Belly Tales

Sometimes, briefly, you feel like you’re making progress, that midwifery outreach is making a difference, that people are becoming more educated and informed, and then you read an article like this one, over at Time Magazine, and you realize that you exist in a small bubble where your philosophy on birth is far different than the majority of the country, and no matter how much you talk yourself hoarse educating people about the issues, they’re still going to buy into the myths of birth, hook, line and sinker.

Cesarean births are not “safer”. Numerous studies have demonstrated, again and again, that cesarean births carry more risks than vaginal delivery, and these risks multiply with each cesarean birth. Sure, the woman in this article had a “safe” and uncomplicated primary cesarean, but no attention is given to what happens when this same woman comes back for her second or third repeat cesarean—how difficult it is to perform surgery on the same site, to cut through scar tissue, how the risks for abnormal placentation such as placenta previa or placenta acreta increase exponentially with each cesarean, how the risk of hemorrhage increases dramatically. There’s also no discussion about how painful recovery from a cesarean is compared to recovery from a vaginal delivery, and how statistics have shown that this poorly affects bonding and breastfeeding rates in women who’ve given birth by cesarean. (Not to mention the fact that the motivation for elective cesareans for many women is a fear of pain, and in fact, the entire process is often much more painful, for a much longer period of time, post cesarean).

Vaginal delivery can, for example, lead to future incontinence and pelvic damage, while babies born by C-section may suffer from respiratory problems because of not being exposed to certain hormones during the birthing process.

Where is the author, Alice Park, getting this information from? How come there are no articles or references cited? I thought we were well beyond the argument that cesareans prevent pelvic floor damage. While injury to the pelvic floor can and does occur during vaginal delivery, it’s often caused by practices such as episiotomy, vacuum-extraction, forceful pushing and lithotomy position during deliveyr, all of which can be (and are being) minimized during vaginal birth. Routine episiotomy, for example, is now by and large a thing of the past. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence which demonstrates that cesarean section prevents pelvic floor damage. To quote from What Every Pregnant Woman Needs to Know About Cesarean Section (2006), published by the Maternity Center Association:

Is vaginal birth in and of itself harmful? It is common to hear that “vaginal birth” causes pelvic floor problems. Of hundreds of studies examined, however, not one attempted to avoid or limit the use of practices that can injure a woman’s pelvic floor to try to determine whetehr vaginal birth itself plays a role. It is wrong to conclude at this time t hat the cause of pelvic floor problems is giving birth through the vagina….

Is “vaginal birth” the culprit in the high levels of incontinence that women experience later in life? Studies that take a longer view find that new problems with urinary incontinence that appear after birth lessen over time. These problems tend to completely disappear by the time of menopause. Older women experience high rates of incontinence, but this appears to be due to other factors. For example, excess weight and smoking play a role.

Does cesarean section prevent incontinence? Routine cesarean section would only prevent continuing symptoms of incontinence in a small portion of birthing women. For most women, it would pose numerous risks without benefit. And it would offer no protection against experience incontinence in later years. As no research has found that vaginal birth itself causes incontinence, there are more sensible ways to prevent these problemss: 1) avoid when possible the use of birth interventions that can injure the pelvice floor, and 2) focus on keeping a healthy weight, avoid smoking and other risk factors.

(Still not convinced? Check out the following studies:

[1] Shorten, A, Donsante, J. & Shorten, B. (2002) Birth position, accoucheur and perineual outcomes: Informing women about choices for vaginal birth. Birth, 29(1), 19-27.

[2] Terry, R, Westcott, J, O’Shea, L., & Kelly, F. (2006). Postpartum outcomes in supine delivery by physicians versus nonsupine delivery by midwives. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 106(4), 199-202.

[3] Soong, B., & Barnes, M. (2005) Maternal position at midwife attended birth and perineuam trauma: Is there an association? Birth, 32(3), 164-169.)

The point being, I can’t believe such a mainstream publication could write such an imbalanced, one-sided and poorly researched article. I think I feel a letter to the editor coming on!

Chlamydia is the sexually transmitted infection du jour in our clinic. On a daily basis I probably encounter at least one, often 2, and sometimes 3-4 women per day who have it. For the majority of the women I see, learning that they have an STI is often like a wake-up call. They usually get treated, then their partner gets treated, and then, to their credit, they often remain STI free for the rest of their pregnancy. Many of them choose to break-up with the partner that infected them, or stop sleeping with him/her altogether, or else become religious in their condom use. However, sometimes it’s not that easy. In one woman whom I’ve been taking care of since I started my new job (i.e. over 5 months now) she’s had chlamydia 3 times. In other words, she’s been reinfected twice after being treated, probably because her partner has 1) never been treated or 2) keeps getting reinfected himself. In another case, a woman has been treated twice for chlamydia now because her husband has multiple wives, and obviously we still haven’t gotten all of them treated yet. I spend much of my day talking myself hoarse about safe sex, strict condom use and the importance of getting partners treated. And then the CDC releases studies which show that nearly half of all adolescent African American girls have had at least one STI, compared to only 20% of all white and Mexican-American teenagers (keep in mind that the predominant populations in our clinic are African American and Hispanic). It makes me want to cry. We get fifteen minutes alloted to us on our templates to take care of an OB or gynecology revisit. That’s fifteen minutes to conduct an entire interval history, address any questions or concerns, follow-up on lab results and order upcoming tests, do the physical exam (listen to the fetal heart tones, Leopold’s, measure the fundal height etc.), and then write a note on it. Fifteen minutes is barely enough time to tell a woman she has chlamydia, what the treatment is, how important it is that she get treated and then not reinfect herself, how crucial it is that her partner is also treated, and how essential condom use with future partners is. It’s like the tip of the ice berg when really these women need so much more than just counselling on safer sex and strict condom use. They need to learn how to assert their power—how to put their foot down with a partner that may potentially be cheating on them, how to say emphatically “no condom, no koochie” and not buckle in to seduction or pressuring, how to choose and insist on respectful partners. It’s like staring at a huge, roaring wildfire, and your only weapon against it is a tiny fire extinguisher. So what do we do? Keep trying to extinguish the chlamydia, one case at a time, and keep talking ourselves hoarse about safe sex.

The other day I discovered a postcard at my local yoga center urging women to participate in a birth survey, which instantly piqued my interest; apparently this survey has already been going on for some time, although I have only now heard about it. A little research has revealed that the Coalition for Improving Maternity Services (CIMS) has launched a new program entitled The Transparency in Maternity Care Project, which is intended to research and explore maternity care in this country, with an emphasis on improving the transparency of maternity care. Unlike other areas of medicine, hospitals and maternity care providers are still pretty cagey when it comes to being open with their numbers. What is the c-section rate for specific doctors or hospitals? What is the VBAC rate? How many providers perform episiotomies? How many elective cesareans or inductions occur annually? Hard numbers like this are always notoriously hard to come by. And of coruse, beyond the actual numbers themselves, women’s experiences with maternity care providers and services and overall satisfaction is often something which is overlooked. It seems like The Transparency in Maternity Care Project is trying to fix all of that, and is acting as a follow-up to the Listening to Mothers surveys which occurred in 2002 and 2006. Like Listening to Mothers I and II, a survey lies at the heart of The Transparency in Maternity Care Project, which can be found at the following website: www.TheBirthSurvey.com. The pilot survey is occurring in New York City right now, between July 2007 and July 2008.

There were many reasons to choose New York City as our pilot site.

First: New York is a large, high profile city offering a wide variety of birth options.

It is a densely populated and well-networked urban center. There is easy access to multiple press/media outlets. Approximately 125,000 births occur in NYC per year. Forty-four hospitals provide maternity care services. The majority of the country’s obstetricians are trained in NYC. Two Free-standing Birth Centers are in operation. An established homebirth community thrives. Nearly 10% of births in NY are attended by midwives.

Second: The Grassroots Advocates Committee will be piloting the project in partnership with Choices in Childbirth (CIC), an active grassroots organization based in NYC.

CIC is well connected with the NYC birth community. CIC publishes The New York Guide to a Healthy Birth – in 2007, 20,000 copies advertising The Birth Survey will be distributed free to the public. A member of the GAC and CIC is based in NYC and will be engaged in the day-to-day oversight of the pilot.

Third: New York State is one of only two states with a Maternity Information Act.

The MIA provides the public with legal access to intervention rates at the facility level. Choices in Childbirth is connected with the NYS Department of Health and has already collected the intervention rates for all New York hospitals.

So, if you live in NYC and have given birth in NYC, here’s your chance to discuss your experience and provide valuable information and feedback about birth in our country. Please participate in the birth survey ASAP. As for the rest of the country, the project plans to unveil a national survey next summer, but if you’re super motivated, you can provide feedback about your birth experience at www.drscore.com.

I got a phone call last night from a good friend from college, who has just recently been diagnosed with an ovarian cyst, and had been told by her doctor not to worry too much about it and was prescribed birth-control pills to help manage the symptoms. She wanted a second opinion, and I told her what I knew about ovarian cysts (i.e. that they’re very common, usually benign, usually do not affect fertility, and usually spontaneously resolve in a few months without incident), but I did promise that I’d do some more research on the subject for her. So here you go: more than you probably ever wanted to know about ovarian cysts!

An ovarian cyst is a fluid-filled sac that forms on the ovary. The majority of ovarian cysts are benign, and are classified as either functional or organic. We’ll start with functional cysts, because they are simpler and easier to understand.

Functional cysts are fluid-filled sacs which most often form during a normal menstrual cycle—either during the follicular phase or the luteal phase. Follicular cysts are more common and are often undiagnosed because they are usually asymptomatic. During the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, the follicle ripens while the egg matures and becomes a small, fluid-filled sac in the process. During normal ovulation, when the egg is released the sac breaks open, the fluid is released along with the egg, and the remnants of the sac are eventually re-absorbed. If for some reason the egg is not released (i.e. there is no ovulation), the ripened follicle can remain as a cyst, and may continue to grow through the next menstrual cycle. Follicular cysts can occassionally grow quite large, and the risk of torsion or rupture increases the larger the cyst becomes. However, the majority of follicular cysts usually spontaneously disappear within one to three months.

Luteal ovarian cysts, or corpus luteum cysts, occur during the second half of the menstrual cycle, after ovulation has occurred. Once the follicle has ruptured and the egg has been released, the remaining follicle sac becomes the corpus luteum, which produces progesterone and maintains the endometrial lining of the uterus. If the egg is not fertilized and pregnancy does not occur, the corpus luteum normally disappears through a process called luteolysis, which occurs with the onset of menses. In some cases, though, the corpus luteum does not disappear, and instead seals off after ovulation, fills with fluid and forms a cyst. Luteal cysts are less common than follicular cysts and usually disappear on their own within a few weeks. However, they can sometimes grow up to four inches and may cause bleeding, torsion, or pain.

If a small blood vessel ruptures inside a functional cyst, the cyst fills with blood instead of clear fluid, and is then called a hemorrhagic cyst. However, like follicular and luteal cysts, hemorrhagic cysts rarely rupture, are often self-limiting, and will most likely spontaneously resolve on their own.

Organic cysts are the second type of ovarian cyst, and are much less common than functional cysts. They’re referred to as complex cycts because of how they appear on ultrasound, and may contain blood, serous or solid material inside them. The type of cyst that forms depends on the type of ovarian tissue the cyst arises from. “Mucinous or serous cysts arise from mucinous or secretory ovarian glandular cells and can become very large, though they usually grow slowly.” (Schuiling & Likis, 2006). Another type of organic cyst known as a dermoid cyst arises from ovarian germ cells. Because germ cells have the capability of forming any material in the body, dermoid cysts sometimes contain unusual substances such as hair cells, skin cells, bone cells, tooth enamel or other body material. Dermoid cysts tend to grow rapidly and can become very large. They are rarely malignant, however, because they don’t spontaneously regress and there is some (albeit small) chance of malignancy, dermoid cysts are most often surgically removed . Another kind of organic cyst is known as a cystadenoma, which forms in the stromal tissue on the outside of the ovary, and can also grow quite large and cause a fair amount of pain.

Ovarian cysts can also be caused by other illnesses. Endometrial tissue begins to grow outside the uterus in women with endometriosis, and can sometimes attach itself to the ovary, forming an endometrioma, which is a solid cyst. Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) form multiple functional cysts within their ovaries from repetitive anovulatory cycles, and are often infertile. While neither of these kinds of cysts are malignant, managing these types of cysts requires dealing with the underlying etiology—either endometriosis or PCOS—and these cysts usually do not resolve on their own without assistance.

Because ovarian cysts are usually asymptomatic, many women have them without realizing that they do, and they often resolve on their own without the woman even being aware. Otherwise, the woman may experience pressure or fullness in the abdomen, pain during intercourse, persistent low-back ache, urinary frequency, chronic pelvic pain or pain during menstruation. Ovarian cysts are sometimes detected during a routine pelvic exam if a large mass or fullness is felt around the ovaries. However, diagnosis is most often made by ultrasound (either abdominal or transvaginal ultrasound), and management depends in part on the size of the cyst.

For most functional cysts, nothing needs to be done. Simple cysts don’t require therapy unless they’re larger than 8 cms, rupture or lead to ovarian torsion. The “watch and wait” approach is most often used, since these cysts usually spontaneously resolve on their own. If there is minor pain associated with the cyst, medication like Motrin or Tylenol is usually enough to manage the pain while waiting for the cyst to disappear. Follow-up ultrasounds at 1-3 months after diagnoses are sometimes performed, but aren’t mandatory unless the symptoms persist or worsen. If the cyst is between 5-8 cm, repeat visits to your doctor or midwife may be needed to follow the growth of the cyst. Surgery may be required to drain and remove larger cysts (anything greater than 8 cm), and is usually done either through laparoscopy or laparotomy. Other tests, such as a blood test to check for CA-125, a tumor marker which can indicate malignant growth, may also be performed for larger cysts just to rule out cancer. Oral contraceptive pills can be prescribed to help reduce the likelihood of repeat cyst formation, and may be especially helpful in women who keep having ovarian cysts. Since ovulation and the ripening of a follicle are often the causes of functional cyst formation, birth control prevents this from happening by preventing ovulation.

Organic cysts are generally more complex and usually require medical treatment. An MRI or cat-scan may be used in addition to ultrasound in order to diagnose the exact type of cyst (dermoid, cystadenoma, endomerioma etc.) The tumor marker CA-125 will most likely be checked to rule out cancer, and larger cysts greater than 8 cm will most likely be removed via surgery.

Warning signs for the rupture of an ovarian cyst include nausea and vomiting, fever, sudden, severe abdominal pain, fainting, dizziness, weakness or rapid breathing. In the case of very large cysts, rupture can be quite dangerous, so emergency care should be sought immediately if any of the warning signs appear. Otherwise, as in the case of my friend, who has some type of functional cyst by the sound of it, I’d agree with her doctor’s assessment that she shouldn’t worry too much about it. The cysts will probably go away on their own, and using oral contraceptives will make the likelihood of future cyst formation very, very slim.

References and further resources:

Shuiling & Likis (2006) Chapter 22: Benign Gynecologic Conditions. Women’s Gynecologic Health, pp. 584-587, Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Varney, H. et. al. (2004) Chapter 14: Common Diagnoses in Women’s Gynecological Health. Varney’s Midwifery: Fourth Edition, p. 406, Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Women’s Health.gov: Ovarian Cysts

Emedicine: Ovarian Cysts

People ask me a lot of questions, and unfortunately I rarely get a chance to post very many of them here. However, I thought this was a particularly good one, and might be useful to other readers as well, so here we go:

“I came across your website when I was google searching the words “Ina May” and hyperthyroidism. Reading a bit on your blog, I saw that you did a monstrous report on the condition. I have a ten month old baby girl (my first) and was recently diagnosed with hyperthyroidism (my TSH was .004) but have not yet been to an endocrinologist. My physician put me on atenolol, but I am still breastfeeding so I’m not taking it. Anyway, I was wondering what your report was about, and if you might have any suggestions that you could share. Many thanks in advance.”

Funny that you should ask about this, because we actually had our lecture on thyroid conditions during pregnancy today. My earlier report was on different thryoid conditions which are often seen during primary care of women (not necessarily during pregnancy), although today’s lecture focused only on pregnancy. My first suggestion would be to go to an endocrinologist as soon as possible. There are many different causes of hyperthyroidism, the most common cause being Grave’s Disease, which is an autoimmune disorder caused by thyroid stimulating antibodies. However, there are many other different causes of hyperthyroidism, running the gamut from pituitary tumors (very rare) to iodine-induced hyperthyroidism. This is why you’ll really need an endocrinologist to help figure all of this out; it’s complicated stuff, with many different etiologies.

Another thing to think about is when your symptoms first began. Was it before your pregnancy, during your pregnancy, or has it been only during the postpartum period? If only during the postpartum period, there might be another cause for the hyperthyroidism: postpartum thyroid dysfunction (also called lymphocytic thyroiditis or postpartum thyroiditis), which occurs in about 5-10% of all pregnancies. With this disorder, usually hyperthyroidism develops first, about 2-3 months postpartum, and will continue for up to 4 months postpartum, followed by a hypothyroid phase lasting 1-3 months. In 70-90% of all cases, this will usually resolve spontaneously without treatment, usually within 6 months. However, 10-30% of women with postpartum thyroiditis may have permanent hypothyroidism, so again, it would be a good idea to have an endocrinologist following this in order to determine the true cause of your hyperthyroidism, and whether it will resolve or not.

Treatments for hyperthyroidism usually include either PTU (Propylthiouricil) or Methimazole (Tapazole), both of which interfere with the synthesis of thyroid hormones by preventing iodine uptake. Both of these medications can be used during pregnancy AND are safe for breastfeeding. Atenolol (a beta blocker) was also listed in our lecture as one of the drugs used to help control the severe hypermetabolic symptoms of hyperthyroidism, such as tachycardia (fast pulse), tremors, palpitations and heat intolerance. Beta blockers are actually the treatment of choice for thyroiditis, and are safe to use during pregnancy. There is no contraindications to using beta blockers while breastfeeding. I just visited the website forum of Dr. Thomas Hale, one of the leading experts on pharmacology during breastfeeding, and looked up Atenolol. In this post, as you can see, one woman was concerned about the possibility of a baby having hypoglycemia after breastfeeding from a mother who was taking atenolol, but it seems that while atenolol might cause hypoglycemia in adults, he didn’t think it was present in breastmilk in suffiicient quantities to cause hypoglycemia in an infant:

I spoke with a Pediatric Cardiologist whom I greatly respect. He assured me that he’s used beta blockers and atenolol many times in pediatric patients and has yet to see hypoglycemia.It is true that in adult diabetics, it may induce hypoglycemia, but I’m reassured that his probably does not occur in infants, particularly from minor exposure via milk.He also told me that infants are apparently less sensitive to beta blockers and that even higher doses are sometimes required to be effective.So I’d look for something else causing hypoglycemia in your infants.

The thread on antihypertensives makes it very clear that beta blockers are fine during breastfeeding, so I think you would be okay taking atenolol and nursing at the same time. Medications in Mother’s Milk might be a really good resource for you.

Other treatment options for hyperthyroidism, if that is indeed what you have (as opposed to postpartum thyroiditis), include radioactive iodine treatment or surgery (partial thyroidectomy), but again, these are options best discussed with your endocriniologist.

I’m including a few resources here in case you want to look any of this stuff up yourself. These were some of the references from my presentation. Hope this helps!

Smeltzer, S., Bare, B. (2000) Metaboloic and Endocrine Function; Assessment and Management of Patient with Endocrine Disorders. Brunner and Suddarth’s Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins: New York.

Reid, J., & Wheeler, S. (2005) Hyperthyroidism: Diagnosis and Treatment. American Family Physician, 72(4): 623-630.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. (2002). Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the Evaluation and Treatment of Hyperthyroidism and Hypothyroidism. Endocrine Practice, 8(6):458-469.

I’ve been meaning to post this post for ages, but was never able to finish it during the school year last year. All of this comes from the research project that I worked on last year for 2 semesters as part of my research class, and even though I had to radically alter the goal and purpose of my research proposal in the end, along the way I had the opportunity to do some of the research I was really interested in doing in the first place, and it definitely needs to be shared. This is rather a long post, and it gets somewhat technical in places, but bear with me; a lot of the information here can help you fend off an unnecessary induction or cesarean, so it’s well worth reading. And with that, here we go:

Premature rupture of membranes (or prelabor rupture of membranes, aka PROM) occurs when a woman’s water breaks before she actually goes into active labor. It can happen to women at any point in their pregnancy, and when it happens to women who are still preterm, the danger to herself and her baby is much higher, as are the risks of infection (and many studies have demonstrated that in fact, preterm PROM, aka PPROM, is often caused by infection in the first place). However, the majority of PROM occurs in women who are at term gestation (37+ weeks)—90% of all cases, in fact (Zamzami, 2005), and it’s pretty common, too: PROM at term occurs in 8% of all births. (Hannah et. al., 1996)

In our hospitals today, there is sort of an unspoken rule—let’s call it the 24-Hour Rule. It goes something like this: if you haven’t delivered your baby within 24 hours of breaking your water, something is going to have to be done. In many cases, this something is induction, and in many cases, waiting a full 24 hours before inducing is something that never happens. Providers are often way too impatient and antsy for that, and will generally talk a woman into induction long before the 24 hours has passed. Many providers have the policy of immediately inducing a woman with PROM, either by using prostaglandin gels like cervadil followed by IV oxytocin (pitocin), or by just starting on the pit right away. The rationale for this type of management (often called active management) stems from research that was done in the 1960s (Shubeck, 1966; Rusell & Anderson, 1962) which found that the longer a woman was ruptured, the greater the chance of infection, chorioamnionitis (an acute infection of the chorion, which is part of the placenta), and maternal and/or fetal sepsis.

These early studies advocated immediate induction, and were the beginning of active management. The idea that the length of PROM is responsible for maternal infection is something which has sort of been hard-wired into modern obstetrical practice right now, and in my own experience, I have seen the 24-Hour Rule in effect many a time. Providers often use it to justify the need for an induction or augmentation, i.e. “we need to get your labor moving along, because you’ve been ruptured now for 8 hours…12 hours…18 hours…and you’re still not in active labor”, and as studies have shown, inductions and augmentations, especially for PROM, often lead to cesarean (Mozurkewich & Wolf, 1997; Grant et. al., 1992; Tan & Hannah, 2001). I have seen this deadline held over women’s heads before, and in my most humble opinion, it does absolutely NOTHING to help a woman relax, labor effectively, and have a vaginal delivery. (What’s that old Bradley joke about telling a man he better orgasm soon or else his penis will have to be cut apart to get to the sperm? No pressure, now!)

The thing is…the research from the ’60s, which forms the basis of the 24-Hour Rule, has more holes in it than swiss cheese. For one thing, these studies were retrospective, instead of prospective, which means that they relied on going back and looking at records after the births had already occurred, and never tried to control for any of the gazillion variables that might have affected these birth outcomes other than PROM. Similarly, these early studies were non-randomized, meaning that there might have been selection bias at play which could have muddied the findings. Additionally, both term and preterm pregnancies were mixed together when examining the effects of PROM, which seriously confounds results since preterm infants are much more susceptible to infection, and as I mentioned above, preterm PROM often occurs because of infection in the first place (McGregor & French, 1997). These studies had very imprecise definitions for infection, and the management protocols used were neither uniform or clearly discussed. And of course, NICUs and antibiotic therapy have improved so much in the past 40 years that many of the babies that died of infection in these early studies probably wouldn’t have died if they had been born today. So, as you can see, the studies from the 1960s had a lot of problems, and the fact that modern obstetrical practices are still based in part on the findings in these studies is an even BIGGER problem.

What have more recent studies shown? Well, many studies have shown that strict adherence to active management is often unnecessary, and in some cases, does more harm than good (seems to be a repeating theme when you start to look at obstetrical research—funny, that. And here is where it gets very technical. I’m putting the rest of this behind a cut, for those of you who are interested.) (Read on …)

So, I’ve been a bit incommunicado thanks to the intensity of my clinical schedule, and the fact that last week was our first exam, and I was busy spending every spare minute studying for it (I’m very pleased to report that I did well on my exam, despite my deepest concerns regarding my sincere lack of study-time). In the meantime, lots of news has been breaking out all over the place, and I’ve been letting it slide. But no longer! Here’s what’s new in the world of women’s health and midwifery news:

First, Merck has recently stated that they’re going to stop lobbying for state legislatures to adopt universal HPV vaccine requirements, in part because of all of the sudden bad press and objections to their lobbying efforts and their fear that continued lobbying would undermine use of the vaccine. Meanwhile, questions continue to arise regarding Merck’s financial invovlement with Texas Governor Rick Perry’s campaign. The CDC has also recently emphasized that no additional warning labels will be placed on Gardasil and that so far, all of the side effects reported with use of the vaccine (mostly inflammation reactions at the injection site and fainting) are low risk.

Since we’re on the subject of vaccines, it appears that research is now targeting Chlamydia for a new vaccine.

A post by Miriam Zoila Perez, the latest NAPW guest blogger, is up on Feministing regarding Radical Doulas.

The Mommy Blawg has a great break-down of all of the latest midwifery legislation being proposed in various states, particularly legislation working to legalize that status of direct-entry midwives (CPMs).

And finally, via Women’s Health News, Tenessee Representative Stacey Campfield has recently proposed legislation requiring a death certificate for each terminated pregnancy in the state of TN, while simultaneously not requiring death certificates for each spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) that occurs in the state of TN. In most states, death certificates aren’t issued until the baby reaches certain gestational age and/or weight requirements, such as 20 weeks, or 500 gms. Since most elected terminations occur during the first trimester, and most spontaneous miscarriages also occur during the first trimester, does it not seem a bit hypocritical to issue death certificates for one and not the other? Naturally, the Tennessee Guerilla Women have plenty to say on the subject. And while Campfield continues to look foolish by trying to deflect attention away from the nitty-gritty details of his bill, NARAL Pro-Choice America has joined the fray by setting up an online form for the women of Tennessee to contact their state representatives.

On vacation, just popping in briefly (the beloved boy just looked over my shoulder at what I’m doing and said “I can’t believe you’re posting while on holiday”). Uh, yeah. So, anyway, the semester is over. It was pretty intense at the end, with three hefty exams one right after the other: our neonatology final, followed by our intrapartum final (which took me three hours to complete…I was scribbling down to the very last second), and finally, our postpartum final. I’m pleased to report that I did well on all my exams; I guess it’s comforting to know that all that stress is actually going towards a good cause.

Anyway, I was browsing on the BBC’s website today and found two articles that are worth passing on:

First, a woman in Devon with a didelphic uterus gave birth to triplets. She carried identical twins in one of her wombs, and a singleton pregnancy in the other, and both eggs were fertilized at the same time. Apparently the odds of this happening are five million to one.

Also from the BBC, new research suggests that women with bowel problems such as ulcerative colitis and crohn’s disease might be at greater risk for premature birth and low birth weight babies, in part because inflammatory bowel disease can apparently restrict the amount of nutrients a baby receives during its development. The rate of birth defects in babies born to mothers with these diseases was also found to be twice as high as compared to women without inflammatory bowel disease, although overall the research felt that early detection and proper treatment could help eliminate these problems. Does anyone subscribe to Gut?

Right. It was a hard, but wonderful semester, and right now, I really, truly am on vacation. I’ll see you all in the new year.

This is in follow-up to last week’s post about ACOG’s recent new policy on out-of-hospital birth. The American Association of Birth Centers wrote a detailed and very well researched response, and included a 2 page selected bibliography on the safety and efficacy of birth centers at the end of the letter. I thought I’d just post the bibliography here, for all of us to peruse in our spare time (you know, that mythical thing where in theory you have the freedom and liesure and ability to pursue areas of intellectual interest and research to you). More importantly, maybe this bibliography will come in handy to any fellow students out there who’re up against deadlines and frantically working on their research projects on birth centers. Enjoy!

Albers, L.l. & Katz, V. L. (1991). Birth setting for low-risk pregnancies: An analysis of the current literature. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 36(4),215-220.

American Public Health Association (1983). 8209 (PP): Guidelines for licensing and regulating birth centers. American Journal of Public Health, 73(3), 331-334.

Ballard, R.A. (1979). Changing the environment for birth, an alternative birth center in the hospital. In Lindheim, R. (Ed.), Environments for humanized health care (pp. 83-89). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Ballard, RA, Ferris, C, & Clyman, RI (1985). The hospital alternative birth center: is it safe? Experience in 1000 cases from 1976 to 1980. Journal of Perinatology, 5(61-64).

Bennetts, A. (1982). The first national collaborative study of birth centers. Cooperative Birth Center Network News, (February/May), 12-13.

Bennetts, A.B. & Lubic, R.W. (1982). The free-standing birth centre. The Lancet, February 13, 378-380.

Campbell, R. & MacFarlane, A. (1986). Place of delivery: a review. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 93, 675-683. (Read on …)

Two studies have recently come out which highlight the risks of cesarean birth for both mothers and babies, particularly primary cesareans with no medical indication. A recent study printed in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care found that neonatal mortality rates were higher in babies born by cesarean, even after the statistics had been adjusted for congenital malformations, socioeconomic and medical risk factors. This is especially significant given that the focus of the study was on low-risk mothers who had no medical indication for cesarean, and the sample size was quite large (311,927 low risk women were analyzed). The NY Times picked up the story in last Tuesday’s paper (Voluntary C-sections Result in More Baby Deaths).

And then, it never rains but it pours: Nabbed from Milliner’s Dream, who saw it first, a recent French study also found that having a cesarean more than triples a woman’s risk of death when compared to the risks associated with a vaginal birth. (Postpartum Maternal Mortality and Cesarean Delivery) The increased risk of death was found to stem from complications from anesthesia, puerperal infection and venous thromboembolism, all of which are risks associated with surgery.

So, how…vindicating. There is now a sudden spurt of evidence which suggests that cesareans aren’t nearly as safe or benign as common practice would indicate. Now the question is: how long will it take for the medical community to absorb this new information and begin to cite the risks involved to the women trying to schedule a primary cesarean when there is absolutely no medical indication for one? It took years for the medical community to acknowledge that routine episiotomy can cause more harm than good, but practic is finally beginning to change. And, I wonder who will be the first to try to refute these findings?

(By the way, have you noticed how chock-full of good stuff the September issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology is? In addition to the above French study on maternal mortality and c-sections, check out ACOG’s Committee Opinion on the HPV vaccine).

ADDENDUM:

ACOG’s press release on the results of the French study in this month’s Obstetrics & Gynecology :

Though rates of maternal death in most developed countries are relatively low—US women have a 1 in 3,500 chance of pregnancy-related death—incidences of maternal mortality have not significantly decreased in the last two decades. These study results suggest that mode of delivery may be a modifiable risk factor, and in some cases, choosing vaginal delivery over non-medically indicated cesarean delivery could help lower maternal mortality rates.