Our Birth Stories

Update & Clarification

October 12, 2011

Recent events have caused me to revisit this document. The account that follows was written and updated as events transpired, and was finalized when the story was published by Midwifery Today. However, recently this account has begun to be used as an account of a birth gone horribly wrong, and instead of it being a document showing the wonder and joy of success meant to encourage others, the details are being used to denigrate and diminish the accomplishments of those involved. Because of the negativity surrounding this I have seriously considered simply removing the story, but I believe that the original purpose still exists, so instead of removing it I am clarifying some details in an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings.

The primary point of confusion lies in the use of the term fracture that I used when I originally wrote the account that follows. I do not have a copy of the surgeon’s notes so I do not have his specific wording, but that is an issue that I am working on rectifying. What I do have to work from at the moment are some very vivid memories surrounding the event.

To the best of my recollection the surgeon advised that the cranial depression was not caused during the birth process, and was instead the result of Caulla’s positioning in the womb which caused a depression of the cranium. The procedure that he utilized supports this as he was able to “flex” the bone and cause it to pop out rather than inward, and in so doing restore the proper cranial profile. Had this been a fracture as I originally wrote he would not have been able to simply flex the bone without having to do additional work to ensure that it stayed in position.

Further, when I asked him what would have happened had Caulla been born in a hospital setting he confirmed that she would have likely been delivered via a C-Section, and the use of the tools would very likely have resulted in her death as the surgeon performing the C-Section would not have known of the depression until after the fact. When pointedly asked whether it was possible that the midwives may have caused an injury during the delivery he asked some questions to clarify the delivery approach, and upon hearing the details he stated that he did not believe that anything they did could have caused the depression, reaffirming that it was an in-utero development rather than a birth complication.

Now, before somebody can claim that the midwives may have influence this conversation I should clarify that this was a private conversation between the surgeon and myself. The only other person in the room, aside from the other children in the NICU, was a nurse tending to one of the children. Later, when one of the midwives was visiting, he came back in to clarify a couple of details, and to get my permission to record the procedure as a training opportunity, and at that time he spoke with the midwife visiting. My understanding is that she asked similar questions of him, and provided him with further details regarding the birth. I do not know the details of that conversation as I was not within hearing and was more focused on my child. That conversation is somebody else’s, and they can relate it if they so choose.

So, having clarified that primary point of concern, you may find the birth story that I originally wrote on the next page.

NOTE: Due to trolls linking directly to the post I have instituted a password requirement to gain access to the birth stories. That password is the following: respect