Drew Downs

Speaking for both of us, when Rose and I read these two articles, one from an initial TV news report, and the other a longer piece in the Lansing State Journal, we both felt sick. Stomach-dropping, bile-pooling sick. A family lost their baby in childbirth. Now they are suing. And they pushed the state to pass new legislation. Never mind the truth that not every child survives childbirth, or that the U.S. is among the worst at this, or that most of our deaths of newborns (and mothers) comes from performing complicated surgery at the wrong time to prevent death in childbirth. Their story is painful and horrible. Nobody should feel that grief.

Unfortunately for the readers of these articles the journalists seemed eager to conflate two issues to tell a bigger story, and in turn, misrepresent the Greenhouse Birth Center. Notice how both articles refer to regulating of midwives and the need for certification, but these midwives are certified and have extensive childbirth experience. Notice how they mistake the parents’ account of the birth process as inaction on the part of the midwives, rather than recognize their ignorance of the process they were following. Notice how the eager pronouncement of negligence comes not from any certified group, but a surgeon whose approach to the birth process would result in surgery nearly 50% of the time (that’s of all births)! Notice how the chilling story of this baby’s death is told in direct relationship to the legislation and without regard to the character of the Greenhouse itself. Notice how, in reading these articles we feel outrage and anger at these midwives, even though these midwives aren’t the specific targets of this legislation.

It is important to use stories to guide our actions, even in politics. But it is unconscionable to use this tragedy to encourage this legislation because they don’t jive, and these journalists should know that. It is appalling. And it makes me incredibly sick.

What is worse is that grief is motivating a couple and misinformation is motivating a politician to go after people, specific people, who are doing good work in our communities. People who are actually reducing infant mortality and making childbirth better for all of us. People deeply committed, not to some strange philosophy, but historical, scientifically-proven practices that ensure a greater chance for positive outcomes than we can get in our hospitals. That is being put at risk.

For what? Legal inoculation from responsibility? Does this bring the baby back? Will this prevent all other babies from dying in childbirth? No! It isn’t even likely to reduce total infant mortality, since the Greenhouse has a better success rate than Sparrow.

Somewhere along the line, we forgot that having a baby was dangerous. That this is serious work. That it isn’t something that can be scheduled like a haircut, or treated as simple as one. But it becomes safer and easier when we are calm and focused and treat it as natural. And even then, it is dangerous. Statistics prove C-sections are more dangerous than vaginal deliveries, but we aren’t persuaded by statistics. We are moved by stories, our guts, and what seems reasonable. Unfortunately, we lost sight of what is reasonable in childbirth years ago.

Our prayers go out to the Snyder family. They also go out to our friends at the Greenhouse Birth Center. We hope that a reasonable and appropriate end is brought to the case and that healing can happen for what should be classified simply as tragedy.

UPDATE: I have closed comments on this post due to two primary factors: none of the comments have dealt with the primary focus of the post (the articles in question) and because of a distinct lack of respect by some of the responses. It is making me sick to read people making assumptions about my beliefs and misrepresentations of my suggestions. My own response was written out of hurt and anger because virtually none of the things written (in the articles, or the Snyder’s own account) reflected our experience, nor were they written in a productive way for the betterment of our healthcare system or for the vast community of licensed healthcare practitioners. The entire online response to this story has been very nasty and predominately one-sided, and I am upset that I allowed that to occur here.

Thank you for reading, and I appreciate your interest.