Maternal Deaths During Childbirth

On homebirthdebate,
From Someone:
Amy, I posted the other day numerous stories of deaths that occurred as a direct result of birthing in a hospital with careless attendants who were healthy and would have been fine at home. All you have to do is go read stories where deaths have occured in the hospital. How did the baby or mother die? Were they otherwise healthy? Would they have survived if the intervention or a different model of care had been applied? That's not too easy to figure out, and I've posted already SEVERAL stories where being in the hospital caused a death that wouldn't have occured at home.

Someone, please feel free to post your information here.

There are those who believe that the woman who choses homebirth is putting her needs before her baby's (based on one person's belief in the excess of neonatal death rates at home).

First, judgements and decisions ought to be withheld until there is a thorough study of the long-term impact of the interventions that save babies' lives in the hospital. Based on evidence-based research about when and what is appropriate (induction, supine, coached pushing, time-frames, resuscitation, etc., etc.) that is not adhered to in daily obstetric practice, a majority of babies receive MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY inductions, drugs, and other interventions. (Drug were never shown safe before using and retrospectively are shown to be dangerous, but still used for the majority of births).

Medical caregivers shrug their shoulders over the maternal death rates from induction with cytotec, ignore FDA and nursing association warnings about the danger of vacuum extraction, and don't mind sounding stupid when they say there is no cause for colic and advise "It'll just go away anyway. " With these and the ongoing money and efforts to research, educate, and lower the incidence, cause, and cure for asthma, autism, and SIDS, for example, how does the public blindly trust (and ignore) the danger of hospital birth to the SURVIVING baby. How is it that none of these high-caliber scientific endeavors EVER look at the most important physiological experience of life? So that the causes of infant mortality rates are not ever related to birth trauma? Who pays for and supports the research that supports the medical field? Those with vested interests. There has not been an adequate, honest, scientific look at the REASONS for infant mortality rates within the first year of life.

Second, please check out the Safe Motherhood Quilt Project. This is a memorial project for the women who have died in childbirth since 1982. Few, if any of these women, died in homebirths. I have seen this quilt twice and it is powerful. I was honored to hold it for others to pass by and read the names of the women as Ina May Gaskin shared each woman's story. Start with the story of Lynne Saiter, 30, died in December, 1999 at a small hospital in Sydney, New York. She is survived by three children from earlier pregnancies, all born vaginally, and the baby from this pregnancy, who emerged from the experience severely brain-damaged. http://www.rememberthemothers.net/quilt/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=52. Click on Quilt Pieces to go back. Any woman with birthing experiences in the hospital, such as myself, induced with cytotec, can not help but whisper the prayer, "But by the Grace of God, go I."

Also, visit The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation. Thirty-two year old healthy Tatia Oden and her baby, both died as a result of Cytotec induction. www.tatia.org/index.hmtl. Perhaps, one of the many reasons we have to be sad for and honor Tatia, her baby, and her family is that she and her baby were NON-CONSENTING, UNINFORMED research subjects. Because of women like Tatia and her baby, the medical establishment was able to learn more about induction with a drug contraindicated in pregnancy.

History:

In Dec. 2001, Tatia Oden French entered a well-known and well-respected hospital to deliver her first child. She was 32 years old, in perfect health, and looking forward to a natural, unassisted childbirth. There were no problems during the pregnancy. According to her doctor's calculations, she was a little under 2 weeks overdue. She was given the drug Cytotec to induce her labor. Cytotec, also known as Misoprostol, is a drug manufactured to treat ulcers. It is NOT approved by the FDA, or the drug company, to induce labor. Ten hours after being administered Cytotec, Tatia suffered hyper-stimulation of her uterus, an amniotic fluid embolism (AEF) was released, an emergency C-Section was performed because the baby was also in distress. Both Tatia and her baby Zorah died in the operating room.

The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation, a non-profit corporation, was formed in March 2003 to give ALL women of childbearing age complete information concerning medical interventions and drugs which are administered during childbirth. We do this hoping that women may then be able to make FULLY informed decisions regarding the birth of their children. The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation offers presentations regarding the issues of maternal mortality, informed consent and the off-label use of drugs-specifically the use of Cytotec to induce labor. We strive to provide as much information as possible to as many people as possible regarding these issues. We believe that ALL known side effects of the various drugs and procedures used in labor and delivery, should be explained to women BEFORE they agree to these interventions. Without this information it is impossible to give fully INFORMED consent.
From http://tatia.org/index.html

Natural Birthing Options: Technology in Birth- First Do No Harm
By Marsden Wagner. M.D.

To understand why so much unnecessary technology is used during pregnancy and birth, it is necessary to understand how technology comes to be used. We must first ask, is the use of a new technology preceded by careful scientific evaluation, then followed by official approval for use and requirements for education of doctors in its use? Sadly, the truth lies in another direction. An example of a recent birth technology now rapidly spreading in the United States will illustrate the reality.

Several years ago a drug with the generic name misoprostol (called Cytotec by the drug company that manufactures it) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a prescription drug to be used for certain ailments of the stomach. It is known that one of its side effects is severe cramps or contractions of the uterus, and for this reason the label says it should never be used on pregnant women. Obstetricians, however, discovered that given orally or vaginally, Cytotec, because of its side effect of violent uterine cramping, can induce (start) or accelerate labor.

So without any prior testing of Cytotec for labor induction, obstetricians began to use it on their birthing women. Doctors on the Internet began to describe their experience with this new way of inducing labor. One doctor wrote, "I must say I have heard some great things about Cytotec myself. Just be careful. The stuff turns the cervix to complete MUSHIE" (web message emphasis, not mine). A few studies have appeared in obstetric journals but all are too small to give adequate scientific evidence about this use of the drug. But these studies did show some risks, such as a tendency for the fetus's heart to start racing and show other signs of fetal distress, and for a few women to have their uterus explode or rupture.

A review of the scientific evidence by a highly prestigious scientific body says that because of the lack of sufficient scientific evaluation and the reports of serious side effects, the use of Cytotec for labor induction "cannot be recommended for routine use at this stage." That Cytotec is not approved by the FDA for labor induction, is not approved for this use by the drug manufacturer (who still states on the label that it is not to be given to pregnant women), is not endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or midwifery organizations, nor does it have scientists' approval for routine use-all has had no apparent effect on the enthusiasm with which doctors are starting to use it. And there is nothing to stop doctors from using Cytotec for this "off label" purpose because although the FDA must approve a drug before it goes on the market, once it is on the market for a specified purpose, any doctor can use it in any dose for any purpose on any patient. After one obstetrician in South Dakota proudly told me over lunch that he was the first doctor in his community to use Cytotec for labor induction and now urges other doctors to use it, he justified his actions: "We will wait forever for the bureaucrats at the FDA in Washington DC to approve drugs, so we must try them out ourselves if we want progress." When asked, he admitted he doesn't tell the women to whom he is giving Cytotec that the drug is not approved for this purpose, nor does he ask for informed consent. He scoffed at my suggestion that he is experimenting on women without their knowledge, much less their consent.

The Oregon State Health Department told me their records show Cytotec to be the most common way of inducing labor in that state, and it is used on thousands of laboring women. The use of Cytotec on birthing women has spread like wildfire for a very simple reason, told to me by many doctors: its use brings back the possibility of "daylight obstetrics"-that is, women brought to the hospital first thing in the morning and induced with Cytotec will give birth by late afternoon and the doctor can be home for dinner. How many women will have their uterus ruptured before a court case finally applies the brakes to this practice? I personally welcome learning of cases where Cytotec induction was used without fully informed consent and there was subsequent uterine rupture, cervical laceration or other serious complications. The unsystematic, untested way in which Cytotec for labor induction was introduced and disseminated is typical for the technologies used during pregnancy and birth. Ultrasound scanning during pregnancy and electronic fetal monitoring during labor are further examples of uncontrolled introduction and dissemination of untested technologies. There is a big gap between what we know to be the best scientific maternity care practices and what is actually practiced. As a result, there is no consumer protection except litigation. Doctors blame lawyers and women for the fact that over 70 percent of American obstetricians have been sued one or more times, but litigation is the only way a woman and her family can protect themselves against malpractice.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/9/natural%20birthing%20options.htm