Men's Rights?

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Number 5 made me laugh. How can male circumcision even compare with the removal of your clitoris? I mean THINK ABOUT IT, it doesn't work anymore! That's the entire point.

Female genital mutilation doesn't necessarily involve the removal of the clitoris, though it usually does. Some groups only cut off the clitoral hood which is analogous to the male foreskin.

Personally I think both are icky, but I realize I'm in the minority. I'm the only nurse on my unit who won't participate in circumcisions.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Number 5 made me laugh. How can male circumcision even compare with the removal of your clitoris? I mean THINK ABOUT IT, it doesn't work anymore! That's the entire point.

Female genital mutilation doesn't necessarily involve the removal of the clitoris, though it usually does. Some groups only cut off the clitoral hood which is analogous to the male foreskin.[/quoute]

I've heard that and agree both are icky.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

The circumcision bit is going to be possibly more debated in the future. Recent studies show that the circumcised males in Africa are more resistant to AIDS. If this is the case, then one can expect a resurgence of this barbaric act. Luckily the same has not been shown with clitorectomy!!!!
.

Just so you know, those studies have been largely debunked since the biggest one did not include any questions about behavior (sexual activity or condom use). If circumcision were truly a good defense against HIV, we would expect to see it less in the US than in Canada or the UK since circumcision rates are much higher in the US, but that isn't the case.

Just so you know, Tracy, recent studies are indeed showing a difference in HIV rates in Africa in circumcised vs non circumcised males. The researchers are beginning to focus on the possibility that there are certain receptors on the foreskin that the HIV virus can attach to. Therefore, if the foreskin is absent, the HIV is not as readily attached and it is being considered that this may explain the difference in infection rates.

This may also explain the difference in cervical and penile cancer rates in circumcised vs non circumcised populations as these diseases, being related to the HPV virus may have similar receptor differences.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

In fact I believe the midwivery program promotes increased danger to a mother and child by promoting home birth. Birthing should take place in a hospital to increase safety and the government should be funding birthing units in hospitals rather than trying to get people to stay at home.

I am also waiting for males to apply to the midwivery program as it is a great job with good pay, and the idea that men cant be as good a midwife as a woman is crap.

Study after study have shown that home births are as safe or safer than hospital births for appropriately screened women (those with low risk pregnancies). It wouldn't be for me, but it is a legitimate choice.

I've worked with a couple of men in L&D and they were well received by most patients. One had been a midwife in the UK. I agree, there is no reason a midwife or OB needs to be a woman to be caring and empathetic.

There is no such thing as an appropriately screened woman. Admittedly, you can eliminate women with diseases such as diabetes, heart conditions, etc, or you can eliminate women with low lying placentae or breech births, etc BUT
you CANNOT ever eliminate the risk of unexpected hemorrhage, or unexpected amniotic fluid embolism or sudden heart arrhythmia or a cord round the neck or sudden cord prolapse etc etc etc.
Delivery is fraught with many sudden emergencies both for the mother and the child. Many of these emergencies depend on immediate intensive care for the mother or baby and in minutes life or death can be determined, or an infant can go from normal to a lifetime of severe disability in seconds.

In places where a mother does not have to deliver at home , then there is no reason to do so. Birthing units are great- you have all the comforts of a quiet place, with or without family members, jacuzzis etc,you can choose whether to have pain relief or not, BUT you have a crash team waiting to appear in those vital minutes to save your life or your baby's life if needed.

Why a mother would choose to put herself or baby at ANY risk unnecessarily is beyond me and I think the feminist movement has convinced some mothers that somehow they have failed and deprived their babies from something if they are in hospital.

And in Canada, there have all ready been mortality and morbidities directly related to birth at home.

It aint safe. Don't let anyone convince you that it is.

Anyway, who wants the bloody mess at home?

 

[Said1]

I wish I would have had my daughter at home. My doctor wasn't there and the night nurses were total witches. To each their own I suppose.

Also, messes aren't a big concern when you're in labour and most people probably take appropriate measures, preventing stains and whatnot prior to the main event.

 

[feronia]

Wouldn't a midwife be educated to handle any emergencies? Or at least educated enough to dial 911.

 

[fuzzylogix]

An obstetrical emergency can be massive and SUDDEN. Dialling 911 and getting an ambulance to go to hospital is too long in an obstetrical emergency, even if you live next door to the hospital. If you hemorrhage at home, your midwife doesn't have IV equipment or blood to give you an immediate transfusion, or if you have an arrhthymia, she doesn't have a crash team to resuscitate you.
As for your baby, ditto. A blue baby can often be revived with the help of a crash team, but delivery at home assumes that you won/t have a complication.

I am not against midwives. And certainly many people have the experiences of Said1 that they think a hospital is cold. But that is why birthing units are the way to go- you can have your personal midwife and your own method of labour BUT you have immediate access to the best resuscitative equipment and care for you and your baby.

Even if there is only a 1% risk that anything bad will happen, why take that risk when we are in countries that have the luxury of having the backup. Why? Just to say that you know best and aren't going to have those nasty doctors and nurses around???

Many women say that labour is natural and if women in Africa can have babies out in the bush, then we should be able to have babies at home. But, these women fail to mention the very high maternal and infant mortality rates in Africa. Women now in North America are well fed with larger babies that are more likely to have labour difficulties.

No labour is 100% risk free. Period.

Do you want to just be able to tell your disabled child, "Well, honey, at least you were born at home."

 

[Said1]

Stop being so dramatic. There are risks higher than 1% attached to lots of things we do, including medical procedures, administered at a hospital. If there was a 1% risk of getting hit by a care crossing the street, would you do it anyway if you were pregnant?

I sort of chuckling some of your compairsons (I'm not trying to attack you here) because honestly, I've NEVER heard a women speak of entitlement due to African women giving birth in the bushes. The morality rates in Africa are high for a number of reasons, I doubt anyone with half a brain would fail to realize access to decent medical care, proper nutrition etc, etc are attributed to the high numbers, regardless of what homebirth advocates may claim.

And btw, I gave birth in a birthing unit, jets in the bath tub, wallpaper, lazyboy,the works. I didn't say hospitals were 'cold', I said the doctor and the night nurses were witches. The day nurse and was great and was truely gifted.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you such an expert, are you studying to be a nurse? I'm not saying I'm an expert because I've had a baby, but I do have some association with midwives, nurses and many, many people who've given birth at home through my place of employment. I'd like to hear where your coming from, it may explain why you are so ardently agianst homebirths? In fact, it may interest you to know that I was encouraged, by the hospital staff to stay home as long as I could stand it. This is not abnormal. So, as you say, if many things can go wrong during labour, why would they encourage the risk, especially when there is NO medical staff present? I'm a wimp, so I went in as soon as I got off the phone, the second time I called, which was 30 minutes after the first time. :lol:



Here's an interesting study. Note that it wasn't carried out by a midwife association: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15961814

 

[Kreskin]

I've never understood why some women want the whole hell experience of birth. No epidural, no nothing.

 

[Said1]

I think it's probably not so bad after the first birth, or at least it's quicker. Laughing There are direct risks involved with the epidural too - pulmonary edema, nerve damage and indirect increases in incidences of certain things like bradycardia. But living life is a risk most of the time, isn't it?

 

[Finder]

wow somehow this topic has gone into the realms of birthing?

 

[fuzzylogix]

Yeah, sorry Andrew- I guess it proves your point about men's rights being stomped on all over the place, but birthing does involve men too, right??

Said 1, you have use the classic old argument of "we still have to cross the street even though we may be hit by a car"
The point is not to live your life in fear and trepidation, but to try to ensure that the things you CAN do in life are as safe as possible. And YES, for a 1% risk for me or my baby, if there was something I could change to help, such as go to a birthing unit, I would.

I guess I would have to ask a mother why it is SO important to have a baby at home.What advantages to the mother and baby outweigh the risks? The idea of going back to home births originated out of the return to natural delivery. And I think all women would agree that the old method of going into a sterile operating room and being put up in the stirrups with everyone gowned and often not even allowing the father in, let alone anyone else, is archaic and unecessary. And of course, there are risks to epidurals, so if you can go naturally, great.

But somehow, along the way, the reaction to the archaic system in the hospital ended up in the home. Birthing units have now been designed to provide this home natural environment while still providing the safety of the hospital.

I am sure you meant Mortality, not Morality, of the African women. But your chuckling is a misinterpretation of my point. I did not say Western Women think African women have a sense of entitlement- but I have had many friends who quote childbirth as a natural event, and then point out that African women have their babies at home, or even out in the wilds. My point was that these women fail to mention the sad outcome of many of these births. Also, as African women are often malnutritioned, their babies tend to be smaller, and are more easily delivered than our big fat McDonalds babies.

As the major risks are at at the time of delivery, yes, hospitals dont advise you to rush in at the first signs of labour, but that is not the same as telling you to stay home and have the baby at home.

I am not sure why so many women fight for the idea of home delivery as though it is a feminist right that someone is trying to deprive them of.

 

[tamarin]

As long as birthing at home doesn't lead to any legal ramifications for a society (its institutions and spokespersons) that accepts or promotes it, it can't be all that bad. I just don't want any crybabies of the adult variety.
And, of course, as long as the men involved are onboard.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Huh???

Of course there are huge legal ramifications over delivery of babies. Everyone wants and expects a perfect baby. It is the biggest area of medical litigation. The cost of obstetrical malpractice is the reason why many gynecologists are giving up the obstetrical part of their practice.

Parents with a less than perfect baby are big crybabies.

 

[tamarin]

Exactly my point. If you're going to complicate matters for professionals caught in such a litigious arena, don't expect public support for personal choice.

 

[Zzarchov]

Finder, your post is the exact reason there need to be men's rights groups. Some things HAVE become real issues.
Example, the legalization of abortion (which I am for) now brings up the biggest issue. Women having complete control over men.

Two consenting adults are both equally responsible for the pregnancy. EQUALLY. If she wishes to abort the child, he doesn't even have to be told let alone decide if he's willing to raise it and she can pay child support.
If she chooses to keep it he just has to know he's responsible for it.

Would it not be more fair if (with the exception of cases of rape) BOTH parents had to agree to abortion? Its not like women aren't aware that having insufficiently protected sex can't lead to a child. Should they not have an equal level of personal responsibility as men? Knowing not to ride some guy if she doesn't want to risk being stuck with a kid? The same as a guy has to think carefully before he starts sowing his wild oats?

The other option is allowing either parent to decide on an abortion and that is FAR more likely to end horribley, horribley wrong.

 

[Kreskin]

Zzarch, until men carry the fetus/baby inside them there is no such thing as pregnancy equality. Take away her right to decide is basically slavery. Forced birth is equality? The guy will always have the deciding vote and he's not expected to do anything but watch. I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well, in that case isn't it Male slavery that a man has to pay for a child he didn't want to keep? Should he not be able to sign away his parently rights and no longer be responsible for it in the same way a woman can choose not to have the child?

If its BOTH of their children then both get a choice in all decisions about it. If its HER child only, then he should not be responsible as he gets no say in it.

He could simply decide not to have sex with a woman and thus not be a slave.

So too could that woman not be a slave by simply choosing not to have sex with that same man.


If its slavery for one, its slavery for both. If its ok for one, its ok for both.

Can you not see the double standard? Its "Is MY baby if I want to abort it, but OUR baby if I don't" in any way a fair system to both genders?

If only the man could choose whether or not to abort the baby would that seem fair?

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

In fact I believe the midwivery program promotes increased danger to a mother and child by promoting home birth. Birthing should take place in a hospital to increase safety and the government should be funding birthing units in hospitals rather than trying to get people to stay at home.

I am also waiting for males to apply to the midwivery program as it is a great job with good pay, and the idea that men cant be as good a midwife as a woman is crap.

Study after study have shown that home births are as safe or safer than hospital births for appropriately screened women (those with low risk pregnancies). It wouldn't be for me, but it is a legitimate choice.

I've worked with a couple of men in L&D and they were well received by most patients. One had been a midwife in the UK. I agree, there is no reason a midwife or OB needs to be a woman to be caring and empathetic.

There is no such thing as an appropriately screened woman. Admittedly, you can eliminate women with diseases such as diabetes, heart conditions, etc, or you can eliminate women with low lying placentae or breech births, etc BUT
you CANNOT ever eliminate the risk of unexpected hemorrhage, or unexpected amniotic fluid embolism or sudden heart arrhythmia or a cord round the neck or sudden cord prolapse etc etc etc.
Delivery is fraught with many sudden emergencies both for the mother and the child. Many of these emergencies depend on immediate intensive care for the mother or baby and in minutes life or death can be determined, or an infant can go from normal to a lifetime of severe disability in seconds.

In places where a mother does not have to deliver at home , then there is no reason to do so. Birthing units are great- you have all the comforts of a quiet place, with or without family members, jacuzzis etc,you can choose whether to have pain relief or not, BUT you have a crash team waiting to appear in those vital minutes to save your life or your baby's life if needed.

Why a mother would choose to put herself or baby at ANY risk unnecessarily is beyond me and I think the feminist movement has convinced some mothers that somehow they have failed and deprived their babies from something if they are in hospital.

And in Canada, there have all ready been mortality and morbidities directly related to birth at home.

It aint safe. Don't let anyone convince you that it is.

Anyway, who wants the bloody mess at home?

You've obviously never had to give birth in a bad hospital if you think they are all nice or safe or reasonable. Birthing centers are great, but they are not widely available to many Canadian women. I went to school in Kamloops and unless things have really changed I think I would rather deliver in the parking lot than in that hospital. They were about one step away from the shave and enema days and still doing some archaic practices. Their NICU was not set up for the really critical cases either, which is supposed to be one of the benefits of a hospital birth. Canada just doesn't have the population to support level 3 nicus on every corner like the US.

Deaths and damages have been attributed to home births. I've also personally seen them result from mismanagement in hospital births. We just had one at the hospital I'm currently working in which has made the news. The statistics show that more deaths do not result from homebirths than from hospital births in low risk women. The risks are different, but birth is never completely safe. You can't screen out prolapses or emergent bleeding from certain causes, but the odds of those happening are so slim and their management can be started at home so they don't cause deaths or injuries at a higher rate than anything that kills women or their infants in the hospital. Midwives in the UK I am told carry things like methergrine, ambubags, suction setups, pitocin, etc. where homebirths are not considered unusual and even in hospital births doctors only become involved when there are problems. Their maternal infant mortality and morbidity rates are always better than ours despite the fact that we are much more hospital and doctor based in maternity care than they are.

It wouldn't be for me. I've worked high risk L&D and NICU for too long to be anything but overly paranoid, but unlike a lot of women in Canada and the US I have access to birthing centers and several hospitals to choose from.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

An obstetrical emergency can be massive and SUDDEN. Dialling 911 and getting an ambulance to go to hospital is too long in an obstetrical emergency, even if you live next door to the hospital. If you hemorrhage at home, your midwife doesn't have IV equipment or blood to give you an immediate transfusion, or if you have an arrhthymia, she doesn't have a crash team to resuscitate you.
As for your baby, ditto. A blue baby can often be revived with the help of a crash team, but delivery at home assumes that you won/t have a complication.

I've never worked on a L&D unit that could give immediate transfusions either. It takes time to get blood in every hospital. That process can be started while a woman is being transferred in. Crash teams can be great. I've also seen codes that were completely ineffective thanks to things like untrained staff or missing equipment for the crash cart. The crash cart in newborn nursery at my hospital had ONE syringe on it. What the hell are we going to do with one syringe?! Another place only had adult strength code drugs on its nicu cart. Again, completely useless for us.

Life long damage caused by intrapartum events are so rare. It's the main reason why cp cases aren't getting the lawsuit settlements they once did. One of my friends used to work in Hawaii where the docs "rescucitated" a baby with carbon monoxide rather than oxygen. He was a healthy baby that will remain severely brain damaged for his entire life thanks to the great medical care he received at that hospital (it's nickname is Crippler, I know at least one hospital in this area that has the word Killer in its nickname).