It seems as though the staff of NBC's 'Today' have made it loud and clear that they think having a baby outside of a hospital is irresponsible and dangerous; so says their so-called 'investigative reporting' on the subject in a recent segment. As anyone reading my blog may or may not know, my wife and I are about to have our first baby this November, and after much deep thought and research on the subject we decided that a drug-free birth in a local birth center is what we wanted.

So to our total disgust, NBC's Today Show did a segment on September 11th called 'The Perils of Home Births' (watch it here) in which they focused on a home birth couple that lost their baby. While it was truly sad and tragic what happened to this couple, the segment on the whole was unbalanced, biased and downright yellow in it's portrayal of home birthing in particular and midwifery in general.

The American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) issued the following response a few days later:

September 14, 2009

Dear Producers of The Today Show,

A real opportunity to educate women about safe and high-quality maternity care in the United States has been lost. The American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) is extremely disappointed with the imbalanced reporting done by The Today Show’s September 11 segment “The Perils of Midwifery.”

The segment (later renamed “The Perils of Home Births” online) highlighted a single tragic story of a family’s loss of their baby during childbirth at home with a midwife. Our hearts go out to the McKenzie family. We hope that they are receiving the support they need in this extremely difficult time.

It would be inappropriate for ACNM to comment on the specifics of this situation. What we can say is that adverse outcomes can happen in any birth setting. Sometimes they are preventable, and sometimes they are not. Health care providers in every setting—home, birth center, or hospital—know the tragedy of loss.

In telling this story, The Today Show failed to do the research needed to provide insight on either homebirth or midwifery, relying instead on a series of sweeping, misinformed statements. Women choosing midwifery care were described as simply following a fashionable “trend” made popular by celebrities, rather than as women making thoughtful, well-considered decisions. Childbirth “without drugs or doctors” was labeled “extreme birth,” decades of published research on perinatal outcomes were ignored, and the midwifery profession overall was badly misrepresented.

Certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) and certified midwives (CMs) are well-educated, licensed, and certified health professionals who are experts in normal birth and women’s health. They provide comprehensive care during pregnancy, labor, and childbirth. They practice as independent providers within a health care system that provides for consultation, collaborative management, or referral as needed, with physicians and other health professionals. Their skillful, attentive care maximizes the likelihood of a healthy baby, a healthy mother, and a satisfying birth experience. In 2006, CNMs and CMs attended more than 317,000 births in the United States—nearly 11% of all vaginal births—in hospitals, birth centers, and at home. Overall, midwife-attended births have increased by about 33% in the past ten years.

This rising popularity of midwife-attended births has been supported by a growing body of research demonstrating that the best outcomes for low-risk women occur with midwifery-led care, continuous support, and low-technology strategies during labor. Unfortunately, women in US hospitals are not routinely provided with these options. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that, in spite of a vast array of technologies and medical interventions, the US has nearly the worst maternal and perinatal death rates in the developed world. This fact is a major reason why women are seeking alternatives in childbirth.

A review of the published research on childbirth reveals that midwives are leading providers of maternity care in most developed countries, and that midwifery care is an excellent option in the US. Here are just a few research–based publications from the past year alone:
Evidence-based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve cites several systematic reviews showing improved outcomes associated with midwifery-led care.

A recent Cochrane Review concluded that midwifery-led care is the best option for women with low-risk pregnancies.

An April 2009 British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology study concluded that planned homebirth is as safe as a planned hospital birth for women with low-risk pregnancies.

Authors of two recently published studies from two different Canadian provinces (September 2009 Canadian Medical Association Journal and September 2009 BIRTH) concluded that women who planned homebirths attended by a registered midwife had outcomes that were at least as good as women who planned hospital births.

Lastly, also missing from this story was the voice of ACNM, the professional association representing most midwives in the United States, as well as the voices of those who have dedicated their lives to improving the health and well-being of women and infants by promoting evidence-based maternity care. If we had been consulted, The Today Show would have been in a better position to deliver useful information to women and families about their childbirth choices.

ACNM urges The Today Show to produce a different story—a well-balanced account of midwifery and what current research tells us about the risks and benefits of childbirth in homes, birth centers, and hospitals. We welcome the opportunity to participate in such a story. In the meantime, we urge families to focus on educating themselves to make the healthiest and safest decisions for themselves and their babies. The research clearly shows that a midwife is an excellent choice.

Sincerely,
American College of Nurse-Midwives

I was so upset with the Today Show's segment that I felt I too needed to send them my thoughts on the subject:

Good morning,

I am writing this today because I am extremely disappointed by the very apparent lack of research that went into your September 11th segment on the ‘perils of midwifery’. This segment was clearly biased towards hospital birth care and failed to provide any data or perspective from the side of midwifery/homebirth other than to imply (quite offensively) that couples choosing natural birth are ‘extreme’ or are following ‘fashionable trends’. And while my heart goes out to the couple featured in the segment, I believe this was an extreme example to use, and it was obvious that their story was clearly abused in order to create an emotional, sensationalized segment that I find offensively irresponsible for a major news media outlet such as yours to broadcast.

My wife and I chose to have our baby in a local birth center after much research and investigation. After all the information was gathered, we felt it was a safe and wise alternative to a drug-induced and surgery prone hospital birth. We were not driven by trend, but by careful informed self-education on the subject, and I again find it highly offensive to imply that our informed choice to not have my wife and our baby exposed to unnecessary drugs or surgery during birth is a reckless, trendy, and dangerous choice.

I expect the Today show will show better due diligence in future stories (at the least), and I think that your show owes a huge apology to hard-working and educated midwives throughout the world that routinely assist parents who make a choice not to birth in a ‘traditional’ hospital setting. We are preparing for our baby’s birth in November, and I look forward to sharing what we anticipate to be an amazing birth center experience with you.

Yours,

Jonathan R Walters
Orlando, FL

To prospective mothers and fathers about to have a baby or thinking about having a baby soon, just remember- YOU HAVE A CHOICE! I'm not going to say that home birth or the use of a birth center is for everyone, but you owe it to both you and your child to at least become informed on the differences between hospitals and home or birth center birthing.

Don't let so-called 'journalists' like those working for the Today show form your opinion for you. Take the time out to do the research and learn the facts. Your child is too important to not do so.

For those interested, the following are some excellent online resources for those interested in midwifery, home birthing and natural birth:

http://www.thebusinessofbeingborn.com/
http://betterbirth.blogspot.com/
http://www.hypnobirthing.com/
http://www.mybestbirth.com/
http://www.pregnantinamerica.com/

He had is share of problems, but now don't we all...

I'll always remember him for personal favorites of mine like Road House, Red Dawn, and (of course) Point Break.

Thanks for the memories, Patrick... Vaya con Dios.

Representative Kosmas,

I was extremely disappointed to hear the audio recording of your recent telephone town hall meeting in which you repeatedly stated your opposition to the public insurance option in healthcare reform. I have written to you previously about this and have been disappointed a second time by a lack of response at all.

If you truly value both the concept of true healthcare reform and the stated will of over 70% of Americans, then I strongly urge you to support the President's plan for the inclusion of a competitive public insurance option that will provide access for those needing or wanting alternatives to those provided by the insurance industry.

I supported and voted for you during the last election cycle hoping that you would listen to the will of the people on issues and not act on personal opinion alone. Please show me that my vote was cast wisely for you, and that you have the will to follow through with support for an absolutely vital piece of the healthcare reform package.

What the hell is Brizzard thinking? My friend Sean just sent me this link over at Starcraft-Fans.com that discusses Blizzard Entertainment's justification of their decision to eliminate LAN support from Starcraft 2 entirely.

Boneheads!!!

Although it won't affect Blizzard's decision in the least, I had to show my support for SC2 LAN play by signing the petition that Starcraft-Fans.com has set up. Here is what I wrote in my petition entry:

This is a poor decision that will alienate more players than it prevents from pirating the game. Has no company learned from examples like Stardock? If you make a quality, fun and well-supported product, people will pay for it even if it completely lacks copy protection. Eliminating what many diehard fans consider a 'core function' of the game will only anger the people that made the first game (and the series) as popular as it is and cause many more to pirate the game that would otherwise have not in the first place. Just hurts to see that money is more important than being loyal to the fanbase...

Link: http://www.paris-air-show.com

This year's Paris Airshow at Le Bourget seems to be pretty interesting so far, mainly because of two big pieces of news.

The first is that the European 'budget' carrier Wizz Air has made an agreement to purchase 50 more A-320s from Airbus, which is a major deal that will mean around $3 billion in sales for the company at a time when it is needed most (read below).

The other significant piece of news was the notable lack of both the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus Military A400M. As many know, both aircraft are centerpiece projects for their respective companies that are both experiencing severe cost overruns and technical delays. The A400M program in particular found itself in jeopardy when it was announced that the payload capacity was found to be below what was initially specified, which instantly caused the German government to question the viability of the program and it's participation in it.

The A400M problems come close on the heels of Airbus' issues with A380 development, which eventually led to orders being retracted for all A-380F cargo models that were to be produced. Not a good trend for the European aerospace giant!

After watching Dr Phil for a little bit last night with Cate, I quickly reached a point of disgust that actually made me feel like I had to just drop it and walk away.

Last night's much-hyped episode featured the so-called octo mom Nadya Suleman. Suleman discussed her much-publicised situation and took a few questions from the audience which is all fine and good. Dr Phil even went as far as to several times state that he thought what she did was irresponsible, selfish, etc, but now is now and we need to help her for the kids.

Whatever.

What really made me upset is the fact that there seems to be no effort underway to punish this woman and her fertility doctor for the reckless decisions they made. Even worse, while the general public attitude towards this woman borders on disgust, there seems to be an absolute lack of public demand for federal legislation that would at the very least highly discouragethis type of action. What the hell happened to personal, professional and social responsibility in this country? Why don't we care that these people (Nadya and her doctor) were at the very least morally and socially in the wrong and nothing is being done about it?

Carol Gilbert recently wrote an article regarding the Georgia legislature's bizzare response to the Suleman case, Georgia Senate Bill 169. While the legislation appears to be garbage that draws incorrect conclusions from the situation and appears more as political opportunism by right-to-life advocates than truly necessary legislation, Gilbert's following excerpt really hits home with me:

Octo-Mom Nadya Suleman's controversial decision to have 6 embryos implanted at one time through in vitro fertilization, a decision which led to the birth of the first surviving set of octuplets, sparked nationwide outrage. The press depicted Nadya Suleman, aka the Octo-Mom, as irresponsible. She was not a childless woman longing for a baby or even a parent of one or two children hoping to create a typical size family. Nadya Suleman has been widely reviled because she had 6 children ages 7 and under yet chose to have 6 embryos implanted at once- at a time when she was unmarried, unemployed, dependent on her parents and public assistance for support, and already overwhelmed by the responsibilities of caring for 6 young children.

Most of us already knew this, but let it sink in again- We, the voting public, allowed this woman and all that follow to do this. I'm not talking about restricting a woman's natural right to have children, so don't even look in that direction. What I'm talking about is that someone who is a single parent living at taxpayer expense who already has 6 children under 7 years old (!) was permitted by law without repercussion to have a whopping 6 embryos implanted in her that resulted in her 8 new children.

If you think this is ok, then I feel sorry for you because by accepting this you also reject the general concept of social responsibility, ignore the core issue of overpopulation, and totally dismiss the additional strain this places on already-broken, publicly-funded, social services.

Which brings me to the real question, did we ever really care about these things in the first place, or are we just going to keep chugging along like idiots into oblivion while things crumble down around us?

Please follow my lead and contact your state senators and district representatives and let them know just how disgusted you are with this situation. Below is the form email I sent to Bill Nelson, Mel Martinez and Suzanne Kosmas:

[name of senator/representative],

I am writing to you today to express my dissatisfaction with a lack of federal legislation that could have prevented Nadya Suleman's doctor, Michael Kamrava, from implanting 6 embryos at once in a woman whom at the time was unmarried, unemployed, dependent on her parents and public assistance for support, and already overwhelmed by the responsibilities of caring for 6 young children.

Please bring this subject to light amongst your colleagues and work toward introducing actionable legislation that will discourage and/or punish this kind of action by irresponsible doctors and parents and serve to reduce the resulting burden on taxpayers.

Thank you for your time!

Jonathan Walters

What say you?

Link: http://www.totalwar.com/empire/

Words cannot properly convey just how stupid-excited I am right now... Why, you ask?

EMPIRE: TOTAL WAR will be released in little more than 8 HOURS! That's right, because if you happened to pre-order or plan on buying it online via Steam tonight, the game unlocks at midnight to coincide with tomorrow's retail launch!

For those PC gamers out there that don't have a pulse, E:TW is the latest installment in the famed Total War strategy series. This game focuses on the epic Napoleonic era, and many (including myself) are psyched because this installment introduces a full naval combat engine!!

Below is an excerpt talking about on of the first real reviews of the game:

IGN praised it as a "masterful combination of all the things that I love about strategy games—a great setting, a first-rate presentation, tactics that reward maneuver, and a strategic layer that requires flexibility in your plans." The reviewer said that Empire's 18th Century setting was "a perfect setting for the game design, and the new naval battles, while a tad clunky, finally deliver the series' one missing component." The reviewer did however note that "the end game still drags a bit and there are some small, rough edges in the tactical battles, particularly at sea." His final comment was "Simply put, if you're a fan of strategy games, this is one game you must have in your collection."[33] IGN UK also gave the game 9.5, saying that the game "deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the greatest names in gaming history."

Methinks tomorrow will be a sick day from work... ;-)

I just read an article on CNN Money that discusses the pros and cons of making assistance available to the 'big three' auto manufacturers in the form of federal loans, and I have to say that the more I read or hear about this, the more physically ill I feel.

Maybe its just me, but I thought that being a free-market capitalist society meant that we practised neutral patterns of market regulation with only minimal governmental intervention?

I understand that the auto industry in general is truly integral to the national economy, and that tens of thousands of workers and millions of consumers either directly or indirectly depend on it for their individual economic stability... But does that mean we should allow these inefficient behemoths to keep operating as they are at the taxpayers' risk?

Truly, these businesses cannot be allowed to fail outright. But that is what chapter 11 bankruptcy is for... Allow these businesses to keep operating, but use the law to force them to shed weight, trim up and return to profitability. If GM, Ford or Chrysler eventually go under even after using the chapter 11 safety valve, then good bye and good riddance!

I admit that I would be devestated to be an employee let go after years of service in that industry. But instead of waiting for Michael Moore to show up on my doorstep so I can cry on camera and plead for my job back on a theater screen, why not take this as an opportunity to start fresh in a new industry? Maybe even take a chance and move somewhere else?

No, not everyone can easily do this, probably very few can or would do it at all. But to me, that is the big problem... Not the failure of the US auto industry, but the failure of US auto workers and consumers at large to see the writing on the wall for the status quo and force a change on the auto industry.

After all, these were the comapnies that continued to bring us such great vehicles like the H3 and Escalade long after it was clear that fuel prices were generally on the rise and the days of cheap, unlimited and easy-to-access oil were long gone.