, then it only makes sense to replace him/her. But in the case of a cashier, if you can provide a stool you’ll keep a trusted, productive employee! In a recent blog post, I related how the Center for American Progress estimates that if an employee makes $30,000 to $75,000 annually, it costs employers approximately 20% of an ex-employee’s annual salary to replace that person. If the employee makes less than $30,000 annually, then the cost to replace him/her is approximately 16% of the annual salary. And for highly paid executives, the costs to replace them skyrockets.
Isn’t it just easier to make a few adjustments?
Kinda makes me wonder, are we really talking about money, or is this yet another battle in the war on working women, forcing us to once again choose-career or family? Why should it ever be a choice?