http://www.thebirthsurvey.com/AboutProject.html
Here is an opportunity to contribute data on your birth experiences to a large study. Please check it out. Thanks, Dr. F
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Milbank Report referenced in Support Letter
Dear M. Murray,
I have become aware that Dr. Stuart J. Fischbein is being threatened with disciplinary action for practicing evidence-based maternity care and defending woman’s autonomy and right to informed choice, as well as supporting midwives and the midwifery model of care.
According to your mission statement, “It is our goal that health care be provided in a holistic way, respecting all dimensions of a person. At a time of extraordinary technological advancement developed to cure disease -- one that focuses on the physical dimension of person -- we need to emphasize and embrace the psychological, social and spiritual dimensions of persons.
Health care is patient-centered. Patients have the right to make medical treatment decisions (including accepting or rejecting treatment), which includes free and informed consent, access to medical and other information regarding their care…”. Apparently your facility says, birthing women are insured and encouraged to make health care decisions autonomysly and are not forced to have procedures done on them and to them that could do harm. In this case I am referring to your policy for vaginal birth after cesarean and the midwifery model of care. Are your employees walking the talk?
Your own on-line statement says “A woman may or may not be able to have a vaginal birth with a future pregnancy, called a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Depending on the type of uterine incision used for the cesarean birth, the scar may not be strong enough to hold together during labor contractions”.
ACOG’s brochure on VBAC states:
Today, doctors know that many women who have had a cesarean delivery can later safely give birth though the vagina. This is called vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) delivery. VBAC can be a safe option for many women.
Of women who try VBAC, 60–80% succeed and are able to give birth vaginally.
There are some reasons why a woman may want to try VBAC over cesarean delivery:
· No abdominal surgery
· Shorter hospital stay
· Lower risk of infection
· Less blood loss
I will add to this; more success with breastfeeding.
It is your responsibility to know that uterine rupture happens less than 1% of the time. This is far less that the risks of other serious events in labor. If a hospital is not safe to have VBAC, it is not safe to give birth.
In 1987, Angela Carder, a pregnant cancer patient, died along with her baby at George Washington University Medical Center after a court-ordered Cesarean Section. As a result of this case, beginning in the early 1990s, hospitals began to set policies stating that decisions regarding pregnant patients would be made by the patient herself, her family, and her doctors.
When medicine is practiced primarily for profit, convenience and out of fear of litigation it is not good medical practice nor is it evidence-based medicine.
The c/section rate in this country is nearing 1/3 of all births. While the current hospital model will profit from this trend you must ask at what cost? Evidence is clear that repeated c/sections put women at greater risk and the evidence mounts that babies born this way have higher rates of breathing difficulties, breastfeeding difficulties and learning disabilities. Doctors and midwives who stand up for patients rights are often the target of ridicule and harassment by the very hospitals and organizations that their hard work supports. Does this sound like what is happening at your facility??
Losing Dr. Fischbein will have a devastating effect on the ability of midwives to continue to care for patients and for patients to have options other than c/section. Many believe that hospital policies that force women into surgery, deny them informed consent or tell them they must go to a different institution are unethical, in violation of EMTALA and even possibly illegal.
What other medical modality forces a healthy person to undergo major abdominal surgery against their wishes? Name one please.
Your policy is an assault on a woman's right to self determination, likely for economics, expediency and litigation mitigation, plain and simple.
I encourage you and your entire OB staff to get better informed by reading the Milbank Report – Evidence-Based maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve http://www.childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/evidence-based-maternity-care.pdf . There is no excuse for ignorance and no room for arrogance in providing stellar maternity care.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Batacan
Jeannie Batacan
Help bring transparency to maternity care. Take The Birth Survey! Share, Connect and Learn. www.thebirthsurvey.com
Watch this video! www.reducinginfantmortality.com
I have become aware that Dr. Stuart J. Fischbein is being threatened with disciplinary action for practicing evidence-based maternity care and defending woman’s autonomy and right to informed choice, as well as supporting midwives and the midwifery model of care.
According to your mission statement, “It is our goal that health care be provided in a holistic way, respecting all dimensions of a person. At a time of extraordinary technological advancement developed to cure disease -- one that focuses on the physical dimension of person -- we need to emphasize and embrace the psychological, social and spiritual dimensions of persons.
Health care is patient-centered. Patients have the right to make medical treatment decisions (including accepting or rejecting treatment), which includes free and informed consent, access to medical and other information regarding their care…”. Apparently your facility says, birthing women are insured and encouraged to make health care decisions autonomysly and are not forced to have procedures done on them and to them that could do harm. In this case I am referring to your policy for vaginal birth after cesarean and the midwifery model of care. Are your employees walking the talk?
Your own on-line statement says “A woman may or may not be able to have a vaginal birth with a future pregnancy, called a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Depending on the type of uterine incision used for the cesarean birth, the scar may not be strong enough to hold together during labor contractions”.
ACOG’s brochure on VBAC states:
Today, doctors know that many women who have had a cesarean delivery can later safely give birth though the vagina. This is called vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) delivery. VBAC can be a safe option for many women.
Of women who try VBAC, 60–80% succeed and are able to give birth vaginally.
There are some reasons why a woman may want to try VBAC over cesarean delivery:
· No abdominal surgery
· Shorter hospital stay
· Lower risk of infection
· Less blood loss
I will add to this; more success with breastfeeding.
It is your responsibility to know that uterine rupture happens less than 1% of the time. This is far less that the risks of other serious events in labor. If a hospital is not safe to have VBAC, it is not safe to give birth.
In 1987, Angela Carder, a pregnant cancer patient, died along with her baby at George Washington University Medical Center after a court-ordered Cesarean Section. As a result of this case, beginning in the early 1990s, hospitals began to set policies stating that decisions regarding pregnant patients would be made by the patient herself, her family, and her doctors.
When medicine is practiced primarily for profit, convenience and out of fear of litigation it is not good medical practice nor is it evidence-based medicine.
The c/section rate in this country is nearing 1/3 of all births. While the current hospital model will profit from this trend you must ask at what cost? Evidence is clear that repeated c/sections put women at greater risk and the evidence mounts that babies born this way have higher rates of breathing difficulties, breastfeeding difficulties and learning disabilities. Doctors and midwives who stand up for patients rights are often the target of ridicule and harassment by the very hospitals and organizations that their hard work supports. Does this sound like what is happening at your facility??
Losing Dr. Fischbein will have a devastating effect on the ability of midwives to continue to care for patients and for patients to have options other than c/section. Many believe that hospital policies that force women into surgery, deny them informed consent or tell them they must go to a different institution are unethical, in violation of EMTALA and even possibly illegal.
What other medical modality forces a healthy person to undergo major abdominal surgery against their wishes? Name one please.
Your policy is an assault on a woman's right to self determination, likely for economics, expediency and litigation mitigation, plain and simple.
I encourage you and your entire OB staff to get better informed by reading the Milbank Report – Evidence-Based maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve http://www.childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/evidence-based-maternity-care.pdf . There is no excuse for ignorance and no room for arrogance in providing stellar maternity care.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Batacan
Jeannie Batacan
Help bring transparency to maternity care. Take The Birth Survey! Share, Connect and Learn. www.thebirthsurvey.com
Watch this video! www.reducinginfantmortality.com
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
NY woman seeks VBAC provider
Dear Dr. Fischbein,
I just found out today that I am about 4 weeks pregnant! We are very
excited except that my OB, who delivered my two daughters, now nearly
13(emergency CS - due to distress of baby) and 11(VBAC) now tells me today
that a VBAC is "not allowed" because it is too dangerous. I am floored. I
do not want to have a c-section. The recovery from the first one so long
ago was very difficult. And since I did the VBAC successfully before, I
would like to do it again. However, now I must find another OB and
hospital that will allow it. I am having trouble finding a VBAC
supportive OB on the web. Perhaps you could help me - or at least tell me
a website that can help me locate one? I am located in Orange County, NY -
my zipcode is 10990. Thank you in advance for your help. Jen Emm
jensmail@warwick.net
Dear readers: "Too dangerous" is routinely being substituted for true evidenced based informed consent. This sort of subjective counseling for a variety of motives is becoming pervasive and part of the culture. It is a prime example of the well known propaganda technique of, "Tell a lie, tell it often, tell it loud and it becomes truth". If you have any ideas for Jen please comment below and feel free to e-mail her. Thanks, Dr.F
I just found out today that I am about 4 weeks pregnant! We are very
excited except that my OB, who delivered my two daughters, now nearly
13(emergency CS - due to distress of baby) and 11(VBAC) now tells me today
that a VBAC is "not allowed" because it is too dangerous. I am floored. I
do not want to have a c-section. The recovery from the first one so long
ago was very difficult. And since I did the VBAC successfully before, I
would like to do it again. However, now I must find another OB and
hospital that will allow it. I am having trouble finding a VBAC
supportive OB on the web. Perhaps you could help me - or at least tell me
a website that can help me locate one? I am located in Orange County, NY -
my zipcode is 10990. Thank you in advance for your help. Jen Emm
jensmail@warwick.net
Dear readers: "Too dangerous" is routinely being substituted for true evidenced based informed consent. This sort of subjective counseling for a variety of motives is becoming pervasive and part of the culture. It is a prime example of the well known propaganda technique of, "Tell a lie, tell it often, tell it loud and it becomes truth". If you have any ideas for Jen please comment below and feel free to e-mail her. Thanks, Dr.F
Physician Group Pulls the Plug on Women’s Autonomy
Physician Group Pulls the Plug on Women’s Autonomy
ACOG Issues Policy Statement About What Women in Labor Will Be "Allowed" to Eat and Drink
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 25, 2009) – Displaying a stunning lack of regard for patient autonomy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a statement this week declaring that the group will "allow" laboring women to drink "modest amounts" of clear fluids during labor while continuing to prohibit access to solid food.
"Once again ACOG has issued a position statement with little regard for the evidence or for the ability of women to make decisions for themselves," said Susan Jenkins, Legal Counsel for The Big Push for Midwives Campaign. "It's insulting that ACOG actually believes that laboring women should be grateful that they will now be 'allowed' to have more than just ice chips, when we have long known how vital nutritional sustenance is to mothers and babies not only during pregnancy, but during labor as well."
Hospitals routinely adopt ACOG position statements as standard policy governing the treatment of pregnant and laboring women, despite the fact that a number of the organization's position statements do not acknowledge all of the risks and benefits associated with common procedures.
"ACOG is asking laboring women to do the physical equivalent of a marathon on the power of a 'modest' amount of clear liquid," said Sabrina McIntyre, mother of two. "Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with my midwife and her wisdom of keeping up my physical stamina for such a monumental event."
Policies restricting food and liquid intake date from an era when laboring women were routinely given general anesthesia and risked aspirating food into the lungs. Modern anesthetic techniques have virtually eliminated this risk, which is further reduced by the fact that only a tiny minority of laboring women, even among those who deliver via cesarean section, actually receive general anesthesia.
"The women I care for eat when they are hungry and drink when they are thirsty, all without asking for ACOG's permission first," said Elizabeth Allemann, MD. "Women deserve to be fully informed about what the evidence actually shows, and it's time that the medical profession abandoned policies based on the outdated and paternalistic idea that patients should play no role whatsoever in the decision-making process."
The Big Push for Midwives Campaign represents thousands of grassroots advocates in the United States who support expanding access to Certified Professional Midwives and out-of-hospital maternity care. The mission of The Big Push includes educating national policymakers about the reduced costs and improved outcomes associated with out-of-hospital birth and advocating for including the services of Certified Professional Midwives in health care reform. Media inquiries: Katherine Prown (414) 550-8025, katie@thebigpushformidwives.org
ACOG Issues Policy Statement About What Women in Labor Will Be "Allowed" to Eat and Drink
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 25, 2009) – Displaying a stunning lack of regard for patient autonomy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a statement this week declaring that the group will "allow" laboring women to drink "modest amounts" of clear fluids during labor while continuing to prohibit access to solid food.
"Once again ACOG has issued a position statement with little regard for the evidence or for the ability of women to make decisions for themselves," said Susan Jenkins, Legal Counsel for The Big Push for Midwives Campaign. "It's insulting that ACOG actually believes that laboring women should be grateful that they will now be 'allowed' to have more than just ice chips, when we have long known how vital nutritional sustenance is to mothers and babies not only during pregnancy, but during labor as well."
Hospitals routinely adopt ACOG position statements as standard policy governing the treatment of pregnant and laboring women, despite the fact that a number of the organization's position statements do not acknowledge all of the risks and benefits associated with common procedures.
"ACOG is asking laboring women to do the physical equivalent of a marathon on the power of a 'modest' amount of clear liquid," said Sabrina McIntyre, mother of two. "Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with my midwife and her wisdom of keeping up my physical stamina for such a monumental event."
Policies restricting food and liquid intake date from an era when laboring women were routinely given general anesthesia and risked aspirating food into the lungs. Modern anesthetic techniques have virtually eliminated this risk, which is further reduced by the fact that only a tiny minority of laboring women, even among those who deliver via cesarean section, actually receive general anesthesia.
"The women I care for eat when they are hungry and drink when they are thirsty, all without asking for ACOG's permission first," said Elizabeth Allemann, MD. "Women deserve to be fully informed about what the evidence actually shows, and it's time that the medical profession abandoned policies based on the outdated and paternalistic idea that patients should play no role whatsoever in the decision-making process."
The Big Push for Midwives Campaign represents thousands of grassroots advocates in the United States who support expanding access to Certified Professional Midwives and out-of-hospital maternity care. The mission of The Big Push includes educating national policymakers about the reduced costs and improved outcomes associated with out-of-hospital birth and advocating for including the services of Certified Professional Midwives in health care reform. Media inquiries: Katherine Prown (414) 550-8025, katie@thebigpushformidwives.org
Monday, August 24, 2009
From the Coalition for Breech Birth
http://www.breechbirth.ca/Welcome.html
Respecting the Choices of Women
Vaginal breech birth was practically banned following a significant international research study in 2000. This study, the "Term Breech Trial" or TBT, appeared to prove that caesarean section was substantially safer for the delivery of all breech babies. The trial was highly criticized, but many birth care providers took this opportunity to do what they wanted to do anyway - to stop offering vaginal breech birth to their clients, and to insist instead upon a surgical delivery. Very few centres continued to offer vaginal birth. To read the original TBT report, click here.
In addition to all the professional criticism, the TBT's own two year follow up negated the original results, suggesting that any difference in safety between vaginal and surgical birth of a breech baby is negligible - for both mother and child. Despite this evidence, many Birth Care Providers (BCPs) still avoid balanced informed choice discussions with their clients, denying them the opportunity to make an informed choice. Most frequently, it is flatly stated that surgical birth is the standard of care, and that is what is going to happen - regardless of that mother's individual circumstances. If vaginal birth is mentioned at all, it is brushed off as an inferior, unsafe choice. However, caesarean surgery, while it presents many advantages for the surgeon, has lifelong ramifications for the birthing woman and her family, including issues with subsequent pregnancies, secondary infertility, Vaginal Birth After Caesarean (VBAC) availability, and depression, not to mention a risk of death in childbirth increased threefold over vaginal birth.
Women should not be obliged to accept these serious risks as "standard of care" when clinical research clearly demonstrates that vaginal birth of a breech baby does not pose an increased level of risk. In addition, the recommendations of professional organizations such as The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada do not support automatic caesarean for breech. Yet, time and again, vaginal breech birth is presented as tremendously difficult and dangerous, and caesarean risks glossed over.
Our mission is to fill the gap in the informed choice discussion by offering women the evidence-based information and the vital support they need to make their own decisions.
Respecting the Choices of Women
Vaginal breech birth was practically banned following a significant international research study in 2000. This study, the "Term Breech Trial" or TBT, appeared to prove that caesarean section was substantially safer for the delivery of all breech babies. The trial was highly criticized, but many birth care providers took this opportunity to do what they wanted to do anyway - to stop offering vaginal breech birth to their clients, and to insist instead upon a surgical delivery. Very few centres continued to offer vaginal birth. To read the original TBT report, click here.
In addition to all the professional criticism, the TBT's own two year follow up negated the original results, suggesting that any difference in safety between vaginal and surgical birth of a breech baby is negligible - for both mother and child. Despite this evidence, many Birth Care Providers (BCPs) still avoid balanced informed choice discussions with their clients, denying them the opportunity to make an informed choice. Most frequently, it is flatly stated that surgical birth is the standard of care, and that is what is going to happen - regardless of that mother's individual circumstances. If vaginal birth is mentioned at all, it is brushed off as an inferior, unsafe choice. However, caesarean surgery, while it presents many advantages for the surgeon, has lifelong ramifications for the birthing woman and her family, including issues with subsequent pregnancies, secondary infertility, Vaginal Birth After Caesarean (VBAC) availability, and depression, not to mention a risk of death in childbirth increased threefold over vaginal birth.
Women should not be obliged to accept these serious risks as "standard of care" when clinical research clearly demonstrates that vaginal birth of a breech baby does not pose an increased level of risk. In addition, the recommendations of professional organizations such as The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada do not support automatic caesarean for breech. Yet, time and again, vaginal breech birth is presented as tremendously difficult and dangerous, and caesarean risks glossed over.
Our mission is to fill the gap in the informed choice discussion by offering women the evidence-based information and the vital support they need to make their own decisions.
Another Support Letter
August 24, 2009
Mr. Michael T. Murray,
I am disappointed to hear about your hospital’s actions against Dr. Stuart Fischbein and his supporting CNMs. I believe it is wrong to punish them for helping women achieve the safe vaginal birth they desire. Those women would have been subject to a major surgery they were opposed to, and proved unnecessary, otherwise.
As an expectant mother, I hope to have freedom of choice, informed consent, and informed refusal during my birth experience. I consider this a basic human right. If I were in need of an obstetrician to safely deliver my breech or VBAC baby, I would hope the opportunity would not be denied for me to have a vaginal birth. I hope I would have the support of the medical community on my side to help me through.
I am not anti-cesarean. I believe there is a time and a place for it, and it has saved many lives. I am thankful to live in a society where such things are readily available to me and my child should the need arise.
However, I also believe in women’s ability to give birth safely, even in less than optimal circumstances. I believe a woman should have the right to review the available data without fear-mongering and make a decision that fits her beliefs and preferences. I also believe that once she makes her choice, it should be supported by the medical system. I believe the medical community is here to serve us, the people.
We are not to be held hostage to a system over our own bodies for monetary or legal concerns. Incidentally, failure to recognize and support my wishes concerning my own body is a more serious offense to me than the fact that some babies die. It is a fact of life that death cannot be thwarted. Heartbreaking as that may be, we cannot control the element of life. What can be controlled is how you treat those in your care. Dignity and respect are called for, even if their choices differ from what yours would be.
That being said, vaginal birth has not been proven more dangerous or life threatening than cesarean section. The statistics demand freedom of choice. VBAC and breech vaginal birth have happened safely and should continue to do so. Obstetricians should be trained to handle these events safely so that women can chose what to do with their own bodies.
I appreciate the efforts of Dr. Stuart Fischbein. He is a hero to me for safely supporting vaginal birth for those who wish for it. I hope you’ll train and hire more people with his character and skill set. Without skilled obstetricians, women who feel strongly about birth and their choices will resort to birthing at home without the immediate back-up and monitoring they should have the right to. Is this not more dangerous than allowing vaginal delivery in the hospital?
I urge you to revise your hospital policies to allow more freedom of choice.
Sincerely,
KB
Mr. Michael T. Murray,
I am disappointed to hear about your hospital’s actions against Dr. Stuart Fischbein and his supporting CNMs. I believe it is wrong to punish them for helping women achieve the safe vaginal birth they desire. Those women would have been subject to a major surgery they were opposed to, and proved unnecessary, otherwise.
As an expectant mother, I hope to have freedom of choice, informed consent, and informed refusal during my birth experience. I consider this a basic human right. If I were in need of an obstetrician to safely deliver my breech or VBAC baby, I would hope the opportunity would not be denied for me to have a vaginal birth. I hope I would have the support of the medical community on my side to help me through.
I am not anti-cesarean. I believe there is a time and a place for it, and it has saved many lives. I am thankful to live in a society where such things are readily available to me and my child should the need arise.
However, I also believe in women’s ability to give birth safely, even in less than optimal circumstances. I believe a woman should have the right to review the available data without fear-mongering and make a decision that fits her beliefs and preferences. I also believe that once she makes her choice, it should be supported by the medical system. I believe the medical community is here to serve us, the people.
We are not to be held hostage to a system over our own bodies for monetary or legal concerns. Incidentally, failure to recognize and support my wishes concerning my own body is a more serious offense to me than the fact that some babies die. It is a fact of life that death cannot be thwarted. Heartbreaking as that may be, we cannot control the element of life. What can be controlled is how you treat those in your care. Dignity and respect are called for, even if their choices differ from what yours would be.
That being said, vaginal birth has not been proven more dangerous or life threatening than cesarean section. The statistics demand freedom of choice. VBAC and breech vaginal birth have happened safely and should continue to do so. Obstetricians should be trained to handle these events safely so that women can chose what to do with their own bodies.
I appreciate the efforts of Dr. Stuart Fischbein. He is a hero to me for safely supporting vaginal birth for those who wish for it. I hope you’ll train and hire more people with his character and skill set. Without skilled obstetricians, women who feel strongly about birth and their choices will resort to birthing at home without the immediate back-up and monitoring they should have the right to. Is this not more dangerous than allowing vaginal delivery in the hospital?
I urge you to revise your hospital policies to allow more freedom of choice.
Sincerely,
KB
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Thanks from Breech birth parents
June 4th 2009
Dear St. John's Pleasant Valley Hospital Administrator,
I wanted to relay our birth and patient care experience at your hospital.
My wife and I had planned on a natural home birth. Unfortunately, our baby was frank breech, and despite trying all the baby turning methods, she remained breech.
We tried everything, Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, even an External Cephalic Version (at St. Johns Pleasant Valley with Dr. Fischbein, incidentally) but nothing worked. And even though none of these methods seemed to work, and we were draining our pocket books trying everything under the sun, we were still determined to have a natural drug free vaginal birth.
We were lucky enough to find Dr. Fischbein, who after many tests and evaluations determined that, with his expertise, my wife was a good candidate for a vaginal breech birth.
As it so happens Dr. Fischbein is one of very few doctors that have the experience and skill to perform a breech birth. Even though our home birth could not happen, we were thrilled to have the option of a natural birth. Dr. Fischbein, along with the help of his midwives, was able to deliver our beautiful daughter. We knew we were in very skilled and capable hands. Our birth experience was wonderful thanks to the nurses, midwives and Dr. Stuart Fischbein, at St. Johns Pleasant Valley.
As I understand, many hospitals will not allow breech births. We are so glad that St. John's Pleasant Valley Hospital is progressive enough and values patient choice to have allowed Dr. Fischbein to perform a breech delivery. After the successful birth of our beautiful daughter, the nursing staff took terrific care of us. We are so incredibly grateful to Dr. Fischbein and the staff at your hospital. We were so impressed with the care we received.
With much gratitude,
Jeff and Martinique Lin (and daughter Lexington Lin)
Dear St. John's Pleasant Valley Hospital Administrator,
I wanted to relay our birth and patient care experience at your hospital.
My wife and I had planned on a natural home birth. Unfortunately, our baby was frank breech, and despite trying all the baby turning methods, she remained breech.
We tried everything, Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, even an External Cephalic Version (at St. Johns Pleasant Valley with Dr. Fischbein, incidentally) but nothing worked. And even though none of these methods seemed to work, and we were draining our pocket books trying everything under the sun, we were still determined to have a natural drug free vaginal birth.
We were lucky enough to find Dr. Fischbein, who after many tests and evaluations determined that, with his expertise, my wife was a good candidate for a vaginal breech birth.
As it so happens Dr. Fischbein is one of very few doctors that have the experience and skill to perform a breech birth. Even though our home birth could not happen, we were thrilled to have the option of a natural birth. Dr. Fischbein, along with the help of his midwives, was able to deliver our beautiful daughter. We knew we were in very skilled and capable hands. Our birth experience was wonderful thanks to the nurses, midwives and Dr. Stuart Fischbein, at St. Johns Pleasant Valley.
As I understand, many hospitals will not allow breech births. We are so glad that St. John's Pleasant Valley Hospital is progressive enough and values patient choice to have allowed Dr. Fischbein to perform a breech delivery. After the successful birth of our beautiful daughter, the nursing staff took terrific care of us. We are so incredibly grateful to Dr. Fischbein and the staff at your hospital. We were so impressed with the care we received.
With much gratitude,
Jeff and Martinique Lin (and daughter Lexington Lin)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
