Giving birth for the first time is life-changing. I was reminded of this, once again, a few moments ago as I was reading through my maternal grandmother's life history. A couple of years ago I started typing her hand-written life story so it could be compiled with other family histories in a book for our families and future generations. Tonight I was thinking about her, feeling a need to refresh my memories of her past, and began reading the portions of her story I had previously typed. Then I came upon the section where she describes her feelings after giving birth for the first time. She says:
[T]here is absolutely nothing like that first-born baby. For me, that first birth, of our daughter Judy, represented a sort of “rebirth” for me, not withstanding my having assisted at a number of births in my nursing profession. I had this peculiar “psyche” that I couldn’t really actually give birth to a baby--I felt that I was a sort of unreal bystander or spectator in this big game of life, so when I did really actually give birth to a baby, I was brought to realize that I was first as real and able a player in this game of life as anyone else. When her daddy came into the room following her birth, I exclaimed “We did it!” (We have a baby).
I do not know the details of her birth experience. My mother was born in 1947, so it was during the horrific "twilight sleep" era, but I get the sense that my grandmother was aware during the birth process because of the way it changed her from feeling like a spectator to feeling like a "real and able player." I wish she were still alive so I could ask her. And I wish every woman's first time could be a beautiful, joyful memory and (re)birth just as my grandmother's was.
The baby swing in the closet prompted a fun conversation with my 4-year-old (I call her "Monk" in the blogosphere):Monk: When you get another baby, I want to be your doula.
We had a fun little family night this evening. We sang some Christmas songs around the piano, made a Christmas ornament, and then watched The Nativity--a short depiction of the birth of Jesus. I've seen this short film many times before, but this time it was different. Perhaps it was different because I so recently gave birth myself. Or because I've got birth stories on the brain. For the first time, I was seeing it as a "birth movie" instead of just a "Christmas movie." As it came closer to the moment of birth, I found myself getting a little teary-eyed. While I'm not usually a crier, birth movies (and spiritual experiences) always get me. And then, as Mary neared the birth, probably in "transition"(3:40 in the youtube version), being comforted by her loving husband and midwife, I yelled at the screen, not unlike some men yell at the television when a football is fumbled. What did I yell?
"Oh, get off your back, for the love! She would not have been on her back!"
My husband's response? "Hey, at least she had a midwife!"
Yep. I yelled at the Virgin Mary... sort of. Then I couldn't help myself. I got wondering, and the gears in my head started going, and I had to know details.
My first question... would Joseph have even been with her? "The Nativity" depicts him tenderly touching her as she endures her labor. As it turns out, that would never have happened between a Jewish couple in those circumstances. Under Jewish law, once a woman has reached active labor, she gains the ritual status of yoledet. Her husband is then no longer able to physically touch her and is prohibited from seeing her naked (and from staring directly at her vaginal opening). She will remain in the ritual status of yoledet until she has had no bleeding for seven days and will then immerse in a ritual bath allowing her to resume physical contact with her husband. Some modern rabbis prohibit fathers from being present in the delivery room. The Bible itself does not specify where Joseph was, but, given the laws, I think it's unlikely he was present in the same space as Mary during the birth. However, the shepherds did find them together afterward.
My next question... who was with her then? The Bible does indicate that midwives delivered babies in the Jewish tradition. So this is one point that "The Nativity" got right. I think it's likely Mary was attended by at least one, probably several women. Some sources indicate that Joseph and Mary would actually have been staying with relatives in Joseph's ancestral home (probably on the first floor which was often used to house animals), so she would likely have had experienced aunts or cousins assisting her. If not relatives, then surely a few of Bethlehem's womenfolk would have been fetched.
How would she have given birth? Definitely not on her back! No ancient woman would have lain on her back to give birth. I think it's safe to say, without question, that it never would have occurred to them. Mary would have spent her labor doing whatever felt most comfortable. The Bible indicates that birthing stools (called ovnayim) were often used.
Would it really have been a "silent night"? Well it wasn't silent in "The Nativity," and it probably wasn't in reality. Between the animals and the typical birthing sounds, I'd wager it was pretty noisy in there all night long.
So now my mental image of Christ's birth has been completely renovated. I've been a birth-lover for over 6 years, so it's about time. I will no longer imagine Mary semi-recumbent or flat on her back pushing Jesus out in an open stable. Instead, I will envision her upright, surrounded and lovingly supported by women (and angels) beneath the shelter of a warm ancestral home where no doubt countless babies had been welcomed. It's going to take some getting-used-to, but I like it.
“You’re thirsty? Do you want some more ice chips?” Most women laboring in U.S. hospitals, no matter how thirsty or hungry they may be, must resign themselves to sucking and munching on ice. I munched my way through that rite of passage with my first baby. Enduring labor and birth has been compared to enduring and completing a marathon. Both feats are extremely physically taxing, but you would never expect a marathon participant to run without drinking or consuming any kind of fuel. Hospitals across the country expect laboring women to do just that, but is this deprivation really necessary?
When a patient must undergo general anesthesia for emergency surgery, there is a risk of stomach contents being inhaled into the lungs (also known as “aspiration”). Hospitals ask women to refrain from eating or drinking in order to reduce the risk of death from pulmonary aspiration. Even with these precautions in place, however, there is no guarantee that a woman’s stomach will be empty in the event that she needs general anesthesia. The risks of death from pulmonary aspiration are miniscule—1 in 1,250,000. Furthermore, deaths from pulmonary aspiration in these situations have more to do with anesthesiologists’ errors than whether a woman has had food or fluids recently. It is very uncommon for a laboring woman to require general anesthesia. Most of the problems arising in childbirth can be recognized and addressed without such extreme measures being taken.
What do hospitals offer as a “substitute” for food and drink? Intravenous fluids (IVs). Yes, IVs provide fluids, but quite often they provide too much, particularly when mother is given a “bolus” (large amount of fluid) before receiving an epidural (an attempt to prevent the blood pressure drop often resulting from epidural anesthesia). Fluid overload resulting from IV fluids can lead to other complications, among them:
* Fluid in mother’s and baby’s lungs. * Diluted blood, leading to anemia and decreased oxygen supply to the uterus and fetus. * Newborn jaundice, as excess fluid causes baby’s red blood cells to burst and release bilirubin (yellow product of red blood cell breakdown).
Aside from these issues, an IV will also hinder a laboring woman’s ability to move while in labor. Movement, particularly in early labor, is an effective way to cope with the pain of contractions. Lying strapped to a pole and a monitor in a bed will increase a laboring woman’s discomfort greatly. Additionally, when a laboring woman remains lying in a bed for an extended period of time, labor will not progress as effectively as when aided by movement and gravity.
I remember how strange it was to me when I came home from the hospital after my first baby was born and found that my legs and feet were swollen with fluid for a few days. I had heard plenty of pregnant women complain of swollen ankles and feet, but I had not experienced any swelling while pregnant. It surprised me to see swelling afterward. I also noticed swelling in my face and hands in the pictures taken of me just after my daughter’s birth. I can’t prove that it was the result of I.V. fluids, but I feel fairly confident they were to blame. Here's a picture of me in my swollen post-partum state...Lovely, eh?
When I gave birth to my second child, I chose to see a group of nurse-midwives who delivered at a small community hospital where they had, finally, convinced administrators to allow laboring women to drink. Instead of being given an I.V., I received a “hep-lock” which is simply an I.V. needle inserted in a vein but without the fluids. They like to have an “open vein” in case of an emergency. I spent less than three hours of my labor in the hospital because I had already progressed to about 6 centimeters upon arrival, and my labor progressed quickly afterward. I think I took a few sips of water when I felt thirsty, but not a lot. It was wonderful, however, to not be tied to the I.V. pole. I was also pleased to notice that I experienced no swelling afterward. Here's a much less frightening post-partum picture... Not every laboring woman will be given the option to bypass IV fluids. Some hospitals have strict policies, and women who are induced, given narcotics or epidurals, or a c-section will have no choice but to submit to an I.V. Every intervention alters the birth process, however, and the more interventions, the more complicated the birth process becomes. I encourage women to avoid unnecessary interventions and trust the process of birth. Seek out care providers who honor and respect the birth process and will advocate for your right to experience birth as you wish, including eating and drinking if you choose. You and your baby are worth the effort.
And then last night I had a dream. I was doula-ing a woman I've never seen before. We were in a big hospital room with big windows on the east side. We were between two beds. She was sort of squatting and wailing. I got down right by her face, rubbing her back, and I starting making noise with her--moaning really deep, encouraging her to bring her sounds down deep instead of high-pitched and to loosen her jaw and keep it relaxed. It was amazing to watch her sort of melt into the contraction after making those two changes--deep sounds, relaxed jaw. And it was amazing how happy and energized and in-the-groove I was in that moment... like I was doing exactly what I was born to do.
Giving birth for the first time is life-changing. I was reminded of this, once again, a few moments ago as I was reading through my maternal grandmother's life history. A couple of years ago I started typing her hand-written life story so it could be compiled with other family histories in a book for our families and future generations. Tonight I was thinking about her, feeling a need to refresh my memories of her past, and began reading the portions of her story I had previously typed. Then I came upon the section where she describes her feelings after giving birth for the first time. She says:
