Intracranial Hemorrhage -- My perspective

We found that 26% of asymptomatic neonates delivered vaginally had ICH at MR imaging, and this finding suggests that ICH is a fairly common consequence of a normal vaginal delivery. ICH has been thought to be unusual in full-term neonates, though the results of this study and those of the study of Whitby et al suggest otherwise.

Intracranial Hemorrhage in Asymptomatic Neonates: Prevalence on MR Images and Relationship...Looney et al. Radiology.2006; 242: 535-541

The high prevalence of ICH in our asymptomatic population is important for several reasons. Our findings indicate that vaginal birth may be inherently traumatic to the neonatal brain and can result in a spectrum of ICHs, which include subdural hematomas and subarachnoid, intraparenchymal, and germinal matrix hemorrhages.

Talk about SUBJECTIVE, biased conclusions. Vaginal birth is inherently (did Amy write it?) taumatic to the neonatal brain? It would be more informative to know how many of the babies' labors were induced, how many had epidural anesthesia, and how many of the women were in supine position. Maybe it is unusal in non-intervention births. I would bet money I don't have that there were few if any births that did not include induction, anesthesia, and supine position. I would be curious to know more about the control group that had no risks? No risks? First, doesn't the medical profession say there is no such thing? Aren't all women "at-risk" in birth, according to them? Second, if they are "no risk" why are they at the hospital? How is this determined prior to birth and two weeks of age? I could go on and on. Further, it would be enlightening, I am sure, to have a control group of babies born non-induced, no drugs, and with mothers in upright birthing positions. Now that would be a QUALITY study to determine not only the impact of a NON-INTERVENTION vaginal birth, but impact of the other interventions as well. Science is getting there.

An interesting finding is that asymptomatic babies were found to have subdural hemorrahage -- image that! - reminding me again of the unconscious, unscieintific way in which caregivers and parents DENY the baby's experience. Physicians, nurses, midwives, and parents do it -- deny the baby's experience and pain. After a vacuum extraction birth in the hospital or a thirty hour homebirth labor and four hours of pushing, I have heard doctors and midwives say, "Oh, the baby looks good," or "Baby seems fine." All irrelevant of the APGAR scores which does NOT assess or evaluate the baby's true experience and condition. Now we have some research to show the baby's experience does cause a bodily injury (DUH!) and here we have more denial .... it's attributed to vaginal birth. Jeesh. As if when they use the phrase "vaginal birth" we all collectively go "oooh, uh hum, right" like that defines something we all know and agree upon.

Now, do some research comparing vaginal birth with no induction, no epidural, and upright birth position to the groups in this study. Anyone one to volunteer for the non-intervention group and see if your baby has intracranial hemorrhage? Hey, now ... wouldn't that be a great study to look at the safety between hospital and homebirth? And, to see which interventions are most connected to brain injury?

The long-term consequences of these hemorrhages are unknown at this time, though it is likely that small subdural hemorrhages resolve quickly without substantial consequence.

Riiiiight. And they know this ... how? Because they don't know what to do with a wounded baby?? Because we believe the laboring and birthing baby is an unfeeling blob? Rather than a fully alive brain with a billion neurons taking in, recording, and imprinting every second of what is happening.

I have previously pointed out these statements of supposed "scientific fact" in science journals looking at the effects of intervention and drugs during birth and on the mother, but not looking at the birthing baby --- until it's over. Then, as long as baby is alive, "baby doesn't appear to ... blah, blah, blah." The baby pictured here was believed to be ok, even though monitored in nursery. No one -- physicians, nurses, or CNM at this babies birth even SPOKE of the bruising. Babies are believed to be "ok" as long as they are alive, even when they need medical attention. That seems so odd to me -- to deny the fact that baby is an emotional being and that the brain is recording it all.


So, the reason for the bleeds is attributed to VAGINAL BIRTH!? Who paid for this research -- that would be interesting. The statement in the study about the bleeds in baby's brain is a typical statement by medical world -- long term effects "unknown at this time" and goes on to make a sweeping statement like "it is likely small subdural hemorrhage resolve quickly without substantial consequence." What kind of science is this?? Where is the evidence of that? Lord o'f mercy --- they JUST discovered the bleeds. It is crazy-making -- literally. Because of wishful thinking or just not knowing what to do to "fix" something? Or, no one wants to deal with their feelings of guilt and remorse for harming babies for years while in denial and ignorance. (And Dr. Amy says her professional colleagues call women ignorant who support midwifery --- so "what else do they got" to protect themselves and their babies?). Over and over and over, we hear, "baby seems fine" or "baby looked ok."

Medical caregivers and parents and most of society go along with this non-science based delusional thinking (DENIAL) because of a couple of simple reasons. 1) They have been indoctrinated to believe that babies, even their own baby, are not a fully functioning human being. They believe their baby's brain is somehow not functioning during birth, although the baby was responding to voices and learning Mozart in the womb. 2) Their own experience as a baby was also denied. Most adults are not in control of their earliest prenatal experiences -- those emotions and behaviors one just can't quite figure out no matter how many years of therapy one has. Denial is another word for ignorance perhaps. Denial, obsession, avoidance, drugs -- they all mask the preverabal emotions still trying to be expressed and heard. 3) Not believing in the fully aware and engaging human being leads one to be able to do unthinkable things to a baby and to believe it doesn't matter as s/he won't remember. They all add up to Denial. And, probably more research on non-consenting and non-informed human babies.

Denial prevents otherwise intelligent and caring people from exploring their own birth experience as the root of present issues. Denial prevents them from believing that we need to change what we do to babies in birth. The end result of denial, denial, denial is more denial that prevents them from believing there are techniques to support healing of the brain at any age. So, rather than deal with one's own consequences of trauma and separation from the mother during the primal period it is easier to keep going along the path of denial ... "babies don't remember birth" .... "it just goes away" .... "baby seems ok" ...... however,

Waaaaa hhhaa wahhhh ahhhhhhh ahhh wahhh waaaaaAAAAHHH ... Shush. shush. shssh. You are ok. You're ok. Shhh.shhhhhh. Have some chocolate. Have a beer. An Advil. Shhhh. Don't you know you don't really hurt? Go buy something. Shhh. shhhh. You are ok, damn it. Then take some Zoloft or or Paxil. Or, cocaine or meth or heroin.