Check out this fantastic dream babywearing give-away! That's one of each kind of carrier...soft structured carrier (buckles), pouch, mei tai, ring sling and wrap! And if you win, I expect a commission LOL:
Win the Essential Babywearing Stash from Along for the Ride (one Beco Butterfly, one Hotsling baby pouch, one BabyHawk Mei Tai, one Zolowear Ring Sling, and one Gypsy Mama Wrap)
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Letter to ACOG
In response to the big can of worms ACOG is trying to open regarding home birth, read this letter, shared earlier today with my local birth network:
Douglas H. Kirkpatrick, MD
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
PO Box 96920
Washington, DC 20090-2188
Dear Sir:
I am a practicing OB/ GYN in southern California and Fellow of ACOG
and recently was informed by midwife colleagues of your recommendation
and encouragement for the AMA to lobby Congress for a law banning out of
hospital birth.
Funny that I had to hear of this decision from outside sources and
was never approached by my college to see how I or my local colleagues felt
about it. I have grave concerns regarding my organization taking such a stand. I think
we are all agreed that ACOG has a statement regarding patients¢ rights to
informed consent and informed refusal. Yet, it seems with every decision our
organization moves further away from that basic tenet.
ACOG's little "guideline" paper on VBAC in 2004 where the word
readily was changed to immediately has had the chilling effect of doing away with
VBAC options at hundreds if not more hospitals. Not due to patient safety,
or the ideal of giving true informed consent but really, let's be honest, to fear
of litigation. I have seen how patients have become counseled by
obstetricians at facilities where VBAC has been banned. They are clearly given a
skewed view of the risks of VBAC but rarely told of the risks of multiple surgeries. If
you think this is untrue you are, sadly, out of touch with real clinical
medicine.
As to out of hospital birthing, please give me the courtesy of an
explanation as to the data you used and the process by which an
organization which is supposed to represent me came to this conclusion. Any statement
saying that it is as simple as patient safety and that one-size fits all hospital
birth under the "obstetric model" of practice should be applied to all patients
is, putting it nicely, not really in line with what best serves all our
patients. In many instances, hospitals are not safe, certainly not nurturing and
have a far worse track record for disasters than home birth. Even when emergency
help is nearby this is true. The focus of all of us in medicine should be on
reigning in trial lawyers and tort reform and lobbying Congress for that. The
best interest of the college members and the patients we serve would be
for my organization to spend its time and energy on something that has true
benefit.
Removing choices from well-informed patients and caring doctors and
midwives is wholly un-American.
So please send me detailed information on how ACOG decided outlawing
home birth was a wise thing to do. You must have scientific data to take
such a drastic stand. Please make it available to me so that I may share it
with like-minded colleagues. I would also like to know the process by
which this came to pass. Who first raised this issue and why? What committee reviewed
all the data and did its due diligence in interviewing those of us with long-
standing experience in backing midwives who perform out of hospital births.
There must be a fine, non-confidential paper trail you can share with your members.
Specific names of committee member who voted for this would be enlightening
and I am requesting this information. I would like to know the background and
expertise regarding out of hospital birth for each member who had a hand in the
decision to go to the AMA.
We live in an odd era where once something is said or recommended by
a legitimate organization such as ACOG it has deep ramifications never
intended, such as becoming fodder for trial lawyers trying to squeeze the lifeblood
and dignity out of your members. Or forcing women to travel hundreds of
miles in labor to find a supportive facility. Or even worse, to have them arrive in
a VBAC banned hospital and refuse surgery. Can this be the best we can do
for our patients? Remember, your VBAC statement was meant to be only a
recommendation but quickly became the rule by which hospital administrators, risk
managers and anesthesia departments of smaller hospital banned this option for
thousands of women. An option, that in proper hands, was the safe and accepted
standard of care for 30 years. In fact, you still have an ACOG VBAC brochure that
recommends this option!
For those of us working at smaller hospitals where VBAC was banned
due to lack of emergency help (anesthesia, OR crews, etc.) there is a big
question that has perplexed us, that no administrator seems to be willing or able
to answer. That question is: "If a hospital cannot handle an emergency
c/section for VBACs, and most emergencies are for fetal bradycardia, hemorrhage
(ie. abruption) or shoulder dystocia, not for ruptured uteri, then how can
they do obstetrics at all?" For they seem to still be able to have a
maternity ward without in house anesthesia. Will someday ACOG, in their great wisdom but
seeming disconnect from reality, make a "recommendation" that little
hospitals stop providing obstetric services? Will this better serve women and their
communities throughout America?
I am frightened and angered by what you have done in my name. Now I
ask you to defend your position in encouraging the AMA to lobby Congress for
another restriction on the freedom of choice that belongs to women and their
families. Those choices include midwifery and the right to have the most
beautiful and life changing event occur wherever best fits their desire.
Midwives are well trained and required to have obstetrical backup.
They have very special relationships with their patients and want the very best
outcomes for them. They do not need me or you to police them. We have
a habit in our country over the past 40 years of thinking we can legislate out
stupidity. All that has done is erode the individual freedoms that belong, by
birthright, to each of us. I would hope you trust your Fellows to know their
specialty, their colleagues, and what is best for the patient as an individual.
These decisions do not belong to politicians or faceless committees.
You should have more faith in your members to give balanced informed
consent. Again, my recommendation to you is to put all your considerable energy into
changing our legal malpractice system. Those of us actually practicing
medicine and caring for patients know this to be the greatest threat to the
mission and responsibility we have chosen to undertake.
I look forward to your response and possibly the beginning of a meaningful
dialogue.
Sincerely,
Stuart J. Fischbein, MD FACOG
Medical Advisor, Birth Action Coalition
Douglas H. Kirkpatrick, MD
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
PO Box 96920
Washington, DC 20090-2188
Dear Sir:
I am a practicing OB/ GYN in southern California and Fellow of ACOG
and recently was informed by midwife colleagues of your recommendation
and encouragement for the AMA to lobby Congress for a law banning out of
hospital birth.
Funny that I had to hear of this decision from outside sources and
was never approached by my college to see how I or my local colleagues felt
about it. I have grave concerns regarding my organization taking such a stand. I think
we are all agreed that ACOG has a statement regarding patients¢ rights to
informed consent and informed refusal. Yet, it seems with every decision our
organization moves further away from that basic tenet.
ACOG's little "guideline" paper on VBAC in 2004 where the word
readily was changed to immediately has had the chilling effect of doing away with
VBAC options at hundreds if not more hospitals. Not due to patient safety,
or the ideal of giving true informed consent but really, let's be honest, to fear
of litigation. I have seen how patients have become counseled by
obstetricians at facilities where VBAC has been banned. They are clearly given a
skewed view of the risks of VBAC but rarely told of the risks of multiple surgeries. If
you think this is untrue you are, sadly, out of touch with real clinical
medicine.
As to out of hospital birthing, please give me the courtesy of an
explanation as to the data you used and the process by which an
organization which is supposed to represent me came to this conclusion. Any statement
saying that it is as simple as patient safety and that one-size fits all hospital
birth under the "obstetric model" of practice should be applied to all patients
is, putting it nicely, not really in line with what best serves all our
patients. In many instances, hospitals are not safe, certainly not nurturing and
have a far worse track record for disasters than home birth. Even when emergency
help is nearby this is true. The focus of all of us in medicine should be on
reigning in trial lawyers and tort reform and lobbying Congress for that. The
best interest of the college members and the patients we serve would be
for my organization to spend its time and energy on something that has true
benefit.
Removing choices from well-informed patients and caring doctors and
midwives is wholly un-American.
So please send me detailed information on how ACOG decided outlawing
home birth was a wise thing to do. You must have scientific data to take
such a drastic stand. Please make it available to me so that I may share it
with like-minded colleagues. I would also like to know the process by
which this came to pass. Who first raised this issue and why? What committee reviewed
all the data and did its due diligence in interviewing those of us with long-
standing experience in backing midwives who perform out of hospital births.
There must be a fine, non-confidential paper trail you can share with your members.
Specific names of committee member who voted for this would be enlightening
and I am requesting this information. I would like to know the background and
expertise regarding out of hospital birth for each member who had a hand in the
decision to go to the AMA.
We live in an odd era where once something is said or recommended by
a legitimate organization such as ACOG it has deep ramifications never
intended, such as becoming fodder for trial lawyers trying to squeeze the lifeblood
and dignity out of your members. Or forcing women to travel hundreds of
miles in labor to find a supportive facility. Or even worse, to have them arrive in
a VBAC banned hospital and refuse surgery. Can this be the best we can do
for our patients? Remember, your VBAC statement was meant to be only a
recommendation but quickly became the rule by which hospital administrators, risk
managers and anesthesia departments of smaller hospital banned this option for
thousands of women. An option, that in proper hands, was the safe and accepted
standard of care for 30 years. In fact, you still have an ACOG VBAC brochure that
recommends this option!
For those of us working at smaller hospitals where VBAC was banned
due to lack of emergency help (anesthesia, OR crews, etc.) there is a big
question that has perplexed us, that no administrator seems to be willing or able
to answer. That question is: "If a hospital cannot handle an emergency
c/section for VBACs, and most emergencies are for fetal bradycardia, hemorrhage
(ie. abruption) or shoulder dystocia, not for ruptured uteri, then how can
they do obstetrics at all?" For they seem to still be able to have a
maternity ward without in house anesthesia. Will someday ACOG, in their great wisdom but
seeming disconnect from reality, make a "recommendation" that little
hospitals stop providing obstetric services? Will this better serve women and their
communities throughout America?
I am frightened and angered by what you have done in my name. Now I
ask you to defend your position in encouraging the AMA to lobby Congress for
another restriction on the freedom of choice that belongs to women and their
families. Those choices include midwifery and the right to have the most
beautiful and life changing event occur wherever best fits their desire.
Midwives are well trained and required to have obstetrical backup.
They have very special relationships with their patients and want the very best
outcomes for them. They do not need me or you to police them. We have
a habit in our country over the past 40 years of thinking we can legislate out
stupidity. All that has done is erode the individual freedoms that belong, by
birthright, to each of us. I would hope you trust your Fellows to know their
specialty, their colleagues, and what is best for the patient as an individual.
These decisions do not belong to politicians or faceless committees.
You should have more faith in your members to give balanced informed
consent. Again, my recommendation to you is to put all your considerable energy into
changing our legal malpractice system. Those of us actually practicing
medicine and caring for patients know this to be the greatest threat to the
mission and responsibility we have chosen to undertake.
I look forward to your response and possibly the beginning of a meaningful
dialogue.
Sincerely,
Stuart J. Fischbein, MD FACOG
Medical Advisor, Birth Action Coalition
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
ADL
(Activities of Daily Life - aka random pics I just uploaded)
The kids' favorite breakfast - popcorn with olive oil, salt and Brewer's Yeast (leftover from mom and dad movie-watching the night before):
What happens when girls do art (thank goodness for Crayola washables!). It's a very bad picture of Baby L, as he was NOT happy being held in place for a picture:
And L's favorite place to hang out - the recycle and trash bins! Please note the 10-minute pants I whipped up this afternoon with a couple fat quarters on sale at JoAnn. Can I just say, I LOVE my new serger?!?!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Just horsin' around
From the ranch last week:
Papa Bass was out visiting over the long weekend, and the girls got to go spend the night at the ranch on Thursday. Miss E is the next horse-whisperer, and spent a solid two hours grooming, riding, and loving on Captain (above).
We loved seeing Papa - who has lost 70 pounds!! - he looks fantastic and we are so appreciative of the effort he made to see the grandkids. Thank you!!
Papa Bass was out visiting over the long weekend, and the girls got to go spend the night at the ranch on Thursday. Miss E is the next horse-whisperer, and spent a solid two hours grooming, riding, and loving on Captain (above).
We loved seeing Papa - who has lost 70 pounds!! - he looks fantastic and we are so appreciative of the effort he made to see the grandkids. Thank you!!
Friday, June 13, 2008
Flood!
I'm a little slow keeping up with the news. My dear Iowan friends, I can't believe what you're experiencing right now!
This picture shows the main road into town from I-80...well, what WAS the main road *gasp*:
And here is the carousel (middle, colorful top showing) and swing sets (in the lower left, only the tops visible) down in Lower City Park where the kids spent many, many hours playing:
So many more unbelievable pictures here. Please be sure to update us, IC folk. Hope you are all safe and well, all things considered.
This picture shows the main road into town from I-80...well, what WAS the main road *gasp*:
And here is the carousel (middle, colorful top showing) and swing sets (in the lower left, only the tops visible) down in Lower City Park where the kids spent many, many hours playing:
So many more unbelievable pictures here. Please be sure to update us, IC folk. Hope you are all safe and well, all things considered.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Haircuts
The girls got super short haircuts last weekend. They both have such fine, thin hair that it's impossible to grow long...plus with swimming and sunscreen and hot weather, it's just nicer to chop it off!
And speaking of sun, swim, and scorching temps, here's the baby not swimming...but checking out the pool pump!
(Baby L actually got a haircut too...just in the back, where he had this big thick long hair at the base of his skull. We trimmed it off so it's now the same as the rest of his barely-there hair.)
And speaking of sun, swim, and scorching temps, here's the baby not swimming...but checking out the pool pump!
(Baby L actually got a haircut too...just in the back, where he had this big thick long hair at the base of his skull. We trimmed it off so it's now the same as the rest of his barely-there hair.)
Apples
Last week we went to a friend's house for Apple Day...P has a giant apple tree in her yard, and we picked tons of apples, then diced and sliced them into yummy oatmeal-topped crumbles. This weekend we had our own apple day, borrowing M's apple corer/slicer, and processed the rest of our apples we'd brought home:
That little contraption is the coolest tool ever! The girls must have processed 30 apples BY THEMSELVES!
Here's what we made:
Put a bunch of those nicely sliced apples in a baking pan
Toss with lots of cinnamon and a dash of salt
Add ~1/3 cup of water
Mix together and put on top:
Oatmeal, mostly processed into flour
More oats, whole
Almond flour (ground almonds)
~1/2 cup brown sugar
Palm oil shortening and/or butter - enough to make the oats all sticky/clumpy
Bake at 350 for about 40 minutes.
That little contraption is the coolest tool ever! The girls must have processed 30 apples BY THEMSELVES!Here's what we made:
Put a bunch of those nicely sliced apples in a baking pan
Toss with lots of cinnamon and a dash of salt
Add ~1/3 cup of water
Mix together and put on top:
Oatmeal, mostly processed into flour
More oats, whole
Almond flour (ground almonds)
~1/2 cup brown sugar
Palm oil shortening and/or butter - enough to make the oats all sticky/clumpy
Bake at 350 for about 40 minutes.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Waaaaaaaahhh!
My baby has a loose tooth. Of course, at six, Ms. C is not such a baby anymore LOL.
Never thought a tooth could bring me to tears, but indeed it did tonight.
Never thought a tooth could bring me to tears, but indeed it did tonight.
Final commentary on bag slings...
One more answer that I think will clarify the particular danger of bag slings (Infantino, Munchkin and JJ Cole) :
A pouch that is too large for the wearer or is worn incorrectly could indeed pose some of the same dangers. Use of any other type of baby carrier carries some risk -- as does use of any stroller, swing, bouncer, etc. Traditional soft carriers are in fact quite safe compared to just about any other product used with or for infants; even when worn inexpertly, they very rarely cause serious injuries, whereas babies are quite often hurt in, for example, falls from high chairs or strollers when the harness isn't fastened or something else about the way the gear is used isn't "proper".
The problem with the bag slings in particular is that even when they are used "properly" -- that is, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions -- the risks are too high due to the design of the carrier. It's just not possible in many cases to use these purse-like carriers in a way that an experienced user of traditional soft carriers would consider "proper." The structured, often padded or stiffened body, the high and often gathered or elasticized sides, and the difficulty of adjusting to a small enough size for an average mother, as well as the thick fabric, combine to force the baby into a poor position, restrict the baby's airflow, AND prevent the wearer from easily sensing the baby's breathing and movements. No other type of carrier (as far as I know) combines so many problematic design features in quite the same way.
Yes, in a traditional pouch or any other soft carrier it is possible to wear the baby poorly positioned, with fabric across the baby's face restricting airflow. But it is relatively easy to sense and correct those problems and most parents find themselves doing so instinctively. Even if they don't really quite know how best to go about it, they support the baby with their arms or reposition the baby or shift the fabric around to get it off the baby's face. If they don't get any better at it, with training or by trial and error, usually they conclude that slings just aren't comfortable and stop using them. This is unfortunate, but at least their babies generally are unharmed by the experience. If the parents are able to get help or to figure out on their own how to get the baby into a better position -- as you clearly did -- so much the better! My fear is that parents who are attempting to use a bag sling just don't have a fair chance at learning to babywear correctly -- and their babies may suffer dramatically if they think, "this must be okay because that's what the instructions say" instead of giving up because it doesn't feel right.
Now, I'm done, I swear :)
Oh, want a better option? Try MayaWrap or one of Rixa's handmade versions! Both are excellent ring slings!
A pouch that is too large for the wearer or is worn incorrectly could indeed pose some of the same dangers. Use of any other type of baby carrier carries some risk -- as does use of any stroller, swing, bouncer, etc. Traditional soft carriers are in fact quite safe compared to just about any other product used with or for infants; even when worn inexpertly, they very rarely cause serious injuries, whereas babies are quite often hurt in, for example, falls from high chairs or strollers when the harness isn't fastened or something else about the way the gear is used isn't "proper".
The problem with the bag slings in particular is that even when they are used "properly" -- that is, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions -- the risks are too high due to the design of the carrier. It's just not possible in many cases to use these purse-like carriers in a way that an experienced user of traditional soft carriers would consider "proper." The structured, often padded or stiffened body, the high and often gathered or elasticized sides, and the difficulty of adjusting to a small enough size for an average mother, as well as the thick fabric, combine to force the baby into a poor position, restrict the baby's airflow, AND prevent the wearer from easily sensing the baby's breathing and movements. No other type of carrier (as far as I know) combines so many problematic design features in quite the same way.
Yes, in a traditional pouch or any other soft carrier it is possible to wear the baby poorly positioned, with fabric across the baby's face restricting airflow. But it is relatively easy to sense and correct those problems and most parents find themselves doing so instinctively. Even if they don't really quite know how best to go about it, they support the baby with their arms or reposition the baby or shift the fabric around to get it off the baby's face. If they don't get any better at it, with training or by trial and error, usually they conclude that slings just aren't comfortable and stop using them. This is unfortunate, but at least their babies generally are unharmed by the experience. If the parents are able to get help or to figure out on their own how to get the baby into a better position -- as you clearly did -- so much the better! My fear is that parents who are attempting to use a bag sling just don't have a fair chance at learning to babywear correctly -- and their babies may suffer dramatically if they think, "this must be okay because that's what the instructions say" instead of giving up because it doesn't feel right.
Now, I'm done, I swear :)
Oh, want a better option? Try MayaWrap or one of Rixa's handmade versions! Both are excellent ring slings!
Monday, June 2, 2008
More on "bag" slings...follow-up
In response to a comment on my previous post, I posted a question on the original tbw thread (where I got the bag sling info) on how to differentiate between the "bad" Infantino-style bag slings vs. the mei tais, pouches, and ring slings I love to recommend...this was the response:
Answer #1:
My answer would be: YES, correct positioning is always important, however, in a sling without all that padding and extra thick fabric correct positioning is much easier to attain since you can see exactly where your baby's body is positioned, and if the airway is clear, since you have an unobstructed view of your infant, unlike in the "bag slings".
And answer #2 (from the blog author, M'Liss, responding to the above quotation):
Exactly
THE number one concern I have with bag slings is that it is so, so, so difficult to see a baby inside one - unless the parent opens it up every minute. For instance, if baby spits up and starts to choke the parent wouldn't know. For comparison even back carries in a wrap are, IME, much safer because a newborn spitting up on your back - well, you'd know pretty darn quick 
And in other TBW type carriers you can feel the baby move, breathe, etc. Bag slings - no clue what is happening to baby inside the bottomless pit.
Now to get back to the blog question. The person that posted does have a point about any carrier, used incorrectly, having the potential to be unsafe. But therein lies the difference. Used incorrectly or designed incorrectly. Following the bag sling instructions to the letter will not make the sling any more safe or comfortable because the design is seriously flawed.
Does that help??
Answer #1:
My answer would be: YES, correct positioning is always important, however, in a sling without all that padding and extra thick fabric correct positioning is much easier to attain since you can see exactly where your baby's body is positioned, and if the airway is clear, since you have an unobstructed view of your infant, unlike in the "bag slings".
And answer #2 (from the blog author, M'Liss, responding to the above quotation):
Exactly
THE number one concern I have with bag slings is that it is so, so, so difficult to see a baby inside one - unless the parent opens it up every minute. For instance, if baby spits up and starts to choke the parent wouldn't know. For comparison even back carries in a wrap are, IME, much safer because a newborn spitting up on your back - well, you'd know pretty darn quick And in other TBW type carriers you can feel the baby move, breathe, etc. Bag slings - no clue what is happening to baby inside the bottomless pit.Now to get back to the blog question. The person that posted does have a point about any carrier, used incorrectly, having the potential to be unsafe. But therein lies the difference. Used incorrectly or designed incorrectly. Following the bag sling instructions to the letter will not make the sling any more safe or comfortable because the design is seriously flawed.
Does that help??
Sunday, June 1, 2008
PSA
Just got a link to a bit of information on the dangers of "bag" slings. These are the ones sold at Target, Babies R Us, and other big box stores...please check it out, and pass it along to anybody who might have one...the blog was put together by a former NICU nurse turned babywearing teacher (she's the one who did the Mothering article not too long ago).
Basically, bag slings are not a safe way to carry your baby...they encourage poor positioning, do not allow for easy monitoring of the baby, and do not give access to fresh air.
Please note, this is ONLY for the bag sling carriers (i.e. Infantino's SlingRider). This is NOT applicable to ring slings, pouches, wraps, mei tais, etc.
Happy babywearing :)
Basically, bag slings are not a safe way to carry your baby...they encourage poor positioning, do not allow for easy monitoring of the baby, and do not give access to fresh air.
Please note, this is ONLY for the bag sling carriers (i.e. Infantino's SlingRider). This is NOT applicable to ring slings, pouches, wraps, mei tais, etc.
Happy babywearing :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)