Jill Duggar Dillard, Derick Dillard, & Baby Israel - Part 2

[Coco]

Could an epidural make it possible that Jill could not feel Iz move? I know we've beaten the fact that such a large baby is maybe not the likeliest to turn without the amniotic fluid to death, and the idea of Jill not being aware of it happening is even less likely... but could her epidural have been that effective?

nope. You can still see a kid that big move around. Anyone would have noticed.

i think Jill was not a calm laboring mom. i think she was doing the bouncy ball thing, the hands and knees thing, all the Bradley method things to try to get away from the pain. It has to have been ugly or they wouldn't have been so dodgy with the details.

:lol: we're going to be talking about this until Jessa has her kid.

[mpheels]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in an alternate reality with all this talk about the ever changing story, I what I see is basically the same story told three times, each time with a few new details, but nothing contradictory. Plus I'm officially on summer break now, and don't know what to do with myself until my summer job starts in a few days. So I looked back at all three stories to compare the main points.

Story #1: People Magazine

Jill's water broke and she tested positive for GBS, IV started. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions with posterior presentation, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. Jill initially declines pitocin and epidural, then later agrees to both. Baby flipped to transverse/breech, decels, c-section.

Story #2: TLC VSE

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. She initially declines pitocin and epidural, but later agrees to both. Baby flipped to be transverse, confirmed via ultrasound, and they decided to do a c-section.

No mention of GBS+, posterior presentation, or decels from People - an omission, but not a contradiction. Also no new information that wasn't already in People.

Story #3: 700 Club

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of rapid, intense contractions with posterior presentation, Jill isn't progressing and the decide to go to the hospital. Jill initially decline pitocin and epidural, then later agreed to both. Baby flipped to be transverse/breech, had decels, and had not descended. They decided to do a c-section.

No GBS+, no meconium - again, omissions, but not contradictions. No new information (other than Michelle's lack of empathy, but that isn't new).

[nelliebelle1197]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in an alternate reality with all this talk about the ever changing story, I what I see is basically the same story told three times, each time with a few new details, but nothing contradictory. Plus I'm officially on summer break now, and don't know what to do with myself until my summer job starts in a few days. So I looked back at all three stories to compare the main points.

Story #1: People Magazine

Jill's water broke and she tested positive for GBS, IV started. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions with posterior presentation, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. Jill initially declines pitocin and epidural, then later agrees to both. Baby flipped to transverse/breech, decels, c-section.

Story #2: TLC VSE

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. She initially declines pitocin and epidural, but later agrees to both. Baby flipped to be transverse, confirmed via ultrasound, and they decided to do a c-section.

No mention of GBS+, posterior presentation, or decels from People - an omission, but not a contradiction. Also no new information that wasn't already in People.

Story #3: 700 Club

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of rapid, intense contractions with posterior presentation, Jill isn't progressing and the decide to go to the hospital. Jill initially decline pitocin and epidural, then later agreed to both. Baby flipped to be transverse/breech, had decels, and had not descended. They decided to do a c-section.

No GBS+, no meconium - again, omissions, but not contradictions. No new information (other than Michelle's lack of empathy, but that isn't new).

Where is that award for making the most sense ever? I had two emergency C-sections. The first one was difficult but nothing like the second. When I tell what really are two dramatic stories, the latter of which, resulting in a baby born at 26 weeks, was really miraculous because if one thing in series of events had gone differently, neither the baby nor I would have survived. I never tell the story the same way every time I tell it. The basic story is the same, but sometimes I forget I was on the phone with a reporter for work when they wheeled me back or that I opened my eyes at one critical point to find a small doctor with a yarmulke jumping on my bed, yelling at the nurses. Sometimes I forget that the issue was the fact that my urine protein was +15,000.

FBI interrogators actually look at stories with too much consistent detail. When people are telling the truth, they often admit details or tell different details with each telling. Because memory of a true event is fallible. Details are omitted different ways depending on the circumstance and the current emotion of the teller. A lie rarely changes because it is script.

What we have here is one story told three times in three different circumstances in three different ways. I hope all of you never omit a detail when retelling a story or slightly change a version of what happened to you. This Jill birth conspiracy thing is wacked.

[Rescinded and Mended]

What I've been trying to figure out, and for some time now, is when did Jill and Derick ever say they would be following the 40/80-day rule regarding sex after the birth of their baby? I don't recall where Michelle and Jim Bob talked about it, even if they did discuss it, and have never seen anything suggesting that Jill and Derick will follow this particular Biblical law specifically.

Now, I do agree that as soon as Jill is feeling up to it, they'll resume their love life and she'll probably wind up pregnant again post-haste. But I'm not certain that they would even use the 40/80 guide as a measure for when they can make love again. Derick doesn't really strike me as the type to say to Jill, "Eww, you're more unclean for having given birth to a girl, I can't touch you for an additional 40 days because of childbirthing girl cooties." :lol:

[mpheels]

The three different tellings of the story are also from at least three different perspectives, possibly more.

The People story is as told by Jill and Derick. The 700 Club version is as told by Michelle. The TLC version is filtered through the producers, and also likely through Jim Bob, Michelle, Jill, and Derick.

[lascuba]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in an alternate reality with all this talk about the ever changing story, I what I see is basically the same story told three times, each time with a few new details, but nothing contradictory. Plus I'm officially on summer break now, and don't know what to do with myself until my summer job starts in a few days. So I looked back at all three stories to compare the main points.

Story #1: People Magazine

Jill's water broke and she tested positive for GBS, IV started. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions with posterior presentation, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. Jill initially declines pitocin and epidural, then later agrees to both. Baby flipped to transverse/breech, decels, c-section.

Story #2: TLC VSE

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. She initially declines pitocin and epidural, but later agrees to both. Baby flipped to be transverse, confirmed via ultrasound, and they decided to do a c-section.

No mention of GBS+, posterior presentation, or decels from People - an omission, but not a contradiction. Also no new information that wasn't already in People.

Story #3: 700 Club

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of rapid, intense contractions with posterior presentation, Jill isn't progressing and the decide to go to the hospital. Jill initially decline pitocin and epidural, then later agreed to both. Baby flipped to be transverse/breech, had decels, and had not descended. They decided to do a c-section.

No GBS+, no meconium - again, omissions, but not contradictions. No new information (other than Michelle's lack of empathy, but that isn't new).

I agree there haven't been contradiction, but the omissions are huge, and obviously deliberate. To focus on the technical lack of contradictions is splitting hairs. The failure to mention GBS on the show is particularly damning.

[halcionne]

mpheels and nelliebelle1197, you are both making a lot of sense. I fully admit that I don't trust any Duggar as far as I could throw one, and it colors my opinion on everything they do. Fortunately for them, my opinion doesn't matter. :D I still think Jill made some bad decisions and that TLC in particular attempted to gloss them over. Consistently referring to flipping babies is just another WTF for me.

I also agree with Sassy and others who have pointed out that less is more. I am also interested in the nuts and bolts of what exactly happened to satisfy my own curiosity and I'm uncomfortable with the notion of Jill as an aspirational model of homebirth. I'm sorry she didn't get the experience she wanted, and I only judge the Jill Dillard character on the show for making bad decisions. The real Jill Dillard makes bad decisions like everyone else from time to time and luckily it all turned out okay in the end. It makes sense in my head, at least!

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in an alternate reality with all this talk about the ever changing story, I what I see is basically the same story told three times, each time with a few new details, but nothing contradictory. Plus I'm officially on summer break now, and don't know what to do with myself until my summer job starts in a few days. So I looked back at all three stories to compare the main points.

Story #1: People Magazine

Jill's water broke and she tested positive for GBS, IV started. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions with posterior presentation, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. Jill initially declines pitocin and epidural, then later agrees to both. Baby flipped to transverse/breech, decels, c-section.

Story #2: TLC VSE

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. She initially declines pitocin and epidural, but later agrees to both. Baby flipped to be transverse, confirmed via ultrasound, and they decided to do a c-section.

No mention of GBS+, posterior presentation, or decels from People - an omission, but not a contradiction. Also no new information that wasn't already in People.

Story #3: 700 Club

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of rapid, intense contractions with posterior presentation, Jill isn't progressing and the decide to go to the hospital. Jill initially decline pitocin and epidural, then later agreed to both. Baby flipped to be transverse/breech, had decels, and had not descended. They decided to do a c-section.

No GBS+, no meconium - again, omissions, but not contradictions. No new information (other than Michelle's lack of empathy, but that isn't new).

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You've ruined 40 odd pages of other people's fun there ...

But yeah, ask three people to recount a story then put it through a filter of media, not rocket science.

Folks are just so determined to find things to bitch about. There is plenty without that. She has no more responsibility for informing the decisions of anybodies pregnancy unless she happens to be there in her role of pretend midwife than anybody else in the public eye who pops a baby out.

My birth-plan like hers was..........ambitious :lol: I'm terribly glad I did not have a gaggle of bitches picking me apart afterwards when it went tits up. Women...so fucking unsupportive of one another.

[Mama Mia]

Where is that award for making the most sense ever? I had two emergency C-sections. The first one was difficult but nothing like the second. When I tell what really are two dramatic stories, the latter of which, resulting in a baby born at 26 weeks, was really miraculous because if one thing in series of events had gone differently, neither the baby nor I would have survived. I never tell the story the same way every time I tell it. The basic story is the same, but sometimes I forget I was on the phone with a reporter for work when they wheeled me back or that I opened my eyes at one critical point to find a small doctor with a yarmulke jumping on my bed, yelling at the nurses. Sometimes I forget that the issue was the fact that my urine protein was +15,000.

FBI interrogators actually look at stories with too much consistent detail. When people are telling the truth, they often admit details or tell different details with each telling. Because memory of a true event is fallible. Details are omitted different ways depending on the circumstance and the current emotion of the teller. A lie rarely changes because it is script.

What we have here is one story told three times in three different circumstances in three different ways. I hope all of you never omit a detail when retelling a story or slightly change a version of what happened to you. This Jill birth conspiracy thing is wacked.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

to both posts.

The birth conspiracy / Jill did birth wrong insistance is also incredibly misogynistic , IMO.

Edit: cross posted with Ok -- she said it much better :D

[SassyPants]

I was poking around to see what the actual, current rate for cesctions is for all first time US moms. Found lots of interesting discussions. Suffice to say, Jill is in good company. Add in all the details (post dates, large baby, PROM, Mec staining, GBS +) and the odds of an eventual surgical birth were even higher. A stagnant % is difficult to determine because there are some many different reasons for having a section and they tend to place women into little groups to get a better understanding. Groups like age, infertility or fertility use, pre vs term vs post dates, singleton vs multiples, maternal health...

I read 2 specific studies about the repeat c-section rate and one study placed it a 90%- that 90% of women who had a cesection with #1 would deliver all their children by csection. I knew the % was high but certainly did not think it would hit that %.

I hope Jill does some research too, so she is better prepared in the future.

If the Dillards first experience shows anything, it's that they were somewhat naive about the possibilities and maybe a bit overconfident in Jill's knowledge and experience base.

[lascuba]

Am I correct in assuming that the "you people are making way to big a deal of Izzy's birth and there's nothing wrong with the story Jill and TLC are selling" side are predominantly pro-homebirth/pro-lay midwifery/pro natural everything because nature is a benign goddess that allows nothing to go wrong; while those who think that Izzy's birth--based on what the Duggars and TLC have told us--was all kinds of fucked up because of Jill's decisions are more the, "hey, medical training and experience are actually good things so being proud of the fact that you wrote the longest birth plan the hospital has ever seen is pretty ridiculous and deserving of mockery" type?

Just a guess.

[Arrowoftruth]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in an alternate reality with all this talk about the ever changing story, I what I see is basically the same story told three times, each time with a few new details, but nothing contradictory. Plus I'm officially on summer break now, and don't know what to do with myself until my summer job starts in a few days. So I looked back at all three stories to compare the main points.

Story #1: People Magazine

Jill's water broke and she tested positive for GBS, IV started. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions with posterior presentation, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. Jill initially declines pitocin and epidural, then later agrees to both. Baby flipped to transverse/breech, decels, c-section.

Story #2: TLC VSE

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of intense, rapid contractions, Jill sees meconium and decides to go to the hospital. She initially declines pitocin and epidural, but later agrees to both. Baby flipped to be transverse, confirmed via ultrasound, and they decided to do a c-section.

No mention of GBS+, posterior presentation, or decels from People - an omission, but not a contradiction. Also no new information that wasn't already in People.

Story #3: 700 Club

Jill's water broke. After 20 hours of rapid, intense contractions with posterior presentation, Jill isn't progressing and the decide to go to the hospital. Jill initially decline pitocin and epidural, then later agreed to both. Baby flipped to be transverse/breech, had decels, and had not descended. They decided to do a c-section.

No GBS+, no meconium - again, omissions, but not contradictions. No new information (other than Michelle's lack of empathy, but that isn't new).

In the second story they went to the hospital after 48 hours. Which is the only contradiction.

[SassyPants]

Am I correct in assuming that the "you people are making way to big a deal of Izzy's birth and there's nothing wrong with the story Jill and TLC are selling" side are predominantly pro-homebirth/pro-lay midwifery/pro natural everything because nature is a benign goddess that allows nothing to go wrong; while those who think that Izzy's birth--based on what the Duggars and TLC have told us--was all kinds of fucked up because of Jill's decisions are more the, "hey, medical training and experience are actually good things so being proud of the fact that you wrote the longest birth plan the hospital has ever seen is pretty ridiculous and deserving of mockery" type?

Just a guess.

I am on the side of logic.

In the 700 Club video, Michelle states that Jill is studying for her MW license- that line perpetuates an untruth that Jill is on her way to being a licensed MW. If one applied any logic at all based on Michelle's words, not speculation, one could conclude that Jill has some applicable knowledge and education in this area.

I would hate for some young, girl to hang on the Duggar/Dillard's words in terms of this experience, and use them for making decisions in her own labor and delivery.

The Duggars use lots of different media sources to reach a good number of people. The information they dispense, especially medically oriented information IF THEY FEEL THE NEED TO SHARE, should be complete, accurate and logical,medically speaking. Otherwise, probably best to keep all the fine details to themselves, which, IMO, makes the most logical sense.

[FakePigtails]

My impression of this (or at least my opinion on it) was that the issue was less about contradictions and more about TLC leaving out a lot of information that J&D had shared in People that led to criticisms of their decisions (IMO, for good reason). That's very consistent with TLC's history of whitewashing and hiding things the Duggars have done to try to make them look better.

[lascuba]

My impression of this (or at least my opinion on it) was that the issue was less about contradictions and more about TLC leaving out a lot of information that J&D had shared in People that led to criticisms of their decisions (IMO, for good reason). That's very consistent with TLC's history of whitewashing and hiding things the Duggars have done to try to make them look better.

That's very true about TLC's history. I'm also wondering about the GMA segment about Jill using the sling wrong. The major media outlets have always been kind to the Duggars and treated them like harmless fluff pieces. That one of them actually devoted a segment to criticize a member of the Duggar family might have thrown them for a major loop, so TLC/Jill& Derrick might have decided to whitewash the VSE to avoid a repeat.

[mpheels]

Am I correct in assuming that the "you people are making way to big a deal of Izzy's birth and there's nothing wrong with the story Jill and TLC are selling" side are predominantly pro-homebirth/pro-lay midwifery/pro natural everything because nature is a benign goddess that allows nothing to go wrong; while those who think that Izzy's birth--based on what the Duggars and TLC have told us--was all kinds of fucked up because of Jill's decisions are more the, "hey, medical training and experience are actually good things so being proud of the fact that you wrote the longest birth plan the hospital has ever seen is pretty ridiculous and deserving of mockery" type?

Just a guess.

No, you are not correct in my case. I'm pro evidence based medicine. Sometimes that means more intervention, but very often than means less. Based on the actual scientific evidence, I believe birth outside of hospital settings can be safe for low risk mothers and babies when the birth is attended by a properly trained nurse midwife. I believe expectant mothers should receive pre-natal care from properly trained professionals (midwife or OB-GYN) throughout pregnancy, and should be willing to adjust their plans and expectations as they get new information. I wish Jill had hired a better midwife, and think a better midwife would have made her birth experience less traumatic, both by monitoring Jill more closely as she approached and passed her due date, and by intervening earlier in the labor process when it was clear Jill wasn't progressing

Obstetricians do amazing things, and many people are alive today because of advances in obstetrics. As a specialty, they are also the driving force behind an alarming rise in c-sections. I applaud women who make birth plans. No one deserves to be mocked for thinking through a major life experience and making note of their preferences for any eventuality. The fact that Jill apparently thought of more eventualities than others definitely isn't work mockery - to me, that indicates that she really does understand all of the possible outcomes, and covered her bases.

[Mama Mia]

Am I correct in assuming that the "you people are making way to big a deal of Izzy's birth and there's nothing wrong with the story Jill and TLC are selling" side are predominantly pro-homebirth/pro-lay midwifery/pro natural everything because nature is a benign goddess that allows nothing to go wrong; while those who think that Izzy's birth--based on what the Duggars and TLC have told us--was all kinds of fucked up because of Jill's decisions are more the, "hey, medical training and experience are actually good things so being proud of the fact that you wrote the longest birth plan the hospital has ever seen is pretty ridiculous and deserving of mockery" type?

Just a guess.

Nope. You would actually be wrong. At least in my case - Can't speak for others.

There is a huge, huge range between " nature never lets anything go wrong, I'll go birth in a meadow, with only the moon Goddess to light my way " and "I've never met an interevention I didn't like, and if the Dr. says I should have an epidural at the first contraction - I'm on it!" Oh, and to be clear -- those were exagerations.

I am pro- homebirth if someone wants , but all my kids were born in the hospital. 3 c-sections.- The first because the baby turned breech during labor - although, apparently, I must have imagined it :roll: .1 v-bac- .

Of my grandchildren -- 6 of 7 were born at the hospital, 1 at home. 4 of 7 by O.B.s, 3 by mid-wives. 4 were c-sections. 5 had epidurals. I certainly didn't judge any of the mother's choices. One was a near death - but that was due to an extremely incompetent O.B.

I'm for low-interventions being smarter to start, because unneeded interventions can increase your risk of complications. But definitely not against any and all interventions being used if they are needed and wanted - For example - an epidural - if someone wants one- good for them, if they don't - then that's fine too. Its probably better to wait until labor is firmly established and at least 4 cm. dilated - because its less likely to slow labor at that point, but if mom needs/wants it to make her more comfortable --go for it.

My granddaughter and daughter who almost died- due to an incompetent physician-- actually had a birth with a lot of similarities to Jill --except she had incredibly clear signs of fetal/ maternal distress ( uncontrolled fever of 104 , had told her doctor she had a leak over a week before -brushed off, etc. etc. )and racist, ageist ass of a Dr did nothing for way too long . I almost lost a baby due to an unneccessary intervention, so I do find the Physicians are infalliable idea naive and/or arrogant. That doesnt mean I'm anti Dr. , I just don't get why if something goes wrong and it's a physician --they get no blame. If its a midwife- he blame automatically goes to them.

And, of course, it's always the mother's fault --if the mom has any sort of objectionable chartacteristic.

[nelliebelle1197]

I like my doctors and I really think crunchy home birth stuff is something I would never do because birth to me is about bringing a healthy baby home and I want to be near a NICU and a bunch of doctors after my experiences

[Coco]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

to both posts.

The birth conspiracy / Jill did birth wrong insistance is also incredibly misogynistic , IMO.

Edit: cross posted with Ok -- she said it much better :D

unsupportive... maybe. I'll take the hand-slap for being too judgy. But Jill is someone who pretends to know about birth. Who probably wimped out on early early labor i mean, come on, claiming in every version that she had 70 hours of labor? I've never heard anyone claim 70 hours of labor. So since her delivery went differently than expected she has to make it the Worst Labor in History? :lol: Sounds like an entitled princess who wanted her prince charming to cater to her every moment of twinge when it finally kinda sorta started being labor. It's kind of irritating to see the way she seems to be overly dependent on Derick to the point of seeming to be helpless about taking care of herself, and i admit i'm envious of how she gets pampered, and it's just irritating to see perfect Jill think that she did no wrong, and it's kind of fun to talk bad about someone who acts superior and knowledgeable who ended up realizing she really didn't know what she thought she knew.

i'm really glad it didn't come to any harm for anyone involved. But that doesn't change the fact that smugness and over-sharing every freakin' week the whole time and then wimping out and trying to over-dramatize it by calling it 70 hours of labor and hide the ugly side of it to keep up their ideal to the leghumpers that homebirthing and risky behavior is still okay. Whatevs.

If i knew her i'd be honest and tell her to just say it sucked. Just say she failed by making some stupid decisions. Just say she sometimes doesn't have two cents of wisdom to rub together. Just tell people not to follow her example because it could have seriously injured her and her child. Just say it, and people will drop the bitching.

Edited about a hundred times and sorry if it comes across too grouchy, because my 2.5 year old has been up since 4:30am and he won't take a nap. :morningcoffee: :lol:

[lascuba]

Nope. You would actually be wrong. At least in my case - Can't speak for others.

There is a huge, huge range between " nature never lets anything go wrong, I'll go birth in a meadow, with only the moon Goddess to light my way " and "I've never met an interevention I didn't like, and if the Dr. says I should have an epidural at the first contraction - I'm on it!" Oh, and to be clear -- those were exagerations.

I am pro- homebirth if someone wants , but all my kids were born in the hospital. 3 c-sections.- The first because the baby turned breech during labor - although, apparently, I must have imagined it :roll: .1 v-bac- .

Of my grandchildren -- 6 of 7 were born at the hospital, 1 at home. 4 of 7 by O.B.s, 3 by mid-wives. 4 were c-sections. 5 had epidurals. I certainly didn't judge any of the mother's choices. One was a near death - but that was due to an extremely incompetent O.B.

I'm for low-interventions being smarter to start, because unneeded interventions can increase your risk of complications. But definitely not against any and all interventions being used if they are needed and wanted - For example - an epidural - if someone wants one- good for them, if they don't - then that's fine too. Its probably better to wait until labor is firmly established and at least 4 cm. dilated - because its less likely to slow labor at that point, but if mom needs/wants it to make her more comfortable --go for it.

My granddaughter and daughter who almost died- due to an incompetent physician-- actually had a birth with a lot of similarities to Jill --except she had incredibly clear signs of fetal/ maternal distress ( uncontrolled fever of 104 , had told her doctor she had a leak over a week before -brushed off, etc. etc. )and racist, ageist ass of a Dr did nothing for way too long . I almost lost a baby due to an unneccessary intervention, so I do find the Physicians are infalliable idea naive and/or arrogant. That doesnt mean I'm anti Dr. , I just don't get why if something goes wrong and it's a physician --they get no blame. If its a midwife- he blame automatically goes to them.

And, of course, it's always the mother's fault --if the mom has any sort of objectionable chartacteristic.

You've mentioned before about your baby flipping--no one disbelieves you, but accurately point out that that major difference between you and Jill is that your membranes hadn't ruptured.

No one is saying that doctors are infallible--trust me, anyone who's worked in the medical field knows better. But generally, doctors who fuck up do so because they aren't following the rules, the very rules that the type of midwifery Jill is drawn to is against, anyway. The signs of fetal distress that your daughter's OB ignored? Generally, lay midwives wouldn't even see those signs, and they'd also ignore them if they saw them. There's a large contingent of homebirth midwives who are against continuous fetal monitoring precisely because they indicated signs that things might go wrong and lead to interventions.

And in Jill's case specifically, she was GBS positive but refused interventions and went 70 hours after ROM before agreeing to a c-section. That fact alone says a lot about the birth and it's completely valid to criticize her choices.

[nelliebelle1197]

I am on the side of logic.

In the 700 Club video, Michelle states that Jill is studying for her MW license- that line perpetuates an untruth that Jill is on her way to being a licensed MW. If one applied any logic at all based on Michelle's words, not speculation, one could conclude that Jill has some applicable knowledge and education in this area.

I would hate for some young, girl to hang on the Duggar/Dillard's words in terms of this experience, and use them for making decisions in her own labor and delivery.

The Duggars use lots of different media sources to reach a good number of people. The information they dispense, especially medically oriented information IF THEY FEEL THE NEED TO SHARE, should be complete, accurate and logical,medically speaking. Otherwise, probably best to keep all the fine details to themselves, which, IMO, makes the most logical sense.

I think what is missing in this discussion is the fact that no one here knows what control tlc has on what the Duggars say and what the parameters are. No one knows the details that are in the People contract. No one knows if the Duggars are given talking points for each interview based on how people reacted to the last interview.

The Duggars are not autonomous agents. They are owned by TLC. The mountain that has been made out of this molehill defies logic- TLC controls what the Duggars say in the press, three different people were telling a story to the different outlets at three different times, and neither the Duggars or TLC can control editing, etc., after those interviews are done.

There are no lies in the statements. There are omissions, but whether those omissions occurred through intention, happenstance, TLC, or editors/interviewers, we simply do not know.

[nelliebelle1197]

You've mentioned before about your baby flipping--no one disbelieves you, but accurately point out that that major difference between you and Jill is that your membranes hadn't ruptured.

No one is saying that doctors are infallible--trust me, anyone who's worked in the medical field knows better. But generally, doctors who fuck up do so because they aren't following the rules, the very rules that the type of midwifery Jill is drawn to is against, anyway. The signs of fetal distress that your daughter's OB ignored? Generally, lay midwives wouldn't even see those signs, and they'd also ignore them if they saw them. There's a large contingent of homebirth midwives who are against continuous fetal monitoring precisely because they indicated signs that things might go wrong and lead to interventions.

And in Jill's case specifically, she was GBS positive but refused interventions and went 70 hours after ROM before agreeing to a c-section. That fact alone says a lot about the birth and it's completely valid to criticize her choices.

I agree with you on the interventions/GSB bit. That is just stupid and does speak to an ignorant arrogance that is troubling. I was the biggest bitch to my doctors, especially with my second child-I knew something was wrong and pushed for a ton of ultrasounds and appointments. Luckily it was my body at fault and I have a tiny but healthy and brilliant 4 year old because i pushed. Jill, it appears, trusts God and an untrained midwife more than she trusts what her own body is telling her.

I just think the difference in the interviews is not so obviously a Duggar cover up as circumstantial or TLC PR spinning at work.

[FakePigtails]

I agree with you on the interventions/GSB bit. That is just stupid and does speak to an ignorant arrogance that is troubling. I was the biggest bitch to my doctors, especially with my second child-I knew something was wrong and pushed for a ton of ultrasounds and appointments. Luckily it was my body at fault and I have a tiny but healthy and brilliant 4 year old because i pushed. Jill, it appears, trusts God and an untrained midwife more than she trusts what her own body is telling her.

I just think the difference in the interviews is not so obviously a Duggar cover up as circumstantial or TLC PR spinning at work.

Well, yeah, but are they really that different? But in any case, all you have to here is point out that things are getting left out in certain places and speculate as to why, given that the woman at the center of the issue was presented as a birth expert for years, and you get called a woman-hating harpy :lol:

[PracticeMakesProgress]

It's probably been mentioned before, but one of the big reasons C-sections have increased is...medical malpractice suits. In the past 40 years, difficult vaginal births have been blamed (many times unfairly) for several things, most notably cerebral palsies. A C-section is a more "controlled" alternative to pushing (no pun intended) a difficult vaginal birth, and women are more quick to accept C-sections now because frankly, they're just more common.

I do not blame OBs for C.Y.A.'ing themselves into increased numbers of C-sections. Their malpractice insurance is some of the highest among doctors, and many trained in OB/GYN forego the OB part because people get sue happy if their birth experience wasn't perfect and, heaven forbid, the baby experienced a complication (when 100 years ago both would have possibly died). As many have said, there are definitely incompetent doctors who should be held accountable, but yes, in most cases, these doctors are not following rules and guidelines. There is no way to 100% prevent a disagreement between a mom and an OB in the heat of the moment, but that is why you do your research, search your HMO, talk to every mom in the area you know, and read statistics about the hospital/center where you plan to deliver to be as sure as reasonably possible you're going to be in good hands. Thankfully, most women are not traveling abroad in China when their little blessing decides it's time, and you just have to go wherever...

What drives me nuts is how little some (very educated) women appreciate what modern medical intervention has done for decreasing infant and maternal morbidity and mortality rates, during and after childbirth. Now, from my limited anecdotal experiences with friends and acquaintances, the women I know that have pushed natural labor and childbirth and/or home birth are usually receiving most of their information from mom blogs, medically untrained doulas and lay midwives, and people who, let's face it, are just downright scared of hospitals and medicine. This kind of information is harmful, because unless you are confidently low-risk and can be reasonably assured of a straight-forward labor (women who've had at least one child with some basis for comparison), a minimalist home birth is not for you. I'm sorry, I'll say it. Every woman's "birthplan" should always be four words: healthy mom, healthy baby. Any competent medical professional would tell you absolutely the least intervention is ideal and will usually mean the fastest recovery, but we have interventions because things go wrong. Be educated, but be reasonable, and embrace living in the 21st century.

[lascuba]

It's probably been mentioned before, but one of the big reasons C-sections have increased is...medical malpractice suits. In the past 40 years, difficult vaginal births have been blamed (many times unfairly) for several things, most notably cerebral palsies. A C-section is a more "controlled" alternative to pushing (no pun intended) a difficult vaginal birth, and women are more quick to accept C-sections now because frankly, they're just more common.

I do not blame OBs for C.Y.A.'ing themselves into increased numbers of C-sections. Their malpractice insurance is some of the highest among doctors, and many trained in OB/GYN forego the OB part because people get sue happy if their birth experience wasn't perfect and, heaven forbid, the baby experienced a complication (when 100 years ago both would have possibly died). As many have said, there are definitely incompetent doctors who should be held accountable, but yes, in most cases, these doctors are not following rules and guidelines. There is no way to 100% prevent a disagreement between a mom and an OB in the heat of the moment, but that is why you do your research, search your HMO, talk to every mom in the area you know, and read statistics about the hospital/center where you plan to deliver to be as sure as reasonably possible you're going to be in good hands. Thankfully, most women are not traveling abroad in China when their little blessing decides it's time, and you just have to go wherever...

What drives me nuts is how little some (very educated) women appreciate what modern medical intervention has done for decreasing infant and maternal morbidity and mortality rates, during and after childbirth. Now, from my limited anecdotal experiences with friends and acquaintances, the women I know that have pushed natural labor and childbirth and/or home birth are usually receiving most of their information from mom blogs, medically untrained doulas and lay midwives, and people who, let's face it, are just downright scared of hospitals and medicine. This kind of information is harmful, because unless you are confidently low-risk and can be reasonably assured of a straight-forward labor (women who've had at least one child with some basis for comparison), a minimalist home birth is not for you. I'm sorry, I'll say it. Every woman's "birthplan" should always be four words: healthy mom, healthy baby. Any competent medical professional would tell you absolutely the least intervention is ideal and will usually mean the fastest recovery, but we have interventions because things go wrong. Be educated, but be reasonable, and embrace living in the 21st century.

:clap:

Not only can doctors be sued by parents, but they then have 18 years to worry that the child will sue them to. No woman is going to win a lawsuit because of a c-section or "unnecessary" intervention that ended with a healthy baby and mother. The lawsuits doctors and hospitals lose are the one where the plaintiffs argue that a c-section should have been done, or should have been done sooner. Even when those plaintiffs refused those interventions. All a lawyer has to argue is that, sure, mom refused intervention, but that's because the ob didn't really make it clear what the consequences of that refusal would be, and boom, you win millions of dollars, all because those women thought they knew more about obstetrics than obstetricians because they read mommy blogs and watched the Business of Being Born.