Happy Halloween! (Ghost Stories)

image courtesy of my husband's pumpkin carving skillz

I originally posted this as a contest entry for Halloween stories. Everything here is completely true to the best of my knowledge and represents paranormal experiences I've had--just in time for Halloween!



My experience with the paranormal began as a child. I was always 'sensitive' to unseen things and was good at predicting small events, like phone calls and things that people were going to say.

When I was 12, I had a best friend (who was basically my ONLY friend at the time) and we both became sick and missed school. We saw each other at the Boys and Girls club and she asked me to come home with her. Afraid of getting in trouble (and afraid of going a new place without anyone knowing where I was), I begged off and went home.

At home, I talked with her on the phone for a while and taught her "American Pie" ("This will be the day that I die") after "Paint It Black" and some other oldies. She loved them. At the end of the call, she had to go take her medicine and we sang American Pie one last time.

That night, I had terrible dreams about fire and trying to find her.

The next day, my mom came home and said, "Heather, it's April..."

I just looked up and said, "Is she dead?"

There had been a fire and because of the cough medicine she took, she never woke up. Her mother lost both her daughters that night (her sons survived) partly because of the burglar bars on their windows. April was 12, like me and her sister was in high school.

Then there was the terribly haunted house I lived in in high school (a toaster once flew across the kitchen at my mom's head while I was in the living room, coming to the kitchen--it flew outward by about 2' right at her from on top of the fridge to where she was cooking at the stove and there were people who absolutely refused to set foot in our house--they would get to the threshold and freeze, uncomfortable and then leave... amongst too many other stories). My best friend was the only person comfortable with being downstairs alone at night there. There was one ghost on the stairs that kept any others from coming up.

On to when my husband and I first met in person (we met online months before). He flew here and then flew us down to New Orleans to meet with more friends from our online group. While there, we stayed in an Inn in Geismar. We had one jacket and hung it on the single coat rod. Randomly, it would slide back and forth along the totally level rod. We checked everywhere and there was no draft, no airflow at all to move it. And it slid both ways.

Going back a way, I was on a family vacation with a friend, coming back from Colorado (to Missouri) when it became late and we pulled into this small town to find a place to sleep. I could see shapes moving out in the darkness and this pervasive sense of Wrong filled me with terror and the need to leave. Immediately.

I started telling my friend we couldn't stay there, we had to get away, get away now. Her walkie talkie buzzed on and her parents (in a separate vehicle) said, "Your sister is freaking out and says we have to leave. We're thinking we might want to find another town to stay in tonight."

My friend confirmed that I was acting the exact same way and thankfully her parents were spiritual people who believed us. I don't remember what town it was, just a small one in KS before we got to Salina, which is where we ended up staying. But in two separate vehicles, her little sister and I saw and felt the exact same thing. She described exactly what I had.

And for my last ghost story... In the last house we lived in before this one, there was one night where I felt this incredibly disturbing feeling. I felt sick and terrified and knew exactly where it was coming from--like hearing a sound, only with a completely different sense.

I felt it moving around the house and locked the doors in fear. Then this scratching sound started on the back porch door (enclosed porch--the door was non-functional--we used it as a library). I was freaking out and staring at the source of the sound and then a banging started against it. I touched the glass of the door with my left hand that led to the porch and jerked my hand back. There were scratches up and down my left arm. I started praying frantically and it faded away.

When my husband (then fiance) got home, I had him look and there were scratches on my arm and my shoulder where I couldn't see.

I warded the house after that. In this one, there's some disturbing negative sense that both I and my youngest feel toward the back porch/back yard, but the house is basically neutral.

Well, there's a short summary of many of the ghost stories I've lived personally. Happy Halloween!

image again courtesy of my husband's pumpkin carving skillz

Cosleeping

Two things inspired this: One, a trip to the pediatrician where she was nosier than she's ever been and one of her questions was to ask if Lilly had her own room (yes, she does--no, she doesn't sleep in it and no, we didn't say that because it's none of her business and I don't appreciate having another person's culture and family structure preferences pushed on me, which is what I suspect would have followed). Two, there was a Carnival of Breastfeeding on nursing and sleep, so a bunch of posts about sleep popped up. Since I nurse while cosleeping, that's what this entry is going to be about.

So, I went into parenting with a different perspective than most Americans on the issue of sleep. To me, the idea of having a baby in another room, where you aren't aware of what's happening to them, if they're truly safe or even alive, is disturbing. I would never trust a mechanical monitor to tell me that my baby is breathing, nor would I trust that my baby is not being injured like hundreds are every year by their cribs. Hell, SIDS used to be called crib/cot death.

I coslept with my mom as a baby, toddler and child. Like many Japanese children (the culture which held a special place in my mother's heart and influenced such parenting practices as cosleeping, breastfeeding for two years and baby wearing), I was in my mother's bed until I was about 8 (the average age for a Japanese child is actually 10 before they begin sleeping alone--if another baby is born, usually they sleep with another family member), which is roughly when I was ready to sleep on my own... to a certain extent. There were extenuating circumstances and I probably would have stuck around longer if I'd had the choice--but I'm glad I had the time I did and that my mom followed my cues on where to sleep, more or less.

It's not normal for humans to sleep alone. 1/4th of American couples sleep in separate beds, however, and the vast majority of American children sleep alone. Some are lucky enough to share a room or even bed with a sibling and a few are lucky enough to have access to a family bed as long as they want.

It's a cycle. In infancy (or early childhood), the baby is isolated, being forced to learn to sleep alone, being denied the human contact that they need (24/7--parenting is not a 6am-8pm job) and it continues through childhood. This creates a need for an artificial sleeping environment that is not conducive to bed sharing at any point in life. In fact, most couples have to learn to sleep together and many are just incapable in the end.

Throw in a healthy baby, who moves, wriggles, snores, coos, wakes and needs all. night. long. and it can be something that a Western-reared parent just can not handle. They can't sleep and so they fall back into the cycle that they were raised to fall into--by sending the baby off to sleep alone so that they can get their stimulating-sensory-event-free sleep.

Cosleeping doesn't have to be bed sharing. It includes just having the crib in the parents' room (which is actually recommended by the AAP for the first 6 months of life--which very few people seem to know) and then the toddler bed and kid's bed until they're ready to be alone. It doesn't have to be an intrusion into mom and dad's space--there are healthier compromises. But this, too, can be very hard for the parent who has been conditioned to sleep only in total darkness and silence.

A white noise machine (or a fan) can help many people get past the little noises in the night, but if baby's not in bed, that can defeat the 'mom wakes at the smallest sound' safety that's built in to protect our babies and keep their natural biorhythms going (which are attuned to our own).

It's not for everyone. People who smoke, drink, do drugs or take prescription sleep aids should never have baby in their bed (and if you smoke in the house, you shouldn't have a baby in the house at all--it's the number two direct cause of SIDS). That crib in the room can still be an option, however. People who are addicted to big, fluffy pillows and miles of bedding should not have baby in the bed. People who are exceptionally deep sleepers--same deal (and if you're drop dead exhausted from a sleep situation that's not working, that's not particularly safe, either!). Obesity? Well, that's a crock. The whole "overlying" thing makes it sound like fat people have no sense of touch. Without a secondary problem, that's just not the case. Secondary conditions that may cause dangerous sleeping habits that afflict obese people also affect thin people and should be taken into consideration with anyone before sharing bed with a baby.

The ideal situation for cosleeping is the biggest bed you can afford with the firmest mattress, on the floor (no frame and no headboard/footboard for baby to get caught in) with a parent/parents who is/are not under the influence of any substances, including prescription substances, with no pillows around the baby and no heavy blanket (baby does best in a sleep sack or something similar).

We do a family bed and sleep great. I know where my kids are (so no horror movie scenarios for me, thanks), they know where we are (no monsters to keep us coming back in so they don't feel lonely, scared, etc.) and when they're ready to have their own beds, that will be up to them. That's what works for our family. Like I said, I was raised to see the whole thing completely different from the culture I am surrounded by. I would never ask of my children what I wouldn't want for my own life. And in this case, that is to be alone while they sleep. Finally, it facilitates nursing as well as our connection. Never do I feel as at peace as those last moments of looking at my sleeping family before I let myself succumb to sleep.

Welfare Drug Testing: Why I'm Against It

Photo used with Creative Commons permission © Pink Sherbet Photography / Flickr

So, I'm constantly seeing, "If I have to get drug tested for a job, welfare recipients should be tested for drugs," and it makes me cringe. The first time I heard it, it made sense and I agreed (after all, I'm a prohibitionist). Then I actually thought about it.

Let's start with what Welfare is. In my state, it's a pittance of less than $300 that only goes to needy parents. If you don't have children, you do not qualify. There is a 5 year limit on this assistance--for life. Meaning that once the 5 years of assistance has been reached, you can never get it again.

The ONLY people truly hurt by this would be the children. Suddenly, kids who were already barely getting enough to get by wouldn't even have that. Would that make their parents clean up and get help? No. It's not even doubtful, but history shows that it would do the opposite. The further stressed parents (who couldn't even keep clean long enough for a damn drug test they'd have KNOWN was coming) would just delve deeper into drugs to deal with their problems (because if they're on drugs in the first place, then they have no coping skills in the first place). If you are rejected for a job because you tested positive for drugs, then that's all that happens. The children would receive no help by having their parents cleaned up AND they wouldn't have food or necessities that the money was going to bring them.

Drug testing would add $6 million to the cost of Welfare per year for new users of the program. To put that in perspective, new users cost about $2.3 million on their own. So it would triple the additional money each year--in a state that spends less on its poor than any other in the country. The bill that was brought up to force this didn't go through because it was primarily a publicity stunt.

However, in Florida, they made the recipients, who make less than $80/week to feed their kids, pay for it out of pocket. Then, when they pass (as 98% did), the State had to repay them. Assuming they could afford half a week's money to prove that they are in the majority of people--those who don't use drugs. 70% of illegal drug users are employed full-time.

Now, why it isn't comparable to job drug testing. Why do you get tested for drugs for a job? Because if you are on drugs, then your job performance is going to be impeded. You aren't going to be able to perform the duties of your job--which is going to pay far, far more than Welfare, even if you're working as a waitress at half minimum wage. It has nothing to do with the law and once you've been rejected for the job for drugs, that's the end of the story.

So, this would cost the state more money, only cause harm to children who are already in a horrible position and doesn't serve a purpose like drug testing for employment does. What's more, it's already been ruled unconstitutional by federal court in 1999 when Michigan instituted the program and was slapped with a restraining order to cease and desist immediately (Marchwinski v. Howard, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled this unconstitutional).

The main proponents of such an act are people who constantly quote the Constitution. Well, you can't have it both ways! Either the Constitution is valid for EVERY citizen or it's not valid at all. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to uphold, either.

Now, the MO bill did address two key issues: the purposelessness of the bill and the food taken out of the children's mouths (the second by allowing third party benefits--but this might not apply to all children). They would have required testing only for those who the caseworker felt there was "reasonable suspicion" to suspect drug use and be given drug treatment assistance. Also, assuming that "reasonable suspicion" didn't include simply showing up at the office or being poor, it would avoid violating the constitutional bit about unreasonable search and seizure. Although I have my doubts about 1. Case worker bias and 2. training.

Now, none of this would affect me much because 1. I've never used and never will use drugs and 2. I'm not on Welfare. I hope to God I'm never that poor. I'd definitely be tested because my disability makes my behavior strange in stressful situations and I wouldn't care, but this isn't about my personal situation. It's about children who are living in terrible conditions who would be punished for their parents' poor decisions on top of the crappy circumstances they're already living in. It could also cause prideful people who are letting their families suffer because they don't want to ask for help, to be less inclined to get that help because their personal privacy was being violated (even though these kinds of people are very unlikely to fail a drug test).

It's just a mess. If the whole purpose were to get help for the families with drug problems, I'd be for it, possibly. But that's not why people go off about it. People are going off like children seeing another kid with a different toy. It doesn't matter that it's a dirty used water bottle and they have a shiny new doll, they are throwing a fit because the other child, after going through a humiliating trial and being teased constantly for their toy, was just given it when they had to spend their chore money on their toy. Because 'outrage' is all the rage.

And I'll close on a quote:

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Further recommended reading:

http://m.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/florida-40819-drug-fox.html
www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

This blog entry was updated 3-10-13

Why Rock the Boat? Quotes

A collection of my favorite quotes:

A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.
Mohandas Gandhi

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nearly everything you do is of no importance, but it is important that you do it.
Mohandas Gandhi

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.
Mohandas Gandhi

Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Mohandas Gandhi

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Stand upright, speak thy thoughts, declare The truth thou hast, that all may share; Be bold, proclaim it everywhere: They only live who dare.
Voltaire

We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The instruction we find in books is like fire. We fetch it from our neighbours, kindle it at home, communicate it to others, and it becomes the property of all.
Voltaire (this can be applies to the internet as well)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mohandas Gandhi

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow-men.
Mohandas Gandhi

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.
Mohandas Gandhi

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We may encounter many defeats but we must not be defeated.
Maya Angelou

The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory.
Mohandas Gandhi

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

All great achievements require time. --Maya Angelou

Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do. --Voltaire

Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. --Oscar Wilde

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. --Maya Angelou

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

Be the change that you want to see in the world. --Mohandas Ghandi

It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength. --Maya Angelou

We allow our ignorance to prevail upon us and make us think we can survive alone, alone in patches, alone in groups, alone in races, even alone in genders. --Maya Angelou

Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. (Ghandi)

42 Weeks Is As Good As 40 weeks For Infant Outcomes

My first daughter was born at 42 weeks, perfectly healthy and in the same state as her sister born at 39 weeks, 6 days. A lot of people asked "Why are they letting you go so long?" I can't tell you how angry that question makes me. It devalues me as a thinking adult--like I'm a child who needs permission to continue a pregnancy. The implication is that I'm incapable of making an intelligent, educated decision (which, according to studies, induction is NOT) and that I should be 'stopped' from continuing a healthy, normal-term pregnancy!

However, while the wording leaves much to be desired (and isn't meant as the insult that it is), I understand their concern. Most people are still only informed of the last major study done on infant outcomes at gestational ages--from 60 years ago. That's right, from the 1950s, when people still had black and white television and weren't aware x-rays caused cancer.

The fact is that we don't live in the 50s anymore and the technology and the times have changed--and so have mortality rates. Women's have gone up with inductions and unnecessary cesareans and so have infants'. But they are still FAR lower than in the 1950s! Especially when you remember that women were advised to eat very little back then so that they would not gain too much weight--after all, they needed to please their husbands above all else!

The concern for later weeks in pregnancy is the placenta. It is an organ unlike any other: it forms to perform one temporary function and is then expelled from the body. In that time, though, it requires the same care you would give any other organ: specialized care and nutrition for its optimal health. Placentas crave protein and most women just don't get enough.

Also, most people seem unaware that 42 weeks is as normal as 40 weeks. 41 weeks is actually more "average" than either of those weeks. And babies born anywhere from 38-42 weeks (spontaneously) have roughly the same outcomes today. You aren't even "overdue" medically until 42+1 days.

The following is an excerpt from Midwifery today:

A Timely Birth

Postdates, by itself, is not associated with poor pregnancy outcome. Extreme postdates or postdates in conjunction with poor fetal growth or developmental abnormalities does show an increased risk of stillbirth. But if growth restriction and birth defects are removed, there is no statistical increase in risk until a pregnancy reaches 42 weeks and no significant risk until past 43 weeks. The primary “evidence” of a sharp rise in stillbirth after 40 weeks—often misquoted as “double at 42 weeks and triple at 43 weeks”—seems to come from one study based on data collected in 1958.(1)

The first question one should ask is whether neonatal mortality statistics from the 1950s should be compared to modern statistics, since labor anesthetics and forceps rates were very different. Early labor monitoring was scanty and prenatal monitoring not yet developed. The McClure-Brown report shows a rise in stillbirth from 10/1000 at 40 weeks to about 18/1000 at 42 weeks. Yes, that is nearly double. But think about those numbers. Even the beginning point is nearly ten times the modern mortality rate. Either modern delivery methods are vastly different or something is wrong with the data collection. This study should be updated by research conducted at least in this century! Modern statistics show an almost flat rate of stillbirth from 40 weeks to 42, with a slight rise at 43 weeks (all numbers being close to 1/1,000).(2)

There is a creeping overreaction in dealing with postdates pregnancies. It is true that the stillbirth and fetal distress rates rise more sharply after 43 weeks, but it is also true that less than ten percent of babies born at 43 weeks suffer from postmaturity syndrome (over 90% show no signs). We should react to this rise by monitoring postdate pregnancies carefully and inducing if problems arise. But the rise in problems at 43 weeks does not imply a similar risk at 42 and 41 weeks. Postmaturity syndrome is a continuum. It becomes more likely as weeks progress past the due date but does not start on the due date. And the risks need to be compared to the risks of interventions. Induction, as already noted, is not risk free. In addition to the risks of prematurity, induced labors have higher rates of cesarean section, uterine rupture, cord prolapse, meconium aspiration, fetal distress, neonatal jaundice, maternal hemorrhage and even the rare but disastrous amniotic fluid embolism.

Large studies have shown that monitoring pregnancy while waiting for spontaneous labor results in fewer cesareans without any rise in the stillbirth rate. One retrospective study of almost 1,800 post-term (past 42 weeks) pregnancies with reliable dates compared this group with a matched group delivering “on time” (between 37 and 41 weeks). The perinatal mortality was similar in both groups (0.56 /1,000 in the post-term and 0.75/1,000 in the on-time group). The rates of meconium, shoulder dystocia and cesarean were almost identical. The rates of fetal distress, instrumental delivery and low Apgar were actually lower in the postdate group than in the on-time group.(3) This is only one of several studies showing postdate pregnancies can be monitored safely until delivery or until indications arise for induction. Even the famous Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group (Hannah) of 1,700 postdates women showed no difference in perinatal outcome among women who were monitored past their due date, as compared with those who were induced at term.(4)

In some studies, post-term births have shown a higher cesarean rate for suspected fetal distress. However, when a group of researchers conducted a case-matched review of nearly 300 postdates pregnancies they concluded that the increased rate of obstetric and neonatal interventions “does not appear to be a result of underlying pathology associated with post-term pregnancy.” They suggest that “a lower threshold for clinical intervention in pregnancies perceived to be ‘at-risk’ may be a significant contributing factor.” In other words, the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy!(5) When monitoring demonstrates that fetal growth, activity and amniotic fluid levels remain within expected norms, the baby can safely wait for spontaneous labor to begin. Spontaneous labor gives the greatest chance for vaginal birth, even though the baby may be slightly larger than if the mother were induced at 40 weeks.

References:

1. McClure-Browne, J.C. 1963. Comparison of perinatal mortality rates versus gestational age through the past three decades. Am J Obstet Gynecol 85: 573–82.
2. Eden, R.D., et al. 1987. Perinatal characteristics of uncomplicated postdates pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 69(3 Pt.1): 296–99.
3. Weinstein, D., et al. 1996. Expectant management of post-term patients: observations and outcome. J Matern Fetal Med 5(5): 293–97.
4. Hannah, M.E., et al. 1992. Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. The Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group. N Engl J Med 326(24): 1587–92.
5. Luckas, M., et al. 1998. Comparison of outcomes in uncomplicated term and post-term pregnancy following spontaneous labor. J Perinat Med 26(6): 475–79.

— Gail Hart
Excerpted from "A Timely Birth," Midwifery Today, Issue 72
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/enews/enews1220.asp

What do Midwives do if something goes wrong?

This is one of the biggest questions people ask about homebirth. It's based on the fear that is instilled into people from childhood that birth is painful and dangerous and that most women need rescuing from it.

Well, first, that's just not true. True emergencies only occur in about 5%-15% of births where a cesarean is required. I couldn't find an exact statistic for post-birth emergencies, but it's pretty low in general.

Now we're going to disregard pain control in this blog because that's not a part of the question. Women choosing homebirth in the US have already accepted that they wish to give birth without pain medications in most cases. They know that if they need them, a short trip to their nearest hospital can provide them. In the UK, mothers are provided with 'gas and air' (nitrous oxide) that they can control themselves. This option is currently not available to US mothers (despite many women "wishing" for it to be).

So, what happens if something goes wrong in a homebirth?

Now, midwives are not doctors. They are not surgeons. They cannot perform surgery and do not take high risk patients. Only normal pregnancies are taken on in the first place. Midwives watch for the pregnancy to continue normally and if something isn't right (such as placenta previa, pre-eclampsia, toxemia, etc.) then the mother's care will be transferred to an OB.

This works smoothly in countries where midwives are the default caretakers of mothers and homebirth is an easily obtained option. In the US, many midwives do work with OBs as backup to mimic the better model.

Midwives do not induce women with pitocin, artificially rupture their membranes and put them on a clock, either. These are some of the highest risk factors leading to cesarean births. (Some midwives do induce with herbs and sweep membranes, even though the second is shown not to be particularly effective and the first can be nearly as dangerous as pitocin induction.)

So, first, we've eliminated about 4-10% of necessary cesareans right there (approximately).

Now, that does leave some risk to homebirth (studies have shown that the risk of homebirth is no different from hospital birth, except those studies that did not eliminate accidental homebirth and those that included all births occurring outside of a hospital setting--some have even shown that homebirths are actually safer in 90% of normal pregnancies) as to ANY birth. So what happens if one of those risks occurs?

A midwife is there in labor specifically for that (in addition to catching the baby and some postpartum care). She watches the mother and baby for any sign that there is a need to transfer and in the event that she becomes concerned (and the reasons for this do vary by midwife--for type of midwife as well as her personal experience), then mother is transferred to the hospital as quickly as possible. If the hospital is not close by, the midwife may call it sooner than if the hospital is nearby.

Now, many people are afraid of the time that that takes. However, it is not significantly longer than the time it takes for a hospital to call in an anesthesiologist, back-up obstetrician and a neonatologist if necessary. That's right--not all hospitals have all of these staff members available at all times. Any woman in labor is at risk of needing an emergency cesarean when the anesthesiologist has stepped out for lunch (or gone to bed) or her OB doesn't have a second to assist (or no OB is even present in the hospital at the time--why do you think the nurses often page them frantically to get there while urging the woman not to push?).

In the event of an emergency, an ambulance will be called to stabilize mom (and baby if needed) and will call ahead to the hospital to make sure everyone is in place that is needed.

So, basically, the midwife does the same thing at home as she would in a hospital or birth center--only in the comfort of the mother's home.

In the end, homebirth is a safe and should be a valid, legal option for any woman who wishes to have one (just as birth centers and hospitals should be). Making them illegal is what puts women at risk, because they may wait longer to call for help when they need it, for fear of medical bullying or legal reprisal. And midwives are fully capable of recognizing the need to transfer care even during birth or after.

And yes, many midwives are capable of repairing tears and stopping bleeding as well and CNMs usually come with oxygen tanks in the even of the baby needing to be resuscitated or mother needing oxygen. They are also trained to deal with shoulder dystocia, cord prolapse, unresponsive newborns, hemorrhage and nuchal chords (where it's wrapped around the neck). Many are trained in breech birth as well. They are trained to handle most complications that arise and don't require an operating room or specialized equipment.

And finally, the difference between OBs and midwives:

An Obstetrician is a surgeon and a fully licensed doctor. Decades ago, they were taught to handle many more births vaginally than they now know how. Many forms of breech babies could be birthed vaginally and women would transfer to an OB for this service. Now, most OBs are no longer trained in this and are primarily trained in surgery.

There are different types of midwives.

First is the DEM or Direct Entry Midwife. "An independent practitioner who has learned midwifery through study, apprenticeship, a midwifery school, or a college program that is not a nursing program."

Then there are Licensed Midwives. "Midwives licensed to practice midwifery in a particular area. Normally a state. "

Next is the CPM or Certified Professional Midwife. "A midwife who has passed rigorous competency testing by the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM) is awarded a CPM certificate."

Finally, we have the CNM or Certified Nurse Midwife. "These women are trained as nurses and have done additional study in midwifery. Many are graduate students. They often offer complete prenatal care as well as attending births. "

CPMs and DEMs typically attend homebirth and though CNMs can, most work in hospital settings. CPMs also attend birth center births, as do CNMs.

So now you know a little more about what happens in a real emergency during a homebirth. It's still very rare, but protocols are in place and most women don't die even if they require a transfer, any more than they do in a hospital.

Reversal

Jerry went into work that morning bursting with news. He wanted to shout to the sky--his wife and he were expecting a baby! But he kept it inside, knowing that it was clear on his face anyway. Several of his coworkers asked him why he was in such a good mood that day, but he knew he couldn't tell them. After all, if he talked about being married at work, he could lose his job.

It was really hard thinking about how if he had chosen any other work but the military, he might be able to tell all his friends at work that he had a wife and that he loved her and the best part of getting up every morning was seeing her sleeping next to him.

But talking about love where he worked was taboo. Today, that was very hard and slowly, the excitement dimmed until, instead, a depression set in that he couldn't share his joy. His work was rewarding, yes, but it was still work and it was draining that he couldn't share his personal life without fear.

It ruined the whole rest of his day, but he steadfastly concentrated on work. After all, he was a soldier, his feelings didn't matter wherein they did not interfere with his ability to follow orders. He would continue to protect the people of his fine nation, even while not able to enjoy the same liberties that he was fighting for.


Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's the story that all of our soldiers who are GLBT experience because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. People ask, "Why repeal it? Why does it matter? Why do they have to talk about it? It's no one's business but their own." That last line is from GLBT supporters. Yeah.

Imagine you were unable to talk about falling in love, getting married, starting a family--worse, you couldn't get married (even though it's legal for anyone else) because it could lose you your career!

I reverse the question: "Why should it matter who the people fighting and dying for our rights are in love with? Why should it matter who is waiting for them at home?"

With the Don't Ask, Don't Tell reversal going through, we need to support the change, support the troops and remember that this is supposed to be a nation where "...all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Who can pursue happiness when their safety is in jeopardy and freedom of religion is considered lesser than that of another (as several religions accept GLBT relationships, including branches of Christianity and it is only the adherents of certain religions that says GLBT is not a valid way of life)? Thus, any person denying the right of GLBT soldiers to talk about their families the same as heterosexual soldiers is violating the constitution of the United States of America. And that's exactly what the court decision repealing DADT decided.


Hooray for reversal! Support the Troops! All of them.

Stock image from FantasyStock at Deviant Art. Used with Permission.

Weaning and the Ways it Happens

So, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF recommend a minimum of two years of nursing 'or beyond'. A lot of people don't know that. The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommend a minimum of one year and then 'as long thereafter as mother and child desire.' Both recommend no other substances in the first six months of life.

So, according to the experts, babies should be nursed at least a year. We all know that this isn't usually the case in the US, though in other countries, the time varies both in modern times and historically. In UK Europe, nursing only through infancy has been a pattern for quite a while, while in Japan the norm was 2 years and China was recorded as children nursing until up to 5 years. The worldwide average for weaning is 2.8-4.2 years (depending on the study and if the US is included--it drags the worldwide average down due to its low breastfeeding rate, premature weaning tradition and large population).

Okay, so that's all the recommendations and the average and yada yada. Now, one question I was once asked as my still non-verbal toddler nursed was, "Don't you have to wean soon?"

It was asked in complete innocence and I answered honestly, "No. Children will wean on their own. I don't actually have to do so."

It's true! While rarely, children will nurse 6-7 years, the average age of children weaning on their own is much earlier--about the range of the worldwide averages, actually. Somewhere between ages 2 and 5. Children will not typically wean without some sort of encouragement (even if not deliberate) before 18 months of age.

Does that mean every family has to wait until their child is ready? Of course not! Waiting at least the minimum 2 years is best for baby and mom, but people wean in many different ways for many different reasons. Some women wean earlier than they would like due to work, lack of support, medical conditions, peer pressure, etc. Some women nurse longer than they actually want because they aren't sure how to wean; and some women are simply "done" before their children. Nursing IS a two way street.

I'm not going to tell you how to wean. I have no clue. It's not something I'm interested in. But I will now tell you about the different kinds of weaning. Oh, and a child after the age of 6 months who nurses, starts eating food just like bottle fed babies between 6-14 months and eats the same stuff ;) They drink from cups (mine started drinking water from cups at 6 months with my first taking pumped milk as early as 4 months in a Nuby Softspout--we mostly skipped sippies and went with straw cups for better oral development--until my second decided that they were more fun upside down, so we switched back to sippy cups for her--though she and her sister both can drink from open cups easily... I even prefer straw cups for me for minimizing spills) at the same ages and nothing changes except that they still take nourishment from their mother directly.

Parent-led weaning: This is the most common. This is when the mother chooses to wean and institutes a weaning strategy, such as "Don't offer/don't refuse," gently replacing nursing sessions, going out of town, pretending her breasts are broken, etc.

Influenced weaning: This one isn't talked about very much and is one of the main reasons that I'm writing this entry. Influenced weaning is when a child is weaned due to circumstances such as milk drying up, accidental parent-led weaning (such as a mother instituting "Don't offer/don't refuse" without knowing that it's a weaning technique, refusing to nurse so often that the child gives up or giving cues that they don't want to nurse anymore which the child picks up on), or societal pressure (such as the father or a nosey grandparent or auntie making rude comments that shame the child or parent, disparage the nursing relationship or attempt to make the child feel bad for nursing--like saying 'Big girls don't nurse! Don't you want to be a big girl?'). Nursing strikes would also fall into this category (more explanation on this later).

Mutual weaning: This is pretty rare and comes from the mother and child making a deal that they will stop nursing at a certain point. This is usually in a full-term nursing relationship (2+ years) when the child is old enough to be reasoned with and the parent no longer desires to nurse.

Child-led weaning: This is when the child is given support to nurse but slowly and gradually stops doing so on their own time.

Sudden cessation of nursing is not child-led weaning, it's a nursing strike. Nursing strikes happen for a variety of reasons and at different ages in life, but usually in the first two years. Nursing strikes are often used to wean children without trauma, but if they occur in the first year of life, they should be reversed if at all possible, unless the mother needs to stop nursing for some reason.


So there you have it. The different ways that children wean. For extensive information on weaning, "How Weaning Happens" by Diane Bengson is considered the best book by all the friends I know, on explaining the subject (warning: this is NOT a book on how to wean!).

Happy nursing (and weaning)!



Some resources I used (outside of several books):

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/b/breastfeedingpolicy.html
http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20070801.htm
http://www.amazon.com/How-Weaning-Happens-Diane-Bengson/dp/0912500549

Why txt spk bugs the hell out of me

It hurts my eyes. Plain and simple. It's almost a physical pain. I understand being in a hurry, having limited space (twitter, text messages on a T9, that sort of thing) but if you have a full keyboard at your arsenal and unlimited space/messages, then there is absolutely no reason to write out this sentence:

I hope you're having a great day.

as:

hope ur having a gr8 day

You had damn well better have only 5 seconds to type if you're sending that message. It makes you look not only stupid, but either 13-16 or 30+ Yes, either so young you're new to the scene or so old that you learned to text with a T9.

In IM or on forums, I'm flexible. If a phrase/group of words is being said a lot, acronyms don't bother me, nor do some abbreviations. Acronyms don't even really bother me in general, it's the mutilation of words, particularly by including numbers in place of letters. That's for license plates, people, not communication. I. DESPISE. THAT.

If I'm using words like 'ur' then I'm either in a crisis or I am typing so furiously on my phone that you're glad you're not in front of me, because I'd be shouting or hitting you with my phone. Or my hand is cramping from using that tiny damn qwerty board and we're trying to have a conversation that is too long for texting.

In short, if you have a real keyboard, use real words. PLEASE. Use them correctly.

Thank you.

Supply Issues Without Bottles

Okay, so when we have serious supply issues, what's our first thought to do? Supplement. Sometimes it's with breast milk, sometimes with formula, but no matter which, the typical method of giving this supplement is counterproductive to breastfeeding: bottles.

So I'm going to show you another option, that will bring your supply up if you need to supplement. It's not as easy to feed as with a bottle, maybe, but it will not only make certain your infant is getting everything she or he needs, but also will raise your supply and cannot cause nipple confusion or nipple preference.

The Lact-aid. I've suggested this in the past, but it sounds complicated to people and really, it's not.

(image is of the Medela SNS from their site)

What is a lact-aid? It's a thin tube that supplies milk to the baby while he or she is latched onto the breast and suckling. What's at the other end of the tube varies. It can be a bottle with the nipple cut off or the hole enlarged, or it can be thawed bags of breast milk. The lact-aid tube can be held or taped to the chest for the Mommy-on-the-go (who is breastfeeding while doing other things--usually accomplished by having baby in a sling) or the Mommy who has a baby who might pull the tube out of his/her mouth.

How is it used? You simply get baby latched on, then slip the tube into the mouth, towards the roof of the mouth until the milk gets sucked up.

Here's a video of a lact-aid being introduced. (it will open a video download window).

Lact-aids (or supplemental nurser systems, SNS for short) can be obtained through lactation consultants or a few websites, including through Medela.

I hope this offers another option to moms who are worried about their supplies, but don't want to introduce bottles, have had issues with nipple confusion/preference already or have babies who won't TAKE a bottle. And, with a little practice, it is just as easy as using a bottle--or easier if you're using pumped milk, as you don't have to transfer it from the bag you froze it in!

This is also a way that moms who just can't produce milk can give their babies formula and have the bonding and skin-to-skin contact that breastfeeding brings and babies need. In fact, it may stimulate a mom who had trouble making milk into making milk. Maybe not enough to fully feed off of (although that's a possibility) but every drop counts!

This is also an option for moms choosing to relactate to build up their supply faster than just pumping.

Here is a site with a few images of the lact-aid in use (and instructions how): http://lact-aid.com/rpt022.htm#positioning

And a site with SNS in use: http://www.breastfeed-essentials.com/accessories.html#SNS