Cal State Northridge Jounalism Student Project

By Andrew Lopez


It was 3:00 p.m. on June 23, 2007, when Emory Rivas, 27, arrived at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, CA, to give birth to her first child, Davian. Throughout her pregnancy, Rivas, a Costa Mesa resident, has had a clear idea of how she wants her birthing experience to unfold, yet over the course of the next several hours, nothing works out quite like she wanted. First, the doctor she has put all her trust into delivering her child is not available because it’s the weekend. Secondly, she is talked into both an epidural to decrease pain and Pitocin to speed up her contractions, though she had planned all along not to take any medication during labor. Finally, at 6:00 a.m. the next day, her hope to give birth vaginally is no longer possible. The nurses tell her that she is failing to progress and starting to develop a fever. Feeling the decision was never truly in her hands, Rivas agreed to give birth by C-section.

At 6:34 a.m., Davian Rivas is born. Instead of being able to spend time with her newborn, Emory holds him for only a few minutes before he is taken to the nursery while she is taken to a recovery room. The anesthesia is causing her to vomit and she is crying for her baby. Though she was glad that the surgery was successful, the experience of having a C-section and the hospital policies that kept her from Davian was deeply upsetting.

“It was the worst feeling ever,” Rivas said. “They didn’t respect my birthing plan. I felt like I was by myself. It was horrible.”

Rivas is not alone. According to the CDC National Center for Health Statistics, 32.3 percent of babies born in the United States were by cesarean delivery in 2008. This number is at odds with a 1965 analysis of births in the United States, when just 4.5 percent of babies were born by cesarean. These rising numbers are alarming to those who advocate against unnecessary C-sections.

“The healthy rate (of C-sections) is between 8-15 percent for industrialized nations,” Chelsea Shure, chapter leader of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, West Los Angeles, said.

While critics of unnecessary C-sections point to a hospital’s bottom line as the primary reason for such high rates, those closest to the trend believe that it’s much more complex than that.

“There are many legs to this,” Dr. Stuart Fischbein, who practices in Southern California, said. “The big three are expediency, economics and malpractice.”



Dr. Gary Nishida, whose office is located in Oxnard, CA, lists “failure to progress” as the most common reason for first time C-sections. The term itself means that the laboring process has come to a standstill. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the woman’s pelvis being too small for the baby, according to Nishida. Nishida points to the one and a half lb. increase in baby weight since the 1950s and the unchanged size of an average woman’s pelvis.

However, certified birth doula (a trained person in childbirth who provides non-medical support before, during and after labor), Patricia Grube, believes that there is more to it than just that. “Failure to progress?” Grube asked rhetorically. “Doctors just don’t want to wait around.”

Shure believes that more than a failure to progress, C-sections are increasing due to a lack waiting by medical professionals. She believes that the unpredictable nature of vaginal births cause doctors to act quicker than necessary.

“A normal vaginal birth is so wildly inconvenient,” Shure said. “Doctors won’t sit on their hands. They can’t wait.” Shure also believes that obstetricians opt for C-sections because they haven’t been properly exposed to unmedicated births in their training. Fischbein agrees. “Obstetricians are high-risk surgeons,” he said. The medical model is that of intervention, he explained. Fischbein believes that the fear of a lawsuit rather than finances, dictates how obstetricians are taught.

Nishida disagrees that the bigger bills generated by C-sections is the primary reason they occur. “It has nothing to do with finances,” Nishida said. “I’m getting paid one-third what we got paid 15 years ago,” he said. It is the fear of a malpractice suit that facilitates swift action. “None of us (doctors) get sued for doing a C-section, we get sued for not doing a C-section,” Nishida said. “If they (those who oppose the high C-section rates) want to pay my malpractice suit, they can go ahead.” Fischbein also points to the fear of a malpractice suit as a driving force for unnecessary C-sections. “No one wants to work with an anvil over their head,” Fischbein said. “It’s a huge burden.”



In 2008, Rivas found out she was pregnant once again. This time she did research on VBAC’s (vaginal birth after cesarean) and switched hospitals and doctors, hoping to fulfill her wish of giving birth naturally. To her dismay, her new doctor thought it best not to try for a vaginal birth. He explained to Rivas that her body shape wasn’t ideal for a VBAC. “He was basically saying I wasn’t fit for it,” she said. Not until she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant did she decide to once again go with a surgical birth for her first daughter, Daya. Once again, she felt pressured and regretted her choice. “With Daya I felt I made the wrong decision,” she said. “I kind of got screwed over.”

Nishida points to the strict guidelines that must be met to perform a VBAC as the reason so few actually take place. Not only must a doctor be on-call throughout the process, an anesthesiologist and a team of nurses must also be waiting around the clock as labor takes its course. Nishida finds these guidelines to be unrealistic, as neither he nor the anesthesiologist would be getting paid to wait for the laboring process. “There are cost issues and practical issues,” he said. “If someone wants to pay me to sit around they can go ahead,” he said. Nishida also cites the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stance on VBAC’s, which states the risk of uterine rupture that could take place during labor might be catastrophic. Once again, Nishida fears a lawsuit if something were to go wrong in performing a VBAC. “You’d lose everything you got,” he said.

Shure doesn’t agree that the risks of a VBAC are any more dangerous than performing multiple C-sections on a healthy woman. “The risks of major complications from a second C-section is one-in-23,” she said. “That’s a huge problem,” she said. Shure does agree with Nishida that the strict guidelines for VBAC’s are unpractical and in place so no one can blame the hospital for an unsuccessful attempt at a vaginal birth. “It’s not fueled by doctors. Hospitals have policies that make it hard for vaginal births,” she said. “They’re covering their ass,” she said. Shure believes that the prohibition on VBAC’s reflects a combination of hospital policy, unnecessary inductions fueled by poor information to obstetricians and simple impatience.

Fischbein looks to the executives of insurance companies to explain why these contentious policies exist. Politics and bureaucracy, according to Fischbein, are the motivating factors behind many of the problems he sees in the healthcare system.

“None of these decisions are health-based,” said Fischbein, who summed up his distrust of those with the most authority in the healthcare system by quoting French philosopher, Albert Camus: “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”



Just as Fischbein attributed three causes for the increase in C-sections, he sees three solutions as being the only ways those rates will decrease. First, he suggests that the cost of vaginal births go up to account for the high cost it takes to staff the delivery process. Secondly, he proposes some kind of tort-reform to limit the damages that may be sought in malpractice suits. Thirdly, Fischbein envisions a freestanding maternity center run by midwives, free of the bureaucracy that rule hospitals. He doesn’t see a reason for low-risk pregnancies to end up in a hospital at all.

“Hospitals are for sick people,” he said. “Pregnancy is not a disease. Labor is not an illness,” Fischbein said. “Midwives do regular births better than obstetricians.” Grube agrees. “For non-complicated pregnancies, a midwife should be the model,” she said. “Midwifes deliver babies naturally and healthily. They are very patient.”



Rivas is visiting her parents’ home in Fillmore as she sits on the front porch on a warm, Sunday afternoon. She looks out onto the quiet street as Daya rests against her chest, nodding off. She smiles from time to time during the interview, but there is an unmistakable air of regret that surrounds her as she revisits the past.

“I feel like I missed out,” she said. “I was robbed.” She doesn’t rule out the possibility of another baby in the future, and if she does, she plans on looking into the issue much closer. “I’m going to definitely prepare myself,” she said. She plans to look into hospitals and their C-section rates, as well as doctors’ tendencies to perform surgical births. She also plans on looking into the possibility of having a midwife deliver her baby. As she weighs her options for the future, Rivas becomes more at ease. It’s as though she realizes for the very first time that her desire to give birth naturally need not be tangled up in the problems of a defensive, bureaucratic healthcare system.


.....Hope this story struck a nerve. I would appreciate feedback which I will forward to the student writer. Happy Thanksgiving, Dr. F

Joy on the Job

Once again, I had the amazing honor of attending a beautiful home water birth in Tarzana last night. What a sweet, nurturing life event I bore witness to. Nice to know some decisions in life lead to a joyous new path. I am having fun in my profession again. Thanks to all the forces, good and bad, who have led me here. All have a great day. Dr. F

Panel Discussions and Thank Yous

So many people to thank for their efforts this weekend. Saturday, the Sanctuary Birth and Family Wellness team sponsored a panel discussion after viewing 3 films, Laboring Under an Illusion, Guerilla Midwife and Orgasmic Birth, at the Santa Monica Library. The Q and A session was vigorous and well received. Thanks to Clara for her excellent work putting it together and to the staff at the library.

Today, I spoke on a panel discussing pregnancy, birth and child development in the context of nurturing the next generation of leaders at the Leaders Causing Leaders Conference at the Long Beach Convention Center. A very inspiring group joined me in sharing our stories and insights. Thanks to Cecily, Karen, Anna, Susan and Ishmael for their selfless and amazing contributions to the betterment of future generations. I was honored to be included amongst these visionaries.

Oh, and lastly, thanks to TIVO, Bret Farve and The Minnesota Vikings for finally pulling one out after making me a nervous wreck. And to beautiful sunsets like the one we had this evening. And to my daughter, Madeleine, who did a great job singing a Guns and Roses song at her recital this evening. It was a great weekend. Dr. F

Demystifying Birth Myths this Saturday in Santa Monica

Santa Monica Public Library and the Sanctuary Birth & Family Wellness Center present this enlightening look at the myths and cultural ideas of birth. Clips from the documentary films Laboring Under the Illusion, Orgasmic Birth and Guerrilla Midwife will be followed by a panel discussion with licensed midwives and doulas on the birth options available to parents today.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=117696424958345

Time Saturday, November 6 · 3:00pm - 10:00pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location Santa Monica Public Library
601 Santa Monica Blvd
Santa Monica, CA

The Sanctuary midwives, doulas, staff and I will make up the panel. I look forward to seeing all of you locals there. Dr. F

Dr. F at Leaders Causing Leaders Conference this Sunday

You are invited to attend a panel discussion moderated by Cecily on November 7, 2010.

Leaders from Birth: Our leaders 25-years from now are in the womb!
JOIN US for an inspiring, empowering panel discussion amongst interdisciplinary pioneers connecting the dots between shaping our future and serving our children well.


http://bit.ly/Leaders2010

Panelists:
Karen Gordon wholechild.org/home.html
Susan Kaiser Greenland susankaisergreenland.com/
Anna Getty pregnancyawarenessmonth.com
Dr. Stuart Fischbein supportdrfischbein.com/index
Ishmael Beah beahfound.org/Beah_Foundation/Home.htm


November 7th 2pm / Leaders Causing Leaders Conference / Long Beach Convention Center / Moderated by Cecily Miller http://baby-welcoming.com/

The Peanut Butter Syndrome

Of Peanut Butter, Birth Choices and Politics
November 1st, 2010

This is a peculiar trinity at the very least. While having nothing in common with or the monumental importance of the well known trinities of Christianity and the American trinity of e pluribus unum, liberty and in God We Trust, there is something very important to be said about the connection between these three subjects. Let me be very clear that I am a big fan of peanut butter and birth choices. Politics, well that leaves much to be desired. I have distaste for intellectual dishonesty and the nanny state so that gives you a clue as to my leanings in the political arena. Many of my friends and colleagues choose to ignore or avoid this subject because they find it exhausting or irrelevant in their day to day lives. But to ignore the reality that politics affects all of us is to live in denial. There is an election tomorrow that will have a great deal of affect on how we and those we care about will live our lives here in America.

I am a big supporter of true informed consent and birth choices as are all my wonderful colleagues in the birthing community. That is not a surprise to anyone who knows me. But many of my friends and supporters do not share my political views. I am not writing to try to convince anyone that one side is better or worse than the other. What I would like to do is make a logical argument in support of smaller government and personal responsibility and individual liberty. And, then let each of you decide what is best for you and your family.

So, what do peanut butter and birth choices have in common? We live in an era where government wants to control “fairness”. They want to raise equality to the level of a right and to constantly try to legislate morality and eliminate failure. Strange, as there is no right of guaranteed equality of result in the Constitution. Only the rights to equality of opportunity are implied. This has morphed into an America where all the soccer kids get a trophy no matter what place they finished. There are no winners and losers. Standards are lowered or eliminated all together. But by shooting for an egalitarian paradise those that desire this must, by definition, restrict liberty. Liberty is the freedom to succeed or fail on your own merits. Many think equality and liberty are synonyms when, in reality, they are exact opposites. Whenever you impose equality you necessarily restrict liberty. When a child is allergic to peanut butter, the school board often bans peanut butter for all of the other children. One child cannot be around peanut butter so 800 children cannot have a peanut butter sandwich. This is a perfect metaphor for the equality vs. liberty debate. What seems fair and kind and protective to one individual restricts the freedom of the vast majority of so many others. I call this overreaction the “Peanut Butter Syndrome”.

We see the “Peanut Butter Syndrome” everywhere these days. Kids are obese therefore we ban snacks and mandate certain foods in schools. Smoking is considered a danger so because of second hand smoke we have laws prohibiting any private business from allowing smoking. Mylar balloons may cause a power line short circuit so lets ban them. A child falls off a teeter-totter so all teeter-totters must be removed from playgrounds. Ban incandescent light bulbs and big screen TVs. And on and on it goes. Overzealous activism, often good hearted but often shortsighted, leads to restrictions on personal choice and liberty. And often without any evidence other than it feels good.

Now sweet sensitive people, mainly on the left, who mean well will see these things and say it is good that we are looking out for the folks and the environment. We need government to protect the few, the weak and those that cannot help themselves. They need to keep us safe. A fair argument but at what cost to liberty? If you agree with this premise then voting for bigger government and the Democratic Party is what you should do.

But here is the problem as I see it. We are for a woman’s right to choose the path of her own birth. We strongly support the right to informed consent and refusal. If you take the same sort of liberal thinking as described in the previous paragraph then why get upset when hospital policies, lawyers and politicians want to control our choices. They constantly argue that restrictions on midwifery and VBAC and breeches are for safety purposes. They are just protecting the folks. It does not matter that their arguments may not be evidenced-based. They are just trying to legislate out the possibility of a bad outcome. This may be noble but foolish in that over time this has been shown not to work. Not with birth choices nor food choices. Ever since nutritional information has been mandated on food products the American populace as a whole has only gotten fatter. Can you see the inconsistency here? If you think it is OK for there to be laws that restrict our choices in how we live and to surrender some liberty for the sake of a greater good then how can you be upset when those same rules are applied to birth choices?

My point is simply that I am a believer in allowing people to make their own choices. I think what makes our country special is her founding desire to allow all of us to succeed or fail of our own accord. This is the greatness of America and this unique quality of American life has been slowly whittled away by often well meaning people who tend to be on the liberal left. Not all, but most. Of course there has to be some regulation when individual choices can have massive consequences. But what I eat or drive or watch should have no more control from the outside then how or where I choose to give birth. If you agree with the idea that peanut butter and birth choices should remain free of politics then I hope you will consider voting tomorrow for the candidates and propositions that best fit this premise. Look at the big picture and do not get hung up on letting one issue decide how you vote. I hope you will see the folly in voting for bigger government. At least as it pertains to the freedom we long for and the profession we love.

Stuart Fischbein, MD