Unassisted Birth

Hoi,

ik wou bij deze mijn excuses aanbieden overde opmerkingover de keizersnede. Ik weet dat dat ook niet meevalt! Ik werd gewoon een beetje boos op de mensen die meteen hun vooroordelen klaar hebben en die meteen"bijna agressief reageren, maar daardoor heb ik precies hetzelfde gedaan :S sorry.
Ik heb net een doula gesproken en die begon ook emteen over unassisted childbirth. het is hier gewoon een stuk normaler omdat de gezondheidszorg hier in het noorden gewoon echt HEEL slecht is en de hygiene in de ziekenhuizen vreselijk zijn. ik ben hier twee keer in het ziekenhuis geweest en het stof lag er echt met hoopjes op de grond en apparatuur. Een doula mag voor de rest geen ingrepen doen tijdens de bevalling, dus echt alleen als steun zijn. Vandaar dat het dan nog unassisted zou zijn. Nou heb je hier ook wel independent midwifes die heel makkelijk en losjes zijn en alles wel voor je willen doen (of niet doen) maar dan betaal je 5000 euro! en anders de midwifes van de nationale zorg. en gloof me, die zijn niet zoals in NL! Vreselijke verhalen gehoord en gelezen! Ze kennen thuisbevalling hier niet echt en ze doen dus ook ECHT alles om je maar naar het ziekenhuis te krijgen. Ik ben gelukkig nog aan het begin van de zwnagerschap en heb nog genoeg tijd om erover na te denken.

 

Wat zal ik zeggen, het is een talent

Kijk, ik snap de TS dat ze van haar vorige bevalling geen fijn gevoel heeft over gehouden en dat de 'schuld' bij haar hulpverleners ligt. Maar om op eigen houtje een mens te baren en er vanuit gaan dat je lijf precies dat doet waar het voor gemaakt is vind ik russische roulette. Ik heb ook een nare ervaring met een ziekenhuis in Engeland, wou dus ook niet meer naar het ziekenhuis want daar deden ze mij pijn! Maar zonder ziekenhuis was ik er toch echt niet meer geweest nu, hoe vervelend het ook is. Je kunt toch met je vk afspreken dat ze pas ingrijpt op het moment dat het echt nodig is en haar verder uit de buurt houden? Hoe denkt je partner hier eigenlijk over?

 

Oh en ga je verder ook niet onder controle? Dus geen echo's, doplers, bloeddrukmetingen, urine/bloed testen e.d?

 

geen echo's en geen doppler's, wel bloeddruk en urine testen. En nee ik ga niet elke keer

 

Ok en hoe denkt je partner hierover? Misschien heb je dit al gezegd hoor, maar kan het zo snel niet terug vinden...

 

denkt er precies hetzelfde over. Echo's en doptone's brengen toch een risico met zich mee en zijn niet altijd nodig.

 

met een houten toeter hoor je precies hetzelfde! Ik zei niets over niet in de gaten houden.

 

Sorry is in het Engels,

By Robert Uhlig, Technology Correspondent

New research has raised doubts over the safety of ultrasound scans used to view fetuses in the womb. Scientists have called for further research to determine whether safety limits should be reviewed for the tests, which are also used to check internal organs in children and adults. Since the early 1990s, when American researchers showed that ultrasound tissue heating can cause bleeding in mouse intestines, ultrasonographers tune the power of scans to reduce heating. The latest discovery, by scientists at University College Dublin, is the first to find that scans create changes in cells. Patrick Brennan, who led the research, said: "It has been assumed for a long time that ultrasound has no effect on cells. We now have grounds to question that assumption."
The researchers gave 12 mice an eight megahertz scan lasting for 15 minutes. Hospital scans can last for up to an hour, using frequencies of between three and 10 megahertz. According to today's New Scientist, two significant changes in the cells of the small intestine were detected in scanned mice compared with unscanned mice. Four and a half hours after exposure, the rate of cell division had reduced by 22 per cent and the rate of programmed cell death had approximately doubled. Mr Brennan believes there will be similar effects in humans.

By Dr. John Christopher
From Dr.J. R. Christopher's book: Every Woman's Herbal.
Forward courtesy of Hermes Trismegistus <magus@chaldea.com>

More subtle, but potentially more dangerous, is the routine application of ultrasound in normal pregnancies. Although most medical practitioners assure us that ultrasound presents no dangers, this procedure, which is used to study the body's internal organs with non-ionizing waves, has been the subject of research indicating some
considerable risks. Although supposedly said to work with sound waves, they are not in the audible range, so their high frequency is not natural to the body. Dr. Mendelsohn wrote, "Ultrasound produces at least two biological effects--heat and a process called 'cavitation' in which bubbles are created that expand and contract in response to sound waves. The first time I saw this cavitation process in action, a chiropractor turned on the therapeutic ultrasound machine in his office and placed a few drops of water on the part of the machine that was
applied to the patient. I wish every reader...could have been with me to watch that water suddenly boil and bubble" (The People's Doctor, Vol.7, No. 11, p. 3).
After ferreting out the truth about ultrasound over the years, Dr. Mendelsohn received copies of documents researching the procedure, which anyone may receive by writing WHO Publications Center, 49 Sheridan Ave.,
Albany, NY 12210, asking for "Environmental Health Criteria 22: Ultrasound." Experiments cited in these documents indicated reduced fetal weight and reduced fetal organ weight in animals who received ultrasound. Researchers are noticing a small but definite reduction in newborn birth rate among human infants exposed to ultrasound. The immune systems of laboratory animals exposed to the procedure are said to be affected. It also affects the blood platelets which allow the blood to clot. This could lead to problems with circulation because of
traveling blood clots. Changes in the structure and composition of cells, including genetic material, has been suspected. In experiments with animals, these changes have resulted in defective embryos with a variety of problems. Researchers postulate that problems incurred by ultrasound could take as long as 20 years to surface, including the possibility of cancer and, most commonly suspected, leukemia. The mother might also experience congenital malformations.

EVIDENCE suggesting that ultrasound scans on pregnant women cause brain damage in their unborn babies has been uncovered by scientists.
In the most comprehensive study yet on the effect of the scanning, doctors have found that men born to mothers who underwent scanning were more likely to show signs of subtle brain damage.
The implications of the study are to be raised at an international meeting of scientists being held this week in Edinburgh. There have been calls for urgent further research.
During the 1990s, a number of studies hinted that ultrasound scanning affected unborn babies. Research has suggested that subtle brain damage can cause people who ought genetically to be right-handed to become left-handed. In addition, these people face a higher risk of conditions ranging from learning difficulties to epilepsy.
Now a team of Swedish scientists has confirmed the earlier reports on the effects of ultrasound with the most compelling evidence yet that unborn babies are affected by the scanning. They compared almost 7,000 men whose mothers underwent scanning in the 1970s with 170,000 men whose mothers did not, looking for differences in the rates of left- and right-handedness.
The team found that men whose mothers had scans were significantly more likely to be left-handed than normal, pointing to a higher rate of brain damage while in the womb. Crucially, the biggest difference was found among those born after 1975, when doctors introduced a second scan later in pregnancy. Such men were 32 per cent more likely to be left-handed than those in the control group.
Reporting their findings in the journal Epidemiology, the researchers warned that scans in late pregnancy were now routine in many countries. "The present results suggest a 30 per cent increase in risk of left-handedness among boys pre-natally exposed to ultrasound," they say. "If this association reflects brain injury, this means as many as one in 50 male foetuses pre-natally exposed to ultrasound are affected."
Prof Juni Palmgren, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, a member of the team, told The Sunday Telegraph: "I would urge people not to refuse to have ultrasound scanning, as the risk of brain damage is only a possibility - but this is an interesting finding and needs to be taken seriously."
Other doctors and scientists caution that until further studies are carried out, scanning should still be regarded as safe by mothers-to-be. If confirmed, however, the findings would mean that ultrasound scans are causing slight brain damage in thousands of babies in Britain each year.
Ultrasound scans, which were introduced in the 1960s, have long been regarded as a safe means of checking on the health of unborn children. The scanners use high-frequency sound waves to give X-ray-like images of the inside of the womb, but without using radiation, which carries a risk of causing cancer. Between the 1960s and today, the number of pregnant women having scans in western Europe has increased from a handful to virtually all of them.
Normally, left-handedness is genetic: the likelihood of two left-handed parents having a left-handed child is 35 per cent, while for two right-handed parents, it is only nine per cent. It is when the incidence of left-handedness begins to rise above these normal rates that scientists become concerned that brain damage of some kind could be a factor.
Other surveys have shown that premature babies are five times more likely than normal to be left-handed. According to the Swedish researchers, the human brain undergoes critical development until relatively late in pregnancy, making it vulnerable to damage. In addition, the male brain is especially at risk, as it continues to develop later than the female brain.
The growing evidence that ultrasound affects unborn babies may cast new light on the puzzling rise in left-handedness over recent years.
In Britain, the rate has more than doubled, from five per cent in the 1920s to 11 per cent today. Researchers have estimated that only 20 per cent of this rise can be put down to the suppression of left-handedness among the older generation.
Dr Francis Duck of the British Medical Ultrasound Society will chair a discussion of the results at the international meeting of ultrasound experts being held this week in Edinburgh. "When the first study suggesting a link came out, it was possible to ignore it, but now this is the third," he said. "What it demonstrates is the need to investigate the link further, and to look at possible mechanisms."
Dr Duck cautioned, however, that ultrasound scanning has saved the lives of countless babies: "This research must be seen in context, and it should not deter anyone from having an antenatal scan."
Beverley Beech, the chairman of the Association for Improvements in Maternity Services, criticised doctors for insisting for years that ultrasound was totally safe.
"I am not sure at all that the benefits of ultrasound scans outweigh the downsides," said Ms Beech. "We should be advising women to think very, very carefully before they have scans at all."

Ik heb niet gezegd dat ik HELEMAAL geen onderzoeken wil. Ik wil best mijn bloeddruk laten meten en urinetesten zijn ook prima.