High-Tech Births

[primroseburrows]

From Reuters:

Defense Software Could Make Births Safer -Report

(2003-12-03)

LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists have incorporated defense software used to pick up targets on military radar into a new painless technique that detects problems during labor and could lead to safer births.
The electrocardiogram (ECG) trace developed by the defense research company QinetiQ can record an electrical signal from the heart and indicates if the baby is not getting enough oxygen or has an irregular heartbeat, a science magazine reported.
It can also detect the strength of the mother's contractions, which shows how the labor is progressing.
"The non-invasive system records signals from 12 electrodes on the mother's abdomen, separating out useful components from background noise from muscles other than the heart or interference from electrical equipment," New Scientist magazine said on Wednesday.
Doctors at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital in southwestern England who are testing the device believe it will help to detect early problems during the delivery and help to rule out unnecessary Caesarean deliveries.
A technique called cardiotocography (CTG) is already used during labor but it is not as accurate as the ECG.
"The researchers also found they could measure the mother's contractions directly, using the electrical signals from the muscles," the magazine added.

© Copyright 2003, Reuters

Um. I think this could be useful in very, very high risk birth situations. In normal, low risk situations, however, it's just another way of making chilbirth into an illness, of stealing power from women AGAIN. How much do you want to bet that millions of women will insist on it without question?

Comments

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. It seems to me that (as freaky as it is that this is defense weapon technology they're incorporating), nothing is being done to affect the birth process itself in normal situations--it seems like a more advanced variation on the standard monitoring systems they already have in place. I'm not really sure I'm seeing where the empowerment factor is involved.

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

When fetal monitors are used, the woman has to stay in bed, usually on her back. This leads to less control over labour (walking, moving around in labour makes it easier for the mom to work with her contractions in whatever way that works best for her. The labours often are shorter and less uncomfortable). Also , a machine that picks up the tiniest traces of irregularity is more likely to prompt unnecessary intervention. Once the Hospital Technology Machine starts grinding its wheels, it doesn't go backwards. They want to protect their arses, so the go the most "cautious" route, which leads to some big messes.

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

erk. really. this is not a surprise to me, really--but still, argh, as if i needed something else to be paranoid about! o.O

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

Don't be paranoid. *g* Just get yourself a good midwife when the time comes. They're out there, I can tell you from experience.

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

*has spontaneously decided never to have kids!!*

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

Nonono! Don't do that!

Sites like this can help you find a midwife. You don't HAVE to have a negative birth. Shop around, and make sure your midwife shares the same ideas about birth as you do.

[patchfire.livejournal.com]

No, we're not tag-teaming you, dear. *g*

The problem lies in exactly what you said - it's an advanced variation on the standard monitoring systems. The guy who invented the EFM (Electric Fetal Monitor) that's currently used has said, publicly and frequently, that it's being misused. He designed it for high-risk situations, and then it was applied to all. Beyond that, interpreting the readouts has more to do with what mood a doctor's in than any real science. There was a study done where they took various printouts to a number of doctors and asked them to interpret if the fetus was in distress or not. Very rarely was there anything approaching a concensus. After six months, the same doctors were given the same printouts, and asked to interpret them again. In most cases, they didn't agree with themselves from six months prior.

The real problem lies in that doctors only view birth as 'normal' in retrospect, if nothing goes wrong, when in fact, many problems in birth are often iatrogenic. (Monitoring requires you to lie down on your back, breaking the waters with an amniohook can increase the chance of infection, GBS transmission, cord prolapse, and it goes on.) Whatever else you want to say about women, our bodies were designed to give birth. There were no caesareans, so if you couldn't give birth, you more than likely died.

Oh, and for the record, they 'monitored' me in labour with a handheld Doppler, for the most part. The component of the EFM that monitors contraction strength really isn't needed, and the intermittent monitoring has been shown to be just as effective in capturing true fetal distress. Not to mention a little transceiver is a lot more comfortable than a huge-ass belt. (Another sign that these things were designed by men. What pregnant woman wants to put not one but TWO wide belts on her stomach??) Still, I wanted to kick the nurse's arse whenever she was hovering and wanting to monitor - I had work to do, after all. ;-)

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

I am one big world of o.O.

So when you were in labor were you able to have the freedom you wanted to move around and be as comfortable as you wished? What kinds of restrictions did they put on you? If it were up to me I think I would probably want as little work to do as possible during delivery, lol--but then my maternal instincts are also about as strong as a fruitcake's.

[patchfire.livejournal.com]

I think I had the most freedom I could've found at any hospital in the area. Still, there's a reason the next one will be at home. ;-)

The weirdest parts were: being stopped whilst walking the halls, because I hadn't 'checked in' with the nurse to let her know where I was going. Nevermind that I didn't know where she was or how to get her to tell her, even if I had known I was suddenly back in grade school. Then I was 'allowed' to get into the bathtub, but once I was in the nurse alternated between telling me that there was no way I was feeling nauseaous, etc (all signs of transition, or v. close to the pushing stage), and telling me I needed to get out of the tub, because 'we don't want to have that baby in the water, now do we?' (Nevermind that water birth is a perfectly acceptable thing)

I was lucky in that I wasn't continuously monitored and I was given some freedom. I think the nurse got uncomfortable because about three hours into it I took off the damn hospital gown and was naked after that. The thing about labour is that it's good for the baby, and the thing about feeling the contractions and working with it is that there's a difference between 'normal' pain and 'there's a big problem' pain, and usually in those cases, the mother's going to know - before the machines register it.

You should also know that unmedicated births can result in intense orgasms. I didn't experience one myself (I think position matters, as well), but from what I've read, birth orgasms are... particularly memorable. Our bodies really do like us, sometimes. :D

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

Sorry to disagree with Primroseburrows, but I had "the works" and I'd do it again. Hell, I'd have an edpidural for mentstrual cramps if they would let me. I don't believe in the whole "natural childbirth" hype. Unless I'm attempting to push that baby out of my nose, it's natural.

And I have to say, when I was in labor the last thing I wanted to do was walk. I did not want to meditate, breath like an asthma victim, or do some damn mother earth childbirth chant. I wanted someone to knock me over the head with a mallet. I wanted Evan to feed me bon bons. If my doctor had told me to walk around instead of giving me pain medication, I would have kicked his ass.

What's empowering is having choices. If someone wants unmedicated birth, then they should be allowed and supported when they make that choice. And when I choose not to, I deserve the same respect.

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think that people should have the birth they want, within reason (such as scheduled sections/inductions before the baby's ready). My problem is the lack of choices, and the way hospitals escalate treatment without even considering the mother's wishes.

Epidurals I have problems with, because they necessitate an internal monitor, which opens the baby up to a world of infection. I had one with my youngest. Nobody told me about the internal monitor beforehand, or the IV, or the loss of sensation. Doctors should educate better. I wouldn't have had it had I known. Still, it's a choice that every woman should make. They just so often don't get the chance to choose at all.

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on that completely. I went to both a midwife and a doctor before I made the final choice. I chose my doctor. I didn't like the midwife experience. I didn't feel comfortable. I think my personality was more suited to a hospital environment.

But I love my epidural, now. *shakes fists and clings to epidural*. My birth went from horrible, awful to ohmythisaintsobad in about ten seconds. After that, Elise was out in about two good pushes. I threatened to run away with my anesthesiologist, but alas, he was taken.

Okay, not really.

*back to packing*

Argh, I MUST stop coming on LJ.