In keeping with both our family's pledge to do something every day to better our family's circumstances and independence, and my midwife's orders to take things easy for an extra two weeks, my project today was to research a few homeschooling links and topics online. Our biggest hurdle with homeschooling is likely to come from family, and their fear that our kids won't have opportunities to socialize, I figured I'd explore a few organizanations that would provide both skills and socialization. First stop, the Boy and Girl Scouts of America.
I was surprised to learn there was a co-ed program in the Boy Scouts, the Explorer Program. It has also been called Learning for Life, the Exploring Program, and the Venturing Program. I had never heard about the program before, so I did a search and found the New York Times article, "Explorer- Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More".
The article details how Homeland Security has partnered with the Explorer Program to teach children how to take down terrorists. According to the director for Learning for Life, John Anthony, "Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many posts (in the Explorer Program) have taken on an emphasis of fighting terrorism and other less conventional threats."
Less conventional threats? That line in the article brought me back up to the very first paragraph where teenagers were being trained to take down a gun-toting, murderous, disgruntled, Iraq War Veteran. I have to ask the question, is Homeland Security expecting so many of our Iraq War vets to come home mentally unstable that even our children need to be recruited to subdue them? And if so, why? (Ok, conspiracy theory moment over.)
We should not be teaching our kids that veterans are a "less conventional threat." We should be honoring them for their service and sacrifice, regardless of the policies that send them to war.
Do I think these kids will be called in if there is a disgruntled Iraq War veteran emergency? No. Professionals would be called in to deal with such a situation. I am, however, concerned that these drills of American children battling American Veterans even exist. It has the potential to predispose these young adults into thinking of Veterans as unstable, violent, and a threat. I think it is a dangerous message to send to our impressionable youth. I also find it a slick bit of spin that the "disgruntled veteran" stereotype is being pushed along side of criminals, such as illegal border crossings and drug traffickers in this training.
What we have here is a battle for our childrens' minds being played out through Homeland Security sanctioned role playing. And, I find that disturbing.
While this is just one program associated with Boy Scouts of America, I think we'll just keep looking for other socialization opportunities.
Live better, a little every day.
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
VBACs, C-Sections, and Pregnant Patient's Rights, Part Two
Welcome to part two of my series on VBACs, c-sections, and pregnant patient's rights. This entry will focus on why I'm covering this topic here on this blog, and why some hospitals have a policy banning VBACs.
Some readers may be wondering how this topic fits into the blog's focus, which is doing something every day to make our lives better through prepping, homesteading, and building our level of self-sufficiency, please consider this: c-sections are the most common surgery performed on women in the US. We're talking half of the population who are at risk for having a major surgery, necessary or not. This comes with the risk of severe complications, including death, not only at the time of surgery, but for the rest of the woman's life.
Almost everyone will either know a woman or be a woman who has to face the choice of whether to have this kind of surgery. Sometimes, it will truly be a lifesaving, necessary proceedure. The mother's ob-gyn can absolutely provide all the reasons for having one. As someone who was not provided ALL the facts in order to make an informed decision about medical interventions during my son's birth which forced a c-section to become necessary, I feel it is better to have all the information, both pros and cons. An ob-gyn isn't going to give you all the cons, and the cons they do discuss, they will gloss over.
The decision to have a c-section can have implications for the rest of a woman's life. It is something that can effect one's preparations, family size, and so much more. And that is why I'm spending so much time covering the topic here.
Why ban VBACs?
There are three primary reasons hospitals ban VBACs:
Even though the study does not show any real statistical change from other recent studies showing VBACs to be a safe alternative for 99% of women, it has been cited by media and doctors as proving sgnificant risk to laboring women who have already had a prior c-section and their babies. Unfortunately, there are issues with the accuracy of how the data was collected, and in some cases not enough data was collected for it to be statistically significant enough for any conclusion to be drawn. What it did show was that an increased risk of uterine rupture is actually linked to common medical interventions, such as inducing and augmenting labor.
The study is further limited to information gathered through insurance records of hospital births only. No data was collected from VBACs from homebirths or birthing centers. The problem with using insurance codes to collect data for analysis is that the codes cover several conditions and ultimately do not represent only women who experienced a uterine tear during an attempted VBAC, thus skewing the results to look like this complication occurred more often than it did. For a more thorough critique of this study, please check out the article found here.
The misuse of this study often leads to hospitals banning VBACs in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. As this study does not actually show any increased risk over 1%, which was the same risk level used for years as evidence of how safe VBACs statistically are, one should really question, "why the change in policy?" How can a 1% risk mean "safe" one day, and "too risky" the next?
Hospitals often base their decisions on recommedations for laboring patients from ACOG. The purpose of the ACOG is not to protect the health care of women, but to protect and further the careers of their membership. ACOG is an organization that makes its decisions by consensus. This consensus is of doctors who's livelihoods depend on women giving birth in a hospital setting and plugging into the hospital and medical insurance system. This often includes recommendations of induction with the use of Pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin. The use of Pitocin results in far more intense and painful contractions than with the body's natural oxytocin. The use of Pitocin is specifically what the Lydon-Rochelle study linked to an increased risk of uterine rupture in VBACs.
As for cost, the cost of a vaginal delivery is significantly less than a c-section. According to an article at CostHelper, in 2008, the average cost of a vaginal birth ranged from $9K-$17K, while a c-section ranged from $14K-$25K or more, depending on location. Labor induction (which is most always Pitocin) is at an extra cost.
Care from a midwife, however, costs about 1/3 less than care from an ob-gyn, and is statiscally more likely to result in a lesser expensive, vaginal delivery. Midwives often advocate for VBACs for their patients who have had prior c-sections, providing that the scar is a low, transverse scar with no jagged edges (as sometimes happens when a tear happens during the c-section). Such a delivery is generally healthier for both mom and baby, but does not generate as much income for the hospital. And that is, quite literally, the bottome line.
Live better, a little every day.
Some readers may be wondering how this topic fits into the blog's focus, which is doing something every day to make our lives better through prepping, homesteading, and building our level of self-sufficiency, please consider this: c-sections are the most common surgery performed on women in the US. We're talking half of the population who are at risk for having a major surgery, necessary or not. This comes with the risk of severe complications, including death, not only at the time of surgery, but for the rest of the woman's life.
Almost everyone will either know a woman or be a woman who has to face the choice of whether to have this kind of surgery. Sometimes, it will truly be a lifesaving, necessary proceedure. The mother's ob-gyn can absolutely provide all the reasons for having one. As someone who was not provided ALL the facts in order to make an informed decision about medical interventions during my son's birth which forced a c-section to become necessary, I feel it is better to have all the information, both pros and cons. An ob-gyn isn't going to give you all the cons, and the cons they do discuss, they will gloss over.
The decision to have a c-section can have implications for the rest of a woman's life. It is something that can effect one's preparations, family size, and so much more. And that is why I'm spending so much time covering the topic here.
Why ban VBACs?
There are three primary reasons hospitals ban VBACs:
- Their decision is based on severely outdated and manipulated information.
- They are attempting to protect the hospital from litigation.
- C-sections are more profitable.
Even though the study does not show any real statistical change from other recent studies showing VBACs to be a safe alternative for 99% of women, it has been cited by media and doctors as proving sgnificant risk to laboring women who have already had a prior c-section and their babies. Unfortunately, there are issues with the accuracy of how the data was collected, and in some cases not enough data was collected for it to be statistically significant enough for any conclusion to be drawn. What it did show was that an increased risk of uterine rupture is actually linked to common medical interventions, such as inducing and augmenting labor.
The study is further limited to information gathered through insurance records of hospital births only. No data was collected from VBACs from homebirths or birthing centers. The problem with using insurance codes to collect data for analysis is that the codes cover several conditions and ultimately do not represent only women who experienced a uterine tear during an attempted VBAC, thus skewing the results to look like this complication occurred more often than it did. For a more thorough critique of this study, please check out the article found here.
The misuse of this study often leads to hospitals banning VBACs in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. As this study does not actually show any increased risk over 1%, which was the same risk level used for years as evidence of how safe VBACs statistically are, one should really question, "why the change in policy?" How can a 1% risk mean "safe" one day, and "too risky" the next?
Hospitals often base their decisions on recommedations for laboring patients from ACOG. The purpose of the ACOG is not to protect the health care of women, but to protect and further the careers of their membership. ACOG is an organization that makes its decisions by consensus. This consensus is of doctors who's livelihoods depend on women giving birth in a hospital setting and plugging into the hospital and medical insurance system. This often includes recommendations of induction with the use of Pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin. The use of Pitocin results in far more intense and painful contractions than with the body's natural oxytocin. The use of Pitocin is specifically what the Lydon-Rochelle study linked to an increased risk of uterine rupture in VBACs.
As for cost, the cost of a vaginal delivery is significantly less than a c-section. According to an article at CostHelper, in 2008, the average cost of a vaginal birth ranged from $9K-$17K, while a c-section ranged from $14K-$25K or more, depending on location. Labor induction (which is most always Pitocin) is at an extra cost.
Care from a midwife, however, costs about 1/3 less than care from an ob-gyn, and is statiscally more likely to result in a lesser expensive, vaginal delivery. Midwives often advocate for VBACs for their patients who have had prior c-sections, providing that the scar is a low, transverse scar with no jagged edges (as sometimes happens when a tear happens during the c-section). Such a delivery is generally healthier for both mom and baby, but does not generate as much income for the hospital. And that is, quite literally, the bottome line.
Live better, a little every day.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Cloth Diapers, First Impressions
The two cloth diapers I ordered arrived this afternoon. I never thought I could get so excited about diapering. However, if this allows us to be free from an ongoing expense- even eliminate a future expense if we have more children- then I'm on board. Anything that can lower our long-term expenses gets me excited!
The diapers were both pocket diapers made by FuzziBunz. The diaper has a pocket that holds an absorbant insert. The At the next diaper change, I put one of the cloth diapers on my son.
The Upside
The diapers were not nearly as bulky as I thought they might be. The cloth diaper made it through his afternoon nap well. There is, however, a bit of a learning curve. The diaper did so well at keeping him dry, that I did not realize how full the diaper insert actually was. I also did not adjust the diaper size snug enough. It ultimately leaked, but it was clearly my error. I put the other diaper on him, properly adjusted, and it held up beautifully.
The main reason that I ordered these particular diapers was the sizing. Most diapers were recommended for babies 35 pounds or less. As our son is very tall for his age, he is also close to the upper weight limit at only 16 months. The FuzziBunz diapers I bought are recommended for up to 45 pounds. They have adjustable snaps to adapt to multiple sizes, and there's still room for Karl to grow in them.
The Downside
There are two distinct disadvantages of this particular brand. First, the company does not make an organic version of the product. For moms who would rather avoid the toxic chemicals normally used to grow cotton, you'll have to look elsewhere. Second, the labels on the diapers and the doubler (extra padding for overnights) say "Made in China".
Considering everything that we purchase in the US that comes from China, I shouldn't be surprised. However, many other brands of cloth diapers are made in the United States. The web site did not indicate where this brand was manufactured, but since there was the sizing issue, my options were limited.
The Takeaway
So far so good, when it comes to the ease of use and effectiveness of cloth diapers. I really like the diapers, but am disappointed about where they were manufactured. I will contact the store I bought them from and ask about a comparable sizing in other brands that are made in the US. If these are truly the only ones that will fit my son, then we will buy more- preferably on consignment. At least on consignment, no more money is sent overseas.
Live better, a little everyday.
The diapers were both pocket diapers made by FuzziBunz. The diaper has a pocket that holds an absorbant insert. The At the next diaper change, I put one of the cloth diapers on my son.
The Upside
The diapers were not nearly as bulky as I thought they might be. The cloth diaper made it through his afternoon nap well. There is, however, a bit of a learning curve. The diaper did so well at keeping him dry, that I did not realize how full the diaper insert actually was. I also did not adjust the diaper size snug enough. It ultimately leaked, but it was clearly my error. I put the other diaper on him, properly adjusted, and it held up beautifully.
The main reason that I ordered these particular diapers was the sizing. Most diapers were recommended for babies 35 pounds or less. As our son is very tall for his age, he is also close to the upper weight limit at only 16 months. The FuzziBunz diapers I bought are recommended for up to 45 pounds. They have adjustable snaps to adapt to multiple sizes, and there's still room for Karl to grow in them.
The Downside
There are two distinct disadvantages of this particular brand. First, the company does not make an organic version of the product. For moms who would rather avoid the toxic chemicals normally used to grow cotton, you'll have to look elsewhere. Second, the labels on the diapers and the doubler (extra padding for overnights) say "Made in China".
Considering everything that we purchase in the US that comes from China, I shouldn't be surprised. However, many other brands of cloth diapers are made in the United States. The web site did not indicate where this brand was manufactured, but since there was the sizing issue, my options were limited.
The Takeaway
So far so good, when it comes to the ease of use and effectiveness of cloth diapers. I really like the diapers, but am disappointed about where they were manufactured. I will contact the store I bought them from and ask about a comparable sizing in other brands that are made in the US. If these are truly the only ones that will fit my son, then we will buy more- preferably on consignment. At least on consignment, no more money is sent overseas.
Live better, a little everyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)