Bullies

How do you respond to bullies? What in your life has influenced your reactions? Is it still bullying when adults deliberately set out to make each other feel like crap? Or does it have a new definition? Real life perhaps.

I hate to say this, as I'm a grown woman, but I've been encountering behaviour recently that makes me feel bullied. It is very similar to behaviour I encountered at school; people calling me names, accusing me of things I didn't say or do and apparently deliberately attacking my choices and words. This bullying behaviour even extends to my family. One of these people suggested to my husband that his mother was lazy, which is why he didn't do better at school.

I'm an HSP, Highly Sensitive Person, and all my life I have had difficulty in moderating my response to people like this. I become deeply upset, I lash out. I was regularly accused of being a "drama queen" at school because of this, apparently I was supposed to either ignore the bullies or give as good as I got. But an HSP can't always do this. HSPs feel things more keenly than others and are easily overwhelmed. I become overwhelmed and extremely emotional when people are overtly critical or abusive towards me.

For a while at school I did actually get it under control. I learned how to not storm away from a situation in an effort to protect myself and to sit still and take it for as long as I had to before I was free to walk calmly and quietly to a private place. And then I would release my feelings. I was afraid that if people saw how upset I was that the bullying would be worse.

That period was very black for me. I became very depressed and drifted away from many friends, I found it very difficult to trust people and open up to them for a long time. These days, I don't do much better, my behaviour is more moderate for the most part, but I can and do still react strongly to being cornered and because I couldn't lash out when I was younger I over compensate now!

I'm not hiding behind these events, not at all, I'm using my experiences to illustrate the point that because of my nature, bullying did not do anything positive for me, as others argue it should have done.

Apparently, it should have toughened me up, I should be over it and be capable of dealing with obstructive people now as a grown woman. My point is that actually, being bullied crippled me emotionally and did not prepare me for "real life". I don't have a thicker skin and I don't really feel better equipped to deal with these people as adults.

I am pretty good at standing up for myself now, but not because of bullies, it's because of surrounding myself with people who care about me and who care about the same things that I do. I have drawn strength from other people, just enough to stand on my own on some issues, but not personal attacks against me.

I'm not afraid to state my opinion now, I was quite a doormouse for a few years! Now I'm not afraid to be honest about what music I like, or books I read. I'm not embarrassed by my tastes, I don't care if people judge me for those things as ultimately they are all a matter of personal taste and don't matter that much to me.

I regularly get myself on the radio and in the papers, saying what I think of maternity services and what should be done to improve them. I have been on demonstrations and been openly critical of the government because I believe passionately that we have to speak out about these things if we are to make positive changes. But these things are a step removed from me and I'm not likely to be directly confronted by anyone unprofessional enough to make a mockery of me or my views.

Where I stumble is when, like recently, a few individuals come at me relentlessly with misguided and antagonistic vitriol about me, my parenting choices, my lifestyle choices and my family. But I do want to do better, I want to be able to just walk away from them, ignore them, not get into pointless internet debates with ignorant people. I still have some growing to do!

Grounded In Fantasy

So, this week saw the release of the final part in the Harry Potter film franchise. I went to see the first possible screening, at midnight! It was no disappointment. In fact it was breathtakingly good. But this isn't a review of the film, nor is it a critique of the whole series, I want to talk about the fantasy genre and what it is really all about.

There seems to be a mass misconception among those who have never taken the time to familiarise themselves with the genre, an understandable misconception that fantasy takes readers or viewers away from the real world. I read a comment in relation to Harry Potter recently, stating that the author was too grounded in reality to enjoy fantasy.

I've read a lot of fantasy and my better half has read far more than I have, our bookshelves are a testament to a lifelong love affair with swords and sorcery, wizards and goblins, mystical lands and generational wars.

But what does really good fantasy actually do? No matter where or when it is set, good fantasy makes you think about your own life and our own world.

The magic and mystical beings are handy writing conventions that give the author a sort of mirror in which they reflect back to the reader insights into the human condition.

Take Harry Potter, yes, there are wizards and witches, magic wands, dragons and an evil wizard out to seize power over mere "muggles", causing an epic war among the denizens of the magical world. It is an epic story. Or is it?

The main character is an ordinary boy. He's not an especially gifted wizard. He feels out of his depth a lot of the time, he forms an immediate rivalry with another boy at school, he struggles to turn in his homework on time and from time to time he gets into quite serious trouble. That is why his story has captured the imaginations of so many people, of all ages, because most people can relate to him.

As for the evil enemy and the epic war, I think most free thinking adults can see the allegory in that basic storyline; the power-hungry who abuse their position and oppress people. It has happened throughout the world in various guises and I dare say it will continue to do so for a long time to come.

As it happens, Voldemort and Harry are intimately linked because of events in their shared history, so Harry fears that he could turn out to be just like his evil enemy. So into the mixing pot of real life reflections is the concept of duality and inner demons, of a person having to overcome their fears, conquer their demons and allow their positive traits to triumph. Most of us do this in our lives, most of us try to better ourselves and doubt ourselves along the way, most of us have things about ourselves that we fear or dislike, we can try to acknowledge our faults and strive to overcome them, or otherwise accept them as a part of ourselves.

All of the issues underneath the fantasy setting are true to life and they are the elements that the story is really about. The existence of magic is just the dressing, just the tool with which to tell a very personal and real world story.

This is far from unique to Harry Potter, as I said at the beginning, all good fantasy does this. That's not to say that there isn't an awful lot of very bad fantasy out there though! And it's true of horror and science fiction too.

Take the Southern Vampire Mysteries series (True Blood), on the surface it's about Vampires and shape shifters, but really it's about relationships and about owning oneself and all ones talents and flaws.

Babylon 5 is a great example of sci-fi that is really all about the people. Yes there are aliens and advanced technology, but it's about what people do when faced with a difficult decision, it's about the way society bends to whoever is in power and what happens to the people who see through the propaganda to what is really happening.

The series, A Song of Ice and Fire, by George RR Martin, recently televised in the series Game of Thrones, spans a huge fantasy world with different cultures and an epic power struggle between families. It's a political drama, essentially, and its characters are the heart and soul of the story.

The plethora of teen supernatural romance series out there explore coming of age, learning to be independent and making ones own decisions in life and let's not forget, the intoxication of first love.

Fantasy doesn't get more gritty and relate-able.

Placing a real world condition or dilemma in a fantasy setting allows authors to explore the issues with more vigour and honesty than placing it in the real world often does. It can free authors from fear of offending sensitive groups and it can allow them access to groups of people who wouldn't otherwise ponder the issues consciously.

Fantasy definitely has its place and while it isn't going to appeal to everyone, I do think people shouldn't knock it until they've tried it.

Bright Blessings Connie Holmes

My great aunt passed away this evening. She was 96 and had been living in a care home for just over a year. She had no children of her own and was a very close member of my family.

She was the eldest of 7 siblings and outlived them all. She lost three sisters within a short period and from there it was a pretty rapid decline in her health. Until very recently she was still very sharp and witty, and despite declining physically for several years she still got out and about lots. It has really only been a matter of weeks that she became so old and fragile and only days of being bed-ridden before passing away in bed this evening. She had a chest infection that brought dementia with it, from which she never fully recovered, but until just a few weeks ago she was mentally capable, although for a year or so conversations did tend to go around in circles about every 5 minutes :)

She doted on Jack and I remember when I was little she would always press a pound coin into my hand when we left her company, you remember those things when you're a child!

She was popular and an active member of the community in the village in which she grew up, even long after she moved into town. She had so many stories about her family and her knowledge about the village and its people will be missed greatly.

She will be missed.

Rest in peace Connie xxx

Music I Want My Child To Listen To - Political Passions

Not so much a specific band for me this week, but a concept that transcends genres. Inspired by the political mood of the nation this week I'd like to instil a passion for politics in my children and music has been such a powerful tool in communicating political messages throughout the decades. From the Sex Pistols to Chumbawumba to Ani DiFranco to Faithless, many bands and artists have woven political statements into their music and some have even inspired entire generations to action.

I'd like my son to appreciate the concept of political music, even if he can't relate to the themes, messages or genres that have influenced me. I'd like him to give them a chance though, maybe feel some sense of continuity with the passions of days gone by, though I desperately hope there won't be repeats of the riots of the 1970s and 80s, or of the global political events of the last 10 years, but I dare say the raw essence of the issues will repeat themselves: People against the actions of the state.

I don't know what the political mood will be like in 10 to 15 years time, when my son is discovering his own generation's music for the first time. I do know that there will still be musicians writing about it though and I promise not to condescend my son's choices with statements that begin "In my day..." Maybe he will be able to show me something new that we can share.

I tried to think of something more current as an example for this, but drew a blank. I kept coming back to Self Evident by Ani DiFranco, a song about 9/11 and its aftermath. It's a song that still deeply moves me and this issue is undoubtedly the single most important one of my generation, the political actions that led to those terrorist attacks and the ramifications of them still echo across the globe today and will for years to come. So I leave you with a fan-vid set to Ani's beautiful and powerful poetry.

Add your own blog for this meme this week to the Linky here: Alexander Residence

Give Me A Cure For Political Apathy

I don't normally listen to radio phone ins. They drive me bonkers. For some reason, the members of the public that the shows producers pick to speak on air are almost universally ignorant peasants. Often the supposedly "expert" guests are no better. However, on Friday, my husband and I were on a long car journey and were listening to BBC Radio 5 Live in the run up to Nick Clegg's speech on the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum. It was the usual rubbish, exactly what you would expect from a political phone in. People speaking who had no idea what they were talking about, a hill-billy type who was calling for a general election every 12 months in order to shake things up; someone who only wants to vote UKIP and doesn't want to pansy about with numbers on the ballot paper and so on.

But one woman really got my goat. She was given the opportunity to speak in favour of AV, she sounded really positive, if a little naive and said it was about time there was an opportunity for change and she wants to be able to put a tick on her ballot paper instead of a cross (AV doesn't work like that, there are no ticks or crosses required, just numbers). But generally she was upbeat and inoffensive. Then she was asked about political apathy and why people today often don't exercise their right to vote (around 40% of people don't vote in general elections in this country, turnout for local and European elections is even worse). Here she lost me. She said that she didn't vote, that all politicians are the same and that no amount of reform would change that. Sigh.

I really cannot stand political apathy in and of itself, but what I really dislike is the hypocrisy of political apathy coupled with complaint. I don't approve of compulsory voting. I think people have as much right to abstain as to cast a vote and that in some cases abstaining in itself makes a point. It is this very fact that has brought us to the point of even having a referendum on reform, the people who have been not voting in droves have been listened to by the Liberal Democrats and other political reformists and they want to find a way to engage those people with the political process again.

BUT, if you don't vote, then in my opinion you do relinquish your right to bitch to yourself, your friends, the internet etc about the decisions that politicians make. If you haven't voted and have no intention of ever voting or campaigning in any way for changes that you believe would be better for our country, then you have absolutely no right to whinge about the decisions that get made. You have chosen not to exercise your right to vote, you have chosen to disengage from the political process so when politics has a negative impact on your life, be it because of cuts to benefits or a rise in taxes, or cuts to the NHS that mean your local doctor's surgery can no longer run a drop in surgery, or school class sizes soaring to 35, whatever it is, shut up. Or get off your backside and do something about it.

Contrary to popular opinion, not all politicians are carbon copies of one another. Local MPs and councillors are often very approachable and engaged with their constituents. There are service user forums and committees to join, petitions to sign, letters to MPs to write stating what you do and do not approve of. The government IS accountable to the people and it DOES listen, sometimes it takes a lot of voices shouting in unison and the big things are very difficult to change, but you do have a voice and if you choose not to use it then follow your own precedent, and keep quiet if you don't like what comes of it.

Music I Want My Child To Listen To

So, I just encountered this meme for the first time and thought "Hell yeah! I wanna join in!" Music is where my heart has always been. I guess it's taken a bit of a backseat for a couple of years but I regret that and I'm hoping this will give me the incentive to get back into music. Recently I've been listening to some old favourites while I write, partly to help inspire my writing but also taking a trip down memory lane, following the recent photo storm among my old school friends on Facebook.

But I can't really start there, I have to go further back. Where did my love of music really take root? Easy, in the folk festivals my parents took me to as a small child. Most of the time spent at these folk festivals I was off playing with other kids, exploring and occasionally curled up asleep on, or sometimes even under a chair, while my parents watched the bands and artists perform. However, distraction and sleep both became impossible whenever Spirit of the West came on stage.

I remember the way the tiny platforms that formed a stage at some venues would shake under the thump of the bass drum and the weight of the lead singer jumping around. The whole floor would erupt with energy and enthusiasm, with otherwise stationery crowds leaping from their seats to dance to this high-energy band. Once, I even got sung to directly, having requested my favourite song (what band can't resist a cute 6 year old girl with pigtails who loves their music?!)

Spirit of the West are a Canadian folk band, who still occasionally do the rounds of folk festivals in North America. Their album Save This House still warrants the odd airing in my house now, twenty-odd years after it's release and the last time I saw them live.

Home For A Rest is one of my all time favourite songs, though obviously I didn't understand it as a child! Amid the frantic flute play, chaotic chords and lyrics about being drunk for a month there is an understated poetry, especially in the line "The spirits we drank are now ghosts in the room".

Here's a clip so you too can savour these Canadian delights. Enjoy.

Induced and left alone to birth in a toilet? True.

This rather alarming news story came to my attention today.

http://www.nottinghamwired.co.uk/news.php/124340-Kings-Mill-hospital-ignored-toilet-birth-mothers-calls

A couple in Nottinghamshire have reported that their daughter was born unattended in a hospital bathroom in November and that staff ignored when they pulled the emergency cord for urgent assistance. Apparently the midwives assumed the labouring woman wanted a cup of tea.

Let's skip right over the part where the midwives are implying that a labouring woman should be ignored when in need of refreshments, and move right on the the extremely distressing part of this story: that an emergency call from a woman undergoing induction was ignored.

Any call for immediate assistance for a woman in labour should be responded to, by somebody, anybody. Regardless of how frequently women in that birthing suite pull the wrong cord or hit the wrong button when all they need is a drink. The staff cannot assume that it is a benign matter, not for any labouring woman. But induction is risky. It is a risky procedure whenever and wherever it is done, in some cases the risks are lower than the risks of staying pregnant, but there are still risks. Ignoring an emergency call for a woman undergoing induction is, quite simply, negligence.

This isn't the first time I have encountered women who say that they were ignored during induction, that their requests for pain relief were ignored or that they were told they weren't yet in labour without even being examined. I even heard of one woman once who hadn't even been moved from the ward to a birthing suite and delivered on the ward floor on her own in front of half a dozen other women. Disgraceful.

This recent case is a little scant on details. We know that the midwives assumed that the labouring woman only wanted a cup of tea, so deemed it unnecessary to attend to that need. I might have a little more sympathy for the midwives if it transpired that they were very short staffed and no one could be spared for non-urgent care (forgetting again that it is clearly wrong to just assume that the emergency cord has been pulled for non-urgent reasons). But only a little sympathy can be garnered from such an excuse. If the ward was so short staffed, why induce? Why willingly fill up the ward when there aren't enough midwives? When birth can be scheduled (Ha!), why do so in full knowledge that there are not enough midwives available to attend to every woman both in spontaneous labour and booked for induction?

Perhaps this woman's induction really couldn't wait a day or two. Perhaps she had a true emergency reason for needing to get the baby earth-side. And here we are back at the point that she was ignored in an emergency situation.

There is no winning scenario for the staff on duty at this hospital that day. Either there was someone available to answer the emergency call but it went ignored anyway, or the ward was too busy and so the inductions should have been postponed where possible, or finally, the induction was for genuine medical reasons and therefore the woman was in need of close attention.

The couple have received the standard NHS response to complaints: "We are sorry you feel this way." It isn't a true apology. They are not taking responsibility for their mistake. They are not genuinely sorry for the deep trauma they have caused. They are not attempting to put anything right or change their services for the benefit of those who come after this couple.

It's not good enough. It's never good enough.

Part of the reluctance to take responsibility is fear of litigation, the same fear that causes hospitals to line up increasing numbers of women for unnecessary inductions. As nonsensical as that sounds, it's true. Hospital administrators want to try and control birth, because if they control things and things go wrong they can claim that they did everything possible to prevent it. In doing this they don't stop to ask if they cause more harm than good.

Birth cannot be controlled or scheduled. Sometimes things go wrong, yes, but in a culture of true woman-centred care, where the woman knows and trusts her midwife and where medical intervention is reserved for hose who truly need it ,I somehow think that the growing litigation culture wouldn't be a significant factor because even on the rare occasions that the outcome is negative, the people involved will know and trust their care providers. I'm sure that the reason people lash out and try to sue the NHS now is because they are upset with the level of care shown, they want someone to take responsibility and apologise properly. I know that's true of me and many of the women I have met who have grievances against hospitals for their maternity care. A genuine apology would settle many a dispute before it even reaches the point of hiring lawyers.

A lesson many hospitals would do well to learn.

A Frightening Future for Maternity Services

In December the government announced that they were going to go back on the promise made in July that maternity services would be commissioned by a national board and that they were going to hand over commissioning to GPs. When the White Paper came out there was a great deal of praise from every relevant body, including the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). It was widely recognised that maternity services need to be commissioned nationally in order to ensure the best care in every area and in order to work efficiently with neonatal services. While other commissioning was going to GPs, it was acknowledged that GPs have very little experience or knowledge of maternity health and are primarily focussed on treating ill people, whereas pregnancy is not an illness.

However, GPs complained, they stamped their feet and said the idea was "stupid". It has been suggested that this is basically about money. GPs know they don't have the expertise but are afraid of losing out on some funding if they don't get to control the purse strings.

The government bowed to this pressure and have now handed over commissioning to the GP consortia.

Since the decision was announced, Cathy Warwick, general secretary of RCM has been very vocal in the press about the bleak future of maternity services. Midwife shortages, lack of choice for women and their families and GP interference are of grave concern and she has been trying hard to get the message out there.

This article in the Guardian on Saturday sums it up well. Basically, lives are at risk. The government is falling short on its commitment to maternity services. I love Cathy Warwick and I am so glad she is speaking out, but there were a few things about this article that concerned me.

The title image was one of them (see top of page). A newborn baby being held by a woman in scrubs, presumably a midwife, in an operating theatre. Hardly an image of normal birth. Perhaps the point was to negatively depict the current situation? Dangerously high caesarian section rates, complete medicalisation of birth that can only get worse with GPs at the helm. However, I doubt many readers would interpret it as such, my suspicion is that this image will only perpetuate the idea that this is what birth is and has to be, bright lights, clinical, operative, the mother not even depicted - not important.

But this image was only an afterthought for me.

The article makes reference to the number of currently enrolled student midwives, a figure that the government is throwing about in order to defend itself against allegations of not honouring promises to increase the number of midwives. I've seen it a lot lately in response to Cathy Warwick. What I have yet to see is any journalist drawing attention to the low retention rates, midwives are leaving the NHS in droves because of poor working conditions and then there is the little matter of the recent government decision to lift the tuition fee cap to £9000 per year. How many student midwives will withdraw from courses now that they can no longer afford the fees? How many prospective midwifery students, both school leavers and older people looking to retrain, are now rethinking their plans? This figure really can't be relied upon as an indicator of how many midwives we can expect to see working within the NHS in the coming years.

The main thing about the article that sent chills up my spine was the final quote from Steve Field, the former chair of the Royal College of GPs (RCGP). The article states

Professor Steve Field, former chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the new maternity networks which will be set up in England as part of the government's contentious NHS reforms should improve the quality of care. "Maternity care is not as good as it should be," he said. "But GPs, working with obstetricians and patients themselves, should be able to design better patient-centred services."

Two things about this frighten me. The first is his referring to pregnant women as "patients", which demonstrates his general attitude towards pregnancy, i.e. that it is an illness to be cured, rather than a natural biological condition and that most pregnant women are not ill. Secondly and even more alarmingly, the lack of midwives from the consultation process. At best their exclusion here is an unconscious omission based on Field's lack of understanding of the important role of a miwdwife in pregnancy and birth. This is the very reason people fear GP commissioning. They simply don't understand maternity care provision. How can they go forward from this place of no comprehension? How can they do it without consulting with midwives? This is the best case scenario. The worst is that he is aware of what midwives do and RCGP is actively planning to marginalise midwives from maternity service provision.

There are GPs practising in the UK today who are demonstrating absolutely appalling lack of knowledge on normal birth and of midwifery led care. Make no mistake, these people are NOT the people we want deciding how the money gets distributed. For a recent discussion between maternity service users on GPs see here.

Choice

On Thursday, obstetrician Maggie Blott, from the Royal College of Obstetricains and Gynecologists (RCOG) spoke on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour in a feature on pregnancy and birth, she stated that some women do not have a choice in where (and one must assume, how) they give birth.

The feature was generally very good and well balanced, I have no complaint with the BBC over this. The host, Jenni Murray was her usual calm and collected self, giving equal floor time to all of her guests. Sheila Kitzinger, founder of NCT and Birth Crisis, author and all around birth activist was interviewed and was asked about choice, birth plans and even orgasmic birth. A woman who had had a home birth recently was interviewed with her midwife and they both talked about how wonderful the experience was. The midwife was enthusiastic about home birth and talked about how rewarding her job was, which was refreshing coming from an NHS midwife, who are so often beaten down and jaded by the hideous system within which they have to work.

The issue of maternity services commissioning came up, following the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) recent conference, at which general secretary Cathy Warwick criticised the government for their U-turn on this topic. In the White Paper released in the summer, it was announced that while much commissioning would go to GPs to be determined on a local level (quite rightly so), maternity services would be commissioned by a national body. The reasoning for this is that maternity services is not generally dealing with people who are unwell, so is therefore outside of a GP's field of expertise. It is also something best looked at on a national level, because where complications do exist in small numbers not every local authority is going to have the resources to fund expensive facilities for very rare cases. It needs to be looked at on a larger scale so that the best provisions for those who need more care can be made in a sensible fashion. For example, not every local hospital needs a maternity unit and Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU), but at least one major hospital per region does need this. If commissioning is local then how will these facilities be funded?

However, some GPs inexplicably came out against this decision and have lobbied the government with such spurious arguments as "this is stupid". Hmm, helpful and how professional.

Cathy Warwick appeared on Woman's Hour and presented the case against GP commissioning. Health Minister, Anne Milton was also interviewed and she stated that no decision has yet been reached and that all sides were being considered. The general feeling among those in the know is that the government is going to come down in favour of the GPs. Why are the GPs even interested in this? What is in it for them? What does it mean for women and their families if their GP practice decides to reduce funding? The whole ethos of choice and quality care is under threat. It will become a postcode lottery as to whether a woman and her family can enjoy the essential quality of care that she needs. Women may end up having to travel large distances to receive their antenatal care if community midwives are made redundant by GP practices and the choice of where to give birth flies swiftly out of the window.

Which brings me back to the opening of this post. In the UK we are lucky to be able to exercise our fundamental human rights without fear from the government. Mostly. We are much better off than some countries. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) stipulates in Article 3 that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Security of person relates to the body and the mind, so basically every person has the right to bodily autonomy; they decide what happens to their physical body, and has the right to protect their emotional and mental wellbeing and no one has any right to override that autonomy. It would be under this fundamental human right that choice in birth comes. Every woman has the right to choose how and where they give birth. It may be that she has certain risk factors that may incline her care givers to recommend one place over another, but ultimately it is the woman's choice to take or leave that recommendation. For instance, an intense phobia of hospitals may mean that a woman chooses an elective caesarian in order to be able to plan the date and time of her birth and to control the amount of the time spent in that environment. Or it may mean that she chooses to give birth at home, perhaps even on her own with no midwife present if her phobia extends to hospital staff. That is her right.

During my first pregnancy I had no "risk factors". I was totally free from any medical-based prejudice towards one location or another for my birth. I was lucky enough too, to live in an area that nominally supports and encourages home birth. Unfortunately, there are so few women in this area choosing to birth at home that the midwives are not as skilled and experienced in normal, un-medical birth as they ought to be and as such, I was given a medical birth at home, which was never going to end well. Now I do have "risk factors". Next time I am pregnant, the NHS will "advise" me to have my baby at hospital. Not because it is what is statistically safest for me and my baby, but because their protocols are set out by a team of lawyers with the paralysing fear of being sued forever at the forefront of their minds. They want to control and manage all risk, rather than simply dealing with problems on the rare occasions that they do occur, so that they can say "we knew this was a risk and we tried to avoid it".

However, what many women genuinely do not realise is that they still have their fundamental human rights, as protected by the UDHR. They can decide for themselves whether to take the advice they are given or not. Because I am well-informed and have taken a great deal of time and effort to research the risks for myself and to analyse the reasons for protocols and guidelines to be in place, I know for myself that not only can I still have my next baby at home if I want to, but that there is even an official guideline that tells maternity personnel that I can make that choice. There is a NICE Guideline that states that women with one previous c-section should be treated no differently from any nulliparious woman (someone expecting their first child).

So, when I hear an obstetrician from RCOG on national radio stating that women with a previous c-section, for this was one of several specific examples that she gave, "do not have a choice in where they give birth" I am furious. Not only is she stating that some women do not have their fundamental human rights for the sole reason that they are pregnant, she is also going against the guidelines she is otherwise so tied to!

Midwife Cathy Warwick was wonderful at this point in the interview and did intercede to state that women do still have a choice and should be supported in that choice even if she has risks that her obstetrician is unhappy with. However, my fear is that Maggie Blott has given a green light to her colleagues to lie to women in their care. I know that the practices of lying and coercion are already very common in maternity care, from my own experience and those of other women I know, but to hear it on national radio from a member of RCOG has had quite an impact on me.

I urge women and birth activists everywhere to not let this go by without comment. Tell your friends, relatives, strangers in the waiting room, that being pregnant does not strip a woman of her human rights! Write to RCOG and demand a formal public apology for Maggie Blott's comments. I will be doing just that.

And on the subject of maternity services commissioning, please write to your MP as a matter of urgency and demand that the government stand by its commitment in July. The final decision on this is due in just a few weeks so there is no time to lose. You can find contact details for your local representatives here: http://www.writetothem.com/

Guess the Weight

Guess how many sweets are in the jar, or better yet, guess how much the sweets inside the jar weigh. Not including the jar itself but including all the sweets you can't actually see in the photo....

I'll give you a little help, you see that green one near the top left? Well the distance from the highest tip of that sweet to the lowest tip of the red stripy one down the bottom is... let's say 25cm. NOW tell me how much the contents of the jar weigh.

What? You mean you can't work it out?

No, I couldn't either, neither can my mathematically gifted husband. Although he does argue that he is familiar with these kinds of sweet jars and would therefore be able to estimate that the sweets weigh 1kg. But he is missing my point a bit.

From looking at this picture alone, with one arbitrary measurement and without being able to see maybe 80% of the sweets in the jar, there is absolutely no way that with this information alone anyone would be able to estimate with any degree of accuracy how much the sweets weigh. My husband is right though, using his life experience, he can guess the weight fairly accurately. But we do know with some degree of certainty that these exact sweets were weighed before putting them in the jar prior to sale. The same cannot be said of a baby in the womb.

So why do so many people believe a sonographer when they say that their unborn baby weighs xlbs in utero? It's the same sort of equation. An ultrasound gives the sonographer a view of a small section of the uterus at any one time and gradually builds up a picture as the transducer is moved across the abdomen. Three measurements are taken during a growth scan, the biparietal diameter (distance between the 2 sides of the head), femur length and the abdominal circumference. These measurements are entered into a computer program which then calculates the estimated weight based on charts created by researchers. You would think it would be fairly accurate. All that science.

The problem is that for one, the scan is only as good as the sonographer. All humans are capable of error. What one sonographer measures one day may be totally different to what another sonographer measures the next (on the same woman and baby). I have even heard of one sonographer giving a woman and her obstetrician quite a fright by writing down measurements that implied that her baby had SHRUNK! That was human error, babies don't shrink, as the obstetrician quite rightly pointed out, and later apologised to her and admitted that a mistake had been made.

But also, who made these charts and from what research? My best guess is that researchers have measured aborted and miscarried fetuses in order to establish average lengths, diameters and circumferences at different gestational ages. I wonder how many samples they looked at before coming up with these charts? From how many different ethnicities? Did they account for growth abnormalities in unhealthy fetuses?

There is a wonderful bit of research that demonstrates the complete unreliability of growth scans in late pregnancy:

Pregnancy outcome following ultrasound diagnosis of macrosomia.
AUTHORS: Delpapa EH; Mueller-Heubach E
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Women's Hospital, Pennsylvania.
SOURCE: Obstet Gynecol 1991 Sep;78(3 Pt 1):340-3
Extract: "In 66 of 86 women (77%) delivering within 3 days of ultrasound examination, estimated fetal weight (EFW) exceeded birth weight. In only 41 of these 86 women (48%) were the EFWs within the corresponding 500-g category of birth weight."

So basically, this study (admittedly only a small one), found that 77% of growth scans predicted a higher birth weight three days BEFORE birth, so if these scans really are as accurate as we are led to believe then 77% of babies shrink in the last days of pregnancy. See above. More alarming is that 48% of scans, i.e. less than half, were accurate to within 500g, which is more than 1lb. What a large margin for error! The difference between a 9lb baby and a 10lb baby can be a HUGE difference to the mother and her care providers both psychologically and in terms of her care during late pregnancy and birth. To look at it the other way, more than half of scans were LESS accurate than that. 52% of women scanned were expecting either much bigger or much smaller babies than they got.

Why does it matter?

Because if a midwife sends a woman for a growth scan because of concerns late in pregnancy, and the obstetrician that the woman sees after her scan decides that, based on this one scan, her baby is too big or too small, then interventions may be advised that are simply not necessary. For example, if a baby is suspected to be too big, early induction or c-section will be advised. Except in the current NHS system the woman will come away thinking that it is not advice that she has been given, but an order to comply with.

Why does it matter?

Because interventions without clinical need are a waste of resources and may have long-lasting negative effects on the mother and baby. Caesarian sections are known to leave babies with more breathing problems, greater risk of diabetes and cause risk factors for the woman in future pregnancies, never mind the risk of post operative infection and post traumatic stress disorder.

Why put women through that? Why subject a woman at the end of her pregnancy to fears about the wellbeing of her baby? Even when the prediction of a too big or too small baby is accurate, how often does it actually mean ill health for the newborn? According to one study, "Our ability to predict macrosomia is poor. Our management policy of suspected macrosomic pregnancies raises induction of labor and cesarean delivery rates without improving maternal or fetal outcome." (My emphasis).

The Delpapa and Mueller-Heubach study above also concludes that "A trial of labor resulted in vaginal delivery in 76 of 106 women (72%). There were five cases of shoulder dystocia but no birth trauma. Estimated fetal weights and birth weights were not significantly different between the women who had a trial of labor and those who did not. Our results do not support cesarean delivery or early induction as a means of preventing infant morbidity when fetal macrosomia (weight of 4000 g or more or the 90th percentile for gestational age) is diagnosed by ultrasound."

So ultrasound is NOT an accurate estimate of fetal weight and even when a baby is genuinely large (4000g+), spontaneous labour and vaginal birth are still the safest option.

The C-Word

Cancer. What is it? Why are we so scared of it? And what can we do about it?

Cancer is basically the mutation of cells. Cells that divide beyond the normal growth rate for their type and that invade and kill neighbouring cells are loosely defined as cancerous, sometimes they also travel around the body via blood or lymph.

We hear alarming figures thrown around such as 1 in 3 women will contract a female cancer in their lifetime and that almost all of us can say that they have been in some way affected by cancer, either themselves directly or a loved one. It's no wonder that we are so scared of this disease. But is this accurate?

According to Cancer Research UK, there are now over 2 million cancer survivors in the UK, approximately 3.3% of the population and around 10% of those over 65 are cancer survivors. The number of diagnoses per year keeps increasing, but the so does the survival rate. The most common cancer is breast cancer, with about 550,000 current survivors in the UK today. In 2008 the mortality rate was 0.176% of the UK population. That doesn't sound so scary.

Why might cells mutate? 90-95% of cancers are caused by environmental or lifestyle factors, only 5-10% are genetic. Tobacco is the big one, we all know that, smoking is the cause of nearly 30% of all cancer deaths, 83-90% of lung cancer deaths and is also linked to cancers of the oesophagus, larynx, pharynx, oral cavity, pancreas, bladder, nasal cavity and sinuses, stomach, liver, kidney, cervix and myeloid leukaemia.

Other environmental factors that can increase the risk of cancer are UV exposure, weight, diet and infection.

But the one I really want to talk about is hormones, particularly female hormones and the "female" cancers; breast, cervical, uterine and ovarian.

Certain lifestyle choices are known to impact on our chances of contracting a female cancer. The combination oral contraceptive pill slightly increases the risk of breast and cervical cancer whilst taking the pill, but once no longer taking it the risk decreases again. However, there is a significant reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer for women who take the pill for five years, lasting for more than 20 years. And when I say significant, I really mean it: 50%. There is also a 40-60% reduction in instances of endometrial cancer (uterine cancer) for women who take the pill.

Having 7 or more children and having a first child before the age of 17 are known to double the risk of cervical cancer

The oestrogen only Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) has been shown to increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancers.

And last but by no means least, women are at 4% less risk of breast cancer for each year that they breastfeed and women who do not breastfeed at all are twice as likely to contract endometrial cancer and two thirds more likely to get ovarian cancer.

While all these figures are interesting, what I am most interested in is why. What no one seems to be saying is that cancer is thought to occur in cells that are over-stimulated, that's why the pill is so protective, it prevents ovulation and therefore gives the ovaries and uterus a rest from menstruation. Just like pregnancy and breastfeeding does. The pill basically replicates the consequences of reproduction, but in a more thorough and predictable way. It is my belief that the cells in any given part of the body are programmed to behave a certain way, according to their function and if they are not given the opportunity to perform their function as they expect then they are more likely to mutate and turn cancerous.

The ovaries expect to ovulate regularly until conception and then take a break of an average of 22 months (9 of pregnancy and 13 of breastfeeding, this is the average return of menstruation for women who breastfeed their children on demand). The breasts prepare themselves during pregnancy for lactation, regardless of the mother's intentions, the breast tissue fundamentally alters. What happens then if the mother does not breastfeed? Likewise, the cervix prepares itself for birthing a baby during late pregnancy and labour. So what are the implications for those who do not labour or who have a surgical delivery? I didn't find any statistics on that, but I'd love to know if caesarian sections carry an increased risk of cervical cancer. It certainly wasn't a risk listed on my consent form. Does some research need to be done on this?

Could we go back to a time before cancer became the single biggest health scare simply by living as our bodies expect us to?

Informed Consent

Every day for the last two years I have encountered either directly or recounted through someone else, at least one woman who genuinely believes that because she is pregnant she has sacrificed her most fundamental human rights. The vast majority of women become submissive to the will of their care providers and the NHS does nothing to correct this misconception, in fact, it perpetuates it. Women are regularly told by their midwives and doctors that they are "not allowed x", or they "must have y". I myself, while in labour, was told by a midwife that I had to have an internal examination every 4 hours. No consent was sought, it was presented to me as non-negotiable and this happens routinely, probably with the most regularity in relation to induction.

Women are told that their baby is due on a specific date, the Estimated Due Date (EDD), with the emphasis on "due" rather than "estimated". Women fall for this almost every time, if they go just one day past their EDD then their baby is "late". Midwives seem to not point out the fact that babies can and do arrive whenever they are ready and that the World Health Organisation (WHO) defines normal pregnancy as lasting anywhere from 37 to 42 weeks. Once a woman passes 40 weeks, which about 50% of women do, they are told that they are now on a clock and must go into labour quickly otherwise they will "have to be induced".

The exact date at which hospitals routinely induce women with no clinical need, varies from one area to another, but what doesn't seem to vary is the lack of informed consent. Women and their families are not given the facts that enable them to make a decision for themselves, they are routinely led to believe that they have no decision to make, they will be induced, this is non-negotiable. They are not told the risks of the induction process, they are however given exaggerated and out of date "advice" about the risks of remaining pregnant for longer than 41 weeks.

If a woman's waters break she is put on a clock and if labour does not start spontaneously within 24 hours she is told that she must be induced. I've known women be told this and given no reason, at best they are told that it is because of the risk of infection. What they are not told is that the risk of infection only increases significantly after 96 hours and that it is a significantly higher risk in hospital than at home. Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in about 6-19% of pregnancies, 86% of women will go into spontaneous labour within 24 hours and 94% within 95 hours. Statistically, a baby born in hospital is 4 times more likely to acquire an infection than a baby born at home and around 9% of women birthing in hospital will acquire an infection, the highest risks being those who have a catheter and especially those undergoing a caesarian section, both of which are higher risks for those undergoing an induction.

It saddens me to hear women talking about their births as though they have no choices, no input to how and where it happens and what makes it worse is when people like myself try to inform them we are accused of being bullies! It is my sincere hope that the tide begins to turn soon and that women are given full, accurate information and are empowered to make their own choices for their births. It is one of Airedale Mums' primary goals, though it is not clear yet how we go about achieving it.

Autumn

We are rapidly approaching my favourite time of year. I felt it today for the first time. All of my immediate family have summer birthdays, my mum is the last on 31st August (happy birthday Mum!) and once this date passes it's like autumn suddenly rushes up to meet me. The days are growing shorter, the evenings are still warm but there is a crispness to the air. It's about now that the memories of some of the best times of my life start to kick in and the anticipation of the forthcoming holidays and festivals starts to set my pulse racing. I always seem to reconnect with music at this time of year too. I listen to music all year around, but it seems to be a background thing most of the time these days, unlike pre-Jack when live music and clubbing were a big part of my life, but around this time of year I start really listening again and listening to different bands and artists, more rock and less of the pop and dance that I tend to go for in the summer months.

We're only 3 weeks from Mabon and I find myself feeling a little sad that we won't be at Avebury this year, which had become a little tradition when we lived in Bristol. I don't recall missing it last year, but we were busy with Jack hitting the six month mark and all of the challenges that came with that. Mabon is not my favourite Sabbat, but it is the one that I always get a little more excited about, perhaps because it marks entry into the festive season, where the next two Sabbats, Samhain and Yule, seem to come in such quick succession and everyone else gets excited about their secular or Christian counterparts.

I love the way we all get swept along with the season, like the golden leaves dusting the ground and the build up to its inevitable conclusion - winter. Don't get me wrong, the ridiculously long and drawn out build up to Christmas annoys the hell out of me. "Festive" goods and songs in shops from September is ludicrous, decorations and lights going up in October completely misses the point of the holiday to me. But what I do like are the simple things, the human aspect. I love the way people start grinning and wanting to talk about the holiday and I love the weather turning cool and crisp, the frost and even the first snow (when we get some before new year that is). But long before that, just the little buzz in the air, the sense that the seasons are changing, I love it and I felt it today.

Free stuff for Home Educators

One of my HE contacts has a fab blog here and is giving away free stuff in celebration of HE kids NOT going back to school! So just check out her blog and leave a comment about why you love HE and get yourself an entry into the prize draw :)

French Police Brutality

Captured on film in July, French police have shown themselves to be a disgrace to the law enforcement profession. African immigrants were forced to leave their council housing earlier in the month and had set up camp on the streets in the area. Women and children were the main occupants of the Parisian streets, with no where else to go, they stayed close to their friends and families. Many of the immigrants were there perfectly legally and had been living in France for more than a decade. Police arrived to move the campers along and the video, published on YouTube by French news site Mediapart, depicts the African families sitting peacefully on the pavement, arms linked together, being assaulted by the authorities.

Women were dragged away from their friends and families, babies ripped from their mothers' arms and wraps. One woman was pulled from the group by her legs, dragged over the ground on her back, where her baby was wrapped, she was pulled across her child, apparently squashing him into the ground. A pregnant woman is shown lying on the ground, her head perilously close to a concrete bollard. It is unclear whether she was injured or "playing dead" to make it more difficult to be moved, but the police were making a good go of shifting her.

I have never seen anything quite like this in my life. The brutality involved is shocking. To manhandle people in this fashion is bad enough but when you consider that it was women and children, who had done nothing more than attempt to sit it out when being forced to leave their homes, this is troubling indeed. I don't know if it is even worse to know that this did not take place in some obscure dictatorship, but right here in Europe, in Paris no less.

We live in troubling times indeed.

Here is the video, please be warned, this clip depicts police brutality upon women and children and viewers may find it distressing:

That Article

It has been covered extensively on the internet, so I won't write an essay, but I couldn't let it go by without some sort of comment....

The article in Mother & Baby Magazine that has caused such a riot among both formula feeders and breastfeeders. You can read the article here. Kathryn Blundell has caused much offence with her inappropriate remarks, calling breastfeeding "creepy" and referring to her breasts as "fun bags". Breastfeeders are incensed with her attitude and formula feeders frustrated that this article will now lead other women to assume they share Ms Blundell's views.

My favourite blog about it is this one which describes the financial incentives for such an article to appear in the magazine during National Breastfeeding Awareness Week.

My own opinion? Ms Blundell is a clever business woman when it comes to advertising for her magazine (she is the deputy editor), but with very little regard for the wellbeing of her readers or their babies. Mother & Baby Magazine have proven themselves to be 100% enthralled to their advertisers and not a respectable publication committed to printing facts and responsible journalistic opinion pieces.

Lactivism

I was recently having a conversation with a friend about breastfeeding and how to be a champion without alienating people by making them feel bad for their choices. It's a fine line. As a lactivist I want to tell people about the risks of formula feeding and I want to provide support for women who want to breastfeed, but I know that I have at times caused offence when discussing this topic.

I think that some women may be quite defensive about their decision to formula feed, despite vocalising their pride at this choice perhaps a part of them doesn't feel good about it and so they feel the need to justify it and defend it when they feel their choice is being criticised.

There are things I would like to say on the subject but don't feel that I can for fear of being judged to be judgemental - haha.

I am trying to change my approach into a positive one. There are people you will never reach, so it is best not to come at lactivism from that perspective, rather to simply be approachable to those seeking information and support. So I am undertaking leadership training with La Leche League so that I can be a peer supporter. I'm also going to plug other Lactivists blogs, websites and online stores ;)

First on the list is Lactivist itself. The website is a fantastic hub of information and support, not to mention their fantastic breastfeeding t-shirts! They are currently running a competition to win £40 of Butterfly Babies vouchers. See here for more.

A New Kind of Government

I'm not a natural optimist. I have to work quite hard to be one, but I believe that it is worth it and that it is a healthier attitude than pessimism. This week we have welcomed a new kind of government into power, a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. As soon as the election results were looking like a hung parliament was going to be the outcome, this is precisely the solution I thought would come about. From some time over the weekend, when informal talks were happening and seemed to be going well, I had a good feeling about it. Lib Dems in Government.... how can that be a bad thing? Speaking as a Lib Dem party member and volunteer campaigner I saw this as a wonderful opportunity to do something different. The old system wasn't working, as a nation we were swinging between Labour and Tory and neither party were getting it right.

The election results showed that the nation was split. No party had an overall majority and so it became necessary for two or more parties to cooperate. This is precisely the kind of democracy that I have long wished to see in action. Why must we have an adversarial system? Why can't the politicians from different parties and different backgrounds at least try to work together? It works in other countries, it works in the European Parliament. Why shouldn't it work here?

The Tories and Lib Dems demonstrated in their talks that they were able to sit down and compromise, that they were able to put the interests of the nation above the interests of their parties. The leaders passionately want this to work and even though they will undoubtedly face some opposition from within their own parties, I believe that they can set the example and make it work.

I have encountered a lot of negativity towards this coalition already. I believe this comes down to two fundamental causes: Firstly that this is a new way of running the country and people are wary of change. This way of working has not been proven to work in Britain before. Secondly, bigotry. I'm sorry to say this, especially of friends, but so many people have blinkered views of politicians, or of one party in particular. I've heard people saying "Look what happened last time the Tories were in power!" But I say to them - that was a long time ago. Thatcher came to power over 30 years ago. The political landscape has changed since then, the population has changed since then and the politicians have changed since then! I have found myself reminding people that this Tory party is NOT the same as the one under Thatcher. It is not the same as the one under Major. This is Cameron's Conservative party.

We all saw what happened to Labour under the "New" banner of Tony Blair, the party did change. No longer is Labour the left wing, unionist party of old. For a long time now the Liberal Democrats have represented the most left wing of the three main parties and under Cameron we can already see the Conservatives edging towards the middle from their old position on the right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not jumping for joy at a predominantly Conservative government and I do have an edge of scepticism to my view. We have a proven Eurosceptic in the Foreign Office and an early pledge to hack public spending. But what I am saying is let's not judge this coalition before it has even got going. They have settled upon a 5 year fixed term parliament. Let's at least give them that long to show us what they can do, how well they can work together.

If it doesn't work, if the economy doesn't recover as well as the experts suggest it should be able to in that time, if Lib Dem policies are continually blocked then fine, vote differently in 2015. We can always go back to the old system (but I doubt that will happen if we get the reform we want!) but don't condemn this one just because it is different or not what was hoped for.

Catching Up

OK, so here is the first instalment of the catch up that I talked about. These posts are from when Jack was 3 months old.

June 26^th 2009

So anyway... Jack's bedtime routine seemed to have gone back to normal last night, but about 20 minutes after putting him in his crib asleep he woke up crying. I tried to soothe him and he was fine the moment I lifted him out. Then cried as soon as put back in. I thought he might be hot so put him on the bed to take his sleepsuit off and he went straight to sleep right there!! So I think that makes it official.... he has outgrown his crib and feels constrained in it.

Time to get his cot! We put it off as non-essential but can't delay any longer. Fitting it in our room requires a little rearrangement of furniture, but we want him rooming in until he's six months so we will work it out.

I'm trying to encourage Jack to think about rolling over, he's shown no inclination so far and went through a long phase of hating tummy time. I tried him on his tummy for the first time in a few weeks the other day and he was fine with it, so now I'm trying him on his front every day. He shuffles about loads on his mat, which is very smooth. He wouldn't get anywhere on the carpet lol!

June 28^th

He's three months old today. I suppose I should log what he can do:

grab and hold objects placed in front of him
draw things into his mouth
swap things from one hand to the other
shuffle about on his back
just starting to show an interest in crawling but lacks the strength!
"talk" - he can take his turn in conversation and makes some wonderful noises
smile
giggle
follow an object or person around the room with his eyes
watch the cricket and tennis lol!!
refuse to smile for the camera

He's still exclusively BF

A few other thoughts for today... expressing. I've so far not been able to get into a good routine. Mornings are typically best for me and there was a period when I was waking up quite engorged and getting a good 4oz in one go. But then my supply adjusted to just let down on demand, rather than fill and empty and it got loads harder to express, I went back to only getting about 1oz but I had a good week of pumping every day and it went up to about what I was getting before. But it's now been a good couple of weeks since I expressed.

I want to get back into it. I've got about 20oz frozen but I'd like to increase that as I'm going to see Leonard Cohen in a few weeks so Andy will probably get through all the frozen supply while looking after Jack. Can't imagine what my boobs might feel like by the time I get home that night as the gig is in Birmingham, so I won't be feeding Jack for about 6-7 hours including travel time. Maybe I should take the pump and express both on the way there and back?

Something to add to the things Jack can do at the three month mark.... deliberately take mummy's glasses off her face.

I was leaning over him, letting him explore my face with his hand and he started to reach for my glasses. He pulled them down my nose and grabbed at the lenses. It was very deliberate, like he was working out why there was a part of mummy's face that came away!

It's a big day today, not only is Jack three months old but we are going up to the local snooker club this afternoon to present a prize. My grandad, who Jack is named after, played there for thirty years, right up until he became house bound at 98 years old. He passed away at 99 in February 2008 and we now live in his old house. After he passed away my mum donated a trophy in his name to the club and the tournament was last weekend, the prize presentation today. I'm looking forward to introducing little Jack to some of the people who knew his great grandad.

June 29^th

Jack had his meningitis c vaccination this morning. Andy went into work late to come with us. Last time we saw the nurse was when we went in to an appointment that had been automatically booked for Jack's first round of jabs and we had to argue with her about what we do and do not consent to and she seemed most put out that we didn't let her stick him with anything on that occasion!

It was a different nurse today. At first she was sure that it must be a mistake that it said men c only in the notes but we explained what we wanted and she was fine about it! She put it all in his notes so if it's a different nurse next time we don't have to go through it all again.

Jack cried for a few minutes, but Andy walked him around the nurse's office while she filled out the paperwork and updated his file on the computer. He was a bit grumpy afterwards but not too bad. I put his continued grumpiness today down to the heat. Though he has been very clammy so I keep checking his temperature for signs of a fever from the jab.

That was the one thing I was a bit unhappy about with the nurse... she didn't mention any side effects of the jab. Now, I know what to watch for anyway as I have researched the subject so thoroughly, but if she never tells parents what to look for I worry about that for other parents who don't realise how potentially dangerous these vaccinations can be. It may be that she didn't say anything to us because it was obvious to her that we are well informed, having chosen not to follow the NHS schedule, and that normally she does give parents all the information. But I doubt that's the case. The NHS seems woefully unwilling to say anything negative about immunisations.

You'd like to think that if vaccines weren't dangerous they wouldn't be offered. But the truth is that the men c vaccine was rushed to the market without undergoing one single safety test. The government vaccinated 11 million children in one year as a grand "catch up scheme" without waiting for the pharmaceutical companies to do their tests but in the 10 years since its introduction there have thankfully, been very few negative outcomes [30 deaths as of 2007]. But its effectiveness has been shown to be about 60% [83% for the first year then falling off], which is not considered high enough by normal vaccine standards. If it was shown to be dangerous you would hope the government would withdraw it, but they waited 5 years to comply after an international review dictated that all mercury-containing vaccines should be withdrawn! So not a good track record.

Reclaiming Birth

Sunday 7th March 2010 - Reclaiming Birth

What a day! Jack and I somehow managed to get up and ready in time to leave after a truly appalling nights "sleep". Andy drove us to the station while I continued to umm and ahh about whether to take a borrowed buggy or keep Jack in the mei tai. When Ruth and her mum arrived with no push chair for Eva my mind was made up, so when we kissed Andy goodbye he took the buggy away with him!

We boarded the train and had a pretty good journey to London. Both babies were very good. As we arrived a couple of hours before the march was due to start we decided to swing past Hamley's toy store for gifts for our little ones. Unfortunately they were having a big birthday celebration and only allowing people in who had baked a cake!! So we stood outside with others who were queueing for admittance for a few minutes before deciding to make a move.

We got to the park and took a quick trip into the Imperial War Museum to use the facilities and then sat out and had some lunch. We met up with Family Parkin, Jo and Oliver, and Debs and Hannah from Airedale Mums. We got ourselves organised, bought t-shirts and got ready to march.

The crowd steadily grew, bright pink balloons bobbed overhead and signs and banners were being hoisted all over the park. The word went out for us to move to the road behind the big Reclaiming Birth bus so myself and the other Airedale Mums took to the street with our pink t-shirts and signs.

The procession moved slowly through the streets, escorted by marshals and the police, though their presence was hardly felt (unlike at my previous demos!) we chanted and sang and answered questions from journalists moving through the crowd. One child started up the chant "Keep birth normal!" which rang out for quite a long stretch of the march. To hear a young girl shouting this phrase with so much verve really moved me. The next generation need to feel as passionately about this as we do if things are going to change for the better long term.

It was a glorious day with clear skies and plenty of tourists eagerly snapping pictures of us. We arrived at Whitehall and came to a halt, speeches were made from the top of the bus, guests included Beverley Beech from AIMS and one of the Albany midwives.

It was at this point that a couple of the babies in our party started to struggle, there was a lot of noise and no movement to keep them content in their slings and we were stood in the shade where it was remarkably cold. We moved over to the Department of Health building and sat down in the sunshine, most of us took the opportunity to breastfeed out little ones and were joined by a couple of Albany Mums! I thought it a very fitting scene! (Keep breastfeeding normal too!)

The speeches ended and the crowd began to disperse. We made our way back to Kings Cross for the return journey, tired but exhilarated from our exertions.