Priorities

[radegund]

Yesterday morning I (more or less) sorted out something I've been tussling with the hospital about for the last couple of weeks. Not entirely satisfactory, but a compromise I can live with.

Hospital policy (as is common in this part of the world) is to prohibit labouring women from ingesting anything other than ice and water once they've been admitted. For some people, that may be no big deal, but I have what amounts to a raging phobia about what I'll neutrally term NotBeingAllowedToEatAaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh. If I'm hungry, know I can't eat and (the crucial factor) don't know when I'll next be able to eat, I get panicky, twitchy, uncoordinated, nauseous, irritable and generally not fun to be around. Not a position I ever willingly put myself in, because it's deeply unpleasant for me and those around me, and certainly not something I wish to add to the stress of being in labour. The fact that (as I've been told countless times) women in labour rarely feel like eating is irrelevant - it's the prohibition and the unlimitedness of it that freaks me out.

So I went in to discuss my birth plan with a midwife, and I knew this would most likely be an issue. (The policy has been standard in the US, the UK and Ireland for the last ages, and although many hospitals have relaxed it in recent years, the established wisdom is tenacious. The risk - that under general anaesthetic you'll vomit and aspirate acidic stomach contents, causing lung damage and possibly even death - is tiny (one US study estimates 7 in 10 million), but anaesthetists are cautious people.)

And I was right. "That's the policy," said the midwife. Such is the power of the bastard hormones that next thing I knew I was huffling and gulping and sobbing, which disconcerted the poor woman no end. She said she'd talk to some people and see what she could do. That was a Tuesday, and we agreed that I'd ring her the following Monday. I spent much of the next 24 hours fretting and obsessively looking up "eating in labo[u]r" and "fasting in labo[u]r" on d'Internet.

Cut to Thursday of the same week, when niallm and I went in to watch the Scary Childbirth Video (optional, you may be relieved to note ... and let me just say that the whole thing was rather squirtier than I'd imagined). Afterwards, fearing that my inhabitant might take matters into its own hands before my problem was resolved, I asked another midwife for clarification on the implementation of the policy. Again, embarrassingly, I found myself in tears within seconds, which evoked much clucking and soothing. This time, I was told that the policy referred to "fluids", which could include fruit juices, smoothies, tea, clear soup - all, natch, music to my ears. So I calmed down a lot and went home.

On Monday, the original midwife rang me to say that she'd checked with the authorities, and there was no leeway in the rule: it was ice and water only. (When I later rang the person who'd told me other fluids would be allowed, the gist of what she said was, "You were upset, and I was trying to calm you down." By lying to me. Yes. Way to go.) All for my own good, explained the unfortunate spokeswoman, again and again. Best interests at heart. I said I understood that, but still wasn't happy and wanted to talk to someone who could sanction a relaxation of the rule in my case. In the end she made me an appointment to see a consultant anaesthetist.

Midway through this conversation, I asked if the policy on oral intake was written down anywhere.

"Ah, yeah, it would be a written policy all right," said the midwife.
"Where could I get hold of a copy of it?" I asked.
Nervous pause. "Oh, well, you could try the Master's office - but I don't know if they'd just give out the policy like that."
"Why not?"
Flustered now - "Oh, I'm not saying they wouldn't, but they mightn't..."
"But you're a publicly funded institution - surely your policies are available somewhere."
"I don't know, now, but if you ring the Master's secretary she might be able to help you."

The woman was clearly at sea - had never been asked such a question. May never have thought that such a question might be relevant. It was all a bit bizarre.

Stranger still was when I rang the switch next day and asked to be put through to the Master's secretary. "Oh, yes," said this luminary, as soon as I'd outlined what I was ringing about. "I was told you'd be ringing. I'm afraid the Master is away from the office this afternoon, but would it be all right if he rang you tomorrow?" Her tone was deferent.

"Oh, yes, that would be most helpful", I said, but I was thinking How can this question be such a big deal for them? Could I possibly be the first person to take it this far? (For what it's worth, glitzfrau thought so: she pointed out that any normal Irish person would just say "oh, yes, thank you, that's fine" and then smuggle in whatever they felt like on the day. That's not my style at all.)

So there I am on the Wednesday morning, sitting with my feet up, when the Master of Holles Street Hospital rings me up and explains, once again, that the ice-and-water policy has been in place for forty years, is in my best interests and is well supported by research and clinical practice. I counter that I've read up a little on the subject and am aware of the risks involved, but am still asking for a concession. We bat statistics on caesarean section back and forth - because obviously, the risk comes into play only if I have an emergency caesarean under general anaesthetic, which happens in about 1-2% of cases in this particular hospital - and I'm surprised and encouraged by the extent to which this man is not patronising me. It was actually quite a pleasant conversation, and left me with some hope that my meeting with the anaesthetist would bear fruit. (Or fruit juice, perhaps.)

Finally, yesterday morning I saw the anaesthetist. He was rather more patronising than the Master, but he began by noting from my chart that I work as an academic editor, and thereafter did not attempt to simplify his language, which helped. After much discussion, we came to an arrangement whereby I can have isotonic drinks and herbal tea (without milk or sugar). I have this in writing. It will do.

So Lucozade Sport it is, then. Disgusting stuff, in my opinion - and furthermore, full of nasty aspartame, acesulfame, beta carotene, phenylalanene... - but better than nothing. Much better, in this man's doctorly view, than something like fresh fruit juice or honey dissolved in hot water. These - and here his eye took on a fanatic glint - homemade brews would be right out, because there is no telling what would be in them. Nice safe chemical sweeteners, on the other hand, are to be welcomed with open arms.

It's all about priorities. To the anaesthetist, the fact that I'll be eating and drinking whatever the hell I feel like until I go to the hospital, and that he may thus have no clue what's in my stomach if I do require a general anaesthetic, is irrelevant when it comes to the implementation of his precious policy. So is the fact that I am weighing a truly minute risk of death (far less than I face by, for instance, travelling to the hospital in a car) against a more or less 100% risk of being (as I see it) unnecessarily stressed during what will already be one of the most demanding experiences of my life. So is the fact that stress has been shown to slow the progress of labour, which would raise the chances of my requiring intervention in the first place. But because he is the Great Man (and I note in passing that all the midwives are Kathleen and Gertie and Maureen; all the doctors are Dr Keane and Dr Gallagher and Dr Kennedy), his priorities trump mine.

Maternity hospitals, I conclude, are deeply weird places.

Comments

[ainetl.livejournal.com]

i swear, hospitals and insurance companies are enuf to drive someone crazy. with my health concern i find i often have to keep asking and pushing to get my way. usually there is a concession made for me for the silly or outdated or red-tape stumbling block that i am trying to remove.

but it really bothers me afterward, realizing that i know to do this because i'm familiar with all this, and how many people wouldn't push things or even be aware that they may question things. it does seem like people accept it and follow it like it's the holy grail, or else just sneak around it. although i confess sneaking from time to time just to avoid hassles.

i'm glad to hear about the concession since you've enuf to worry about, but, yes, unbelievable that a sports drink is deemed ok but not juice or hot water with honey.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

...and how many people wouldn't push things or even be aware that they may question things

Yes, that's what really surprised me about this whole thing: that my not accepting the first "no" really seemed to upset their equilibrium.

I don't sneak, if I can avoid it. It's partly a pride thing, I suppose, and partly just a childlike fear of being caught. But I also get on this Righteous Anger roll that says "I'm damned if I'll let this go unchallenged".

[socmot.livejournal.com]

Maternity hospitals, I conclude, are deeply weird places.

And they don't mix with referenda either.
Gah.

Sorry for your hasslees and my deep respect goes out to you for taking them on. After too many years telling women what to do when it comes to maternity care, it's about time they started to get questioned.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

And they don't mix with referenda either

Indeed! I missed my opportunity to say, "So, Dr Keane, while I have you on the phone, may I ask, did you really go to Minister McDowell on bended knees? What was that like for you? Did you damage a good pair of trousers?"

[drowned-books.livejournal.com]

Crazy! I was only a couple of hours away from giving birth by the time I got to hospital with baby #2, but during contractions I was stuffing down a veggie stew & dumplings (because I didn't actually realise I was *having* contractions, if you can believe it - I thought I'd got trapped wind!!). Anyway, I *did* throw it up at hospital, but so what?

BTW, with birth #1, which was induced, I was allowed to eat during labour - my midwife even advised me to get a pack of sandwiches for me (not that I could have eaten a damn thing, but that's neither here nor there...)

[radegund.livejournal.com]

Yes - from what I've read, oral intake policy tends to be more relaxed in the UK. And I'm fairly sure I will be eating and drinking while I'm still at home. Provided all's going well, I don't intend leaving for the hospital until my contractions are between 5 and 10 minutes apart (we live very close by, so the timing will depend on whether we'll have to deal with rush-hour traffic or not).

not that I could have eaten a damn thing, but that's neither here nor there

Precisely. It's having the option that's important to me, not whether I actually feel like it on the day.

[daegaer.livejournal.com]

Arrrgh! At least you got some sort of concession, but really. The lying woman should be ashamed of herself.

any normal Irish person would just say "oh, yes, thank you, that's fine" and then smuggle in whatever they felt like on the day.

That's true. A sad fact about the Irish psyche, but true. And the hospitals must know this, and expect this, so the policy is only words on paper anyway (or not on paper as seems likely). Huh.


Oh! Do you want more Buffy videos? I have half of Season 4, and half of the first season of Angel. I also have lots of Due South, if you'd like them. All fairly mindless entertainment, which you might appreciate in the coming while!

[radegund.livejournal.com]

The lying woman should be ashamed of herself.

Indeed she should. But you know, I don't think she would even have thought of herself as "lying". Faced with a tearful pregnant woman, she went into Soothe mode. She wasn't a delivery ward midwife, she was an ante-natal education midwife. As far as I can tell, the level of non-communication between the different sections is pretty serious. She may even have thought that what she told me was the case.

...so the policy is only words on paper anyway...

And this was another thing I found weird: I couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone as to what would actually happen if I simply defied the rule. Would a midwife be within her rights to assault me in order to remove contraband orange juice from my grip? "Ah, now, it wouldn't be like that at all," said everyone. But they couldn't tell me what it would be like. I'm almost tempted to give it a go and see what happens...

Do you want more Buffy videos?

In a word, yes. But not quite yet. I'm six episodes from the end of season 2, and then I have to collar Anna and get the first two tapes of season 3 from her (I have the last four). But given Impending Events, it's anyone's guess when I'll actually be doing that. I'll give you a shout when I run low... :-)

[ailbhe]

Sheesh! I'm sorry. I was allowed as much melon as they could carry to my birthing room, as well as whatever chocs and biscuits I brought with me, and they gave me a kettle, tea, coffee, milk... Until I became Officially Complicated.

Labour is *labour*. The Birthing Centre here says that one needs to eat to get through it.

I do think niallm should smuggle a banana in in his pocket in case of immediately-post-partum starvation pangs. I spent a lot of labour hungry until it got really severe and then couldn't eat for two days, but lots of people comeout the other end *starving* because they couldn't eat during labour.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

As I commented above, my impression is that one is more likely to encounter a more relaxed oral intake policy in the UK than in Ireland. The sands are shifting, it seems, and Irish medical policy is just that bit more conservative. We don't even do birthing centres here, yet - I think the first one is about to open (or has recently opened) somewhere in the south-west.

As for smuggling bananas, there'll be no smuggling about it. Niall is, to my mind, as entitled to eat during my labour as any stranger on the street, so we'll bring in snacks for him, which I'll partake of (read "wolf down in a most unladylike manner") as soon as I'm allowed.

[dreamvirus.livejournal.com]

I guess my perspective on this if I was a doctor, and maybe this is why I am not, is that the body, being about 3 billion years old, knows what's good for it and is very experienced at the entire reproduction process, being as that's pretty much its main purpose. If it wants to eat, then eating is probably a good idea. The idea of a general anaesthetic does complicate things a little. However, the fact that he's happy for you to drink soda and not fruit juice is just insane. I congratulate you for fighting the good fight but I also recommend that you smuggle.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

Your perspective pretty much tallies with mine. And the interesting thing is that many researchers also seem to be coming around to this view - at least on the oral intake question. General anaesthetic always carries a risk, but there's now some evidence that witholding calories may also not be such a good idea. So it becomes a matter of risk management. What tends to scotch equal debate, unfortunately, is that in the medical hierarchy, the priorities of an anaesthetist are always going to trump those of a midwife - or a patient.

The soda/fruit juice thing isn't quite as insane as it may at first appear. I'm allowed isotonic sports drinks because research suggests that they'll be absorbed into my blood stream much more quickly than any other type of drink, and will thus leave my stomach quickly enough not to pose too great a risk. The objection to fruit juice is that its "tonicity" (new word for the Radzer) is unknown. It's still a pretty one-dimensional view, of course, but it's not entirely without basis.

[dreamvirus.livejournal.com]

Hmm, OK well I'll try to keep my soda-is-evil attitude in check. To be honest I always thought that those ads for Lucozade sport and "isotonic" drinks in general were based on bullshit non-science and never considered the possibility that they were anything other than soft drinks with a different marketing campaign. Maybe that was closeminded of me :-)

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Well done for getting that concession out of them, at least. And for making a fuss generally, and questioning their procedures.

Did you try for sealed cartons of fruit juice? They can check the ingredients! They're sealed! Yes, there is the icky "derived from plants not chemical processes" aspect, but that's not quite their stated objection, is it? Though, I suppose, they are acidy.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm glad I made a fuss. It needs to be done every so often, whether or not one wins - and indeed, arguably, whether or not one is right.

As I just commented to dreamvirus, the objection to fruit juice has to do with its untested "tonicity" (which I don't quite understand but has to do with the balance of something or other in the blood). Lucozade Sport, and other drinks like it, are isotonic, which means they're absorbed quickly and won't stay in the stomach long enough to cause a serious risk. But that entire perspective rests on all sorts of assumptions that just aren't as rock-solid as the hospital's policy would imply.

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

That is a truly glorious tale of sexism, disempowerment, hierarchy and blind belief in the power of Science (masculine.) If I hadn't been with you for most of the saga, I'd scarce have believed it. Go you for fighting on, and for not being ashamed to inform people of your needs. (Though, isn't it truly sickening that you probably would not have got as far as the Master had you had an inner-city or Nigerian accent, and couldn't have kept up with the anaesthetist's scientistic talk?)

I think feminists whine a lot, don't you? Sure we're all equal nowadays. Actually, women really have more rights than men now, don't they?

[niallm.livejournal.com]

They have a lot of power these days, you know.

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

*seethes, clenches fists*

[radegund.livejournal.com]

In general, you're right, but the history of maternity care is, I think, a special case. The classification of women in labour as "patients" is problematic to start with (as only a small proportion of them are "unwell" in the commonly understood sense), and the history of how childbirth has been incorporated into the medical system is absolutely riddled with sexism. (Facile example: having women give birth with their feet strapped into stirrups so that male obstetricians could see what they were doing, even though this position generally makes the process harder, longer and more painful.) Recent developments have, as far as I can see, all tended in the direction of returning autonomy to the labouring woman - and to the midwives who handle the vast majority of births. [Irish] hospitals are profoundly hierarchical places, and the [Irish] medical hierarchy is still profoundly male-dominated, so it's difficult to see how rampant, nonchalant, unthinking sexism can be avoided.

[stephencass.livejournal.com]

That is a truly glorious tale of...blind belief in the power of Science

While I hate to pick a fight with you, why do you say that? Radzer's problem wasn't science, and indeed she relied on scientific evidence to make her case: her problem was what amounted to a folk belief among the staff, passed down--apparantly by some form of oral tradition for the last 40 years--that eating during labor was bad (while I agree the current motivation for enforcing the ban is primarily litigation avoidance, I doubt that was always the case). When she found someone who was familiar enough with the actual scientific literature, reason prevailed, albeit to a limited extent. Because of science, Radzer is making the decision to accept a teeny risk and has enough confidence in her decision to defy an experienced midwife and battle hospital policy. She has been empowered by science, not disempowered.

What medicine needs is more science, not less, as it currently remains an admixture of science, policies of logisitical and financial convenience, regional, professional and individual biases, and guesswork. In concrete terms, this translates to the need for a committment at all levels and branches of the medical health profession to a significant amount of continuing education (and drug company sponsored conferences are a thin substitute)--a comittment that is rarely truly embraced by government and health employer policies.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

...folk belief...

Not quite. It's more that the lines were drawn on foot of an influential 1946 study, which led to a widespread policy that has only comparatively recently been systematically questioned. And apparently not in Holles Street, as yet.

It's complicated. In fact, I'm planning a follow-up post to explain it, if I can build up a sufficiently nerdy head of steam :-)

[stephencass.livejournal.com]

It's more that the lines were drawn on foot of an influential 1946 study

I suspected something like this, hence my crafty "what amounted to" caveat. :) In 1946, it would be reasonable to assume that hospitals formulated their fasting policies directly based on the best scientific evidence available to them. However, it's clear that over time the policy became detached from the scientific process that generated it: a written formulation (which could be subjected to periodic review) was not to be found, and I doubt that very few of today's practitioners of that policy could tell you about the 1946 study.

This is a general problem with health and medicine and why it is an admixture of science and other stuff: large experimental studies and surveys are difficult to do once, let alone repeat, so the medical community tends to rely on a statistically dicey number of studies and surveys. Some health organizations recognize this, and through continuing education and other means, try to hew closer to the scientific ideal which relies on results verified through repetition, regularly reviewing and adjusting their policies as time goes by and more studies are performed. This is science-driven healthcare. Passing a policy into the unwritten rules of an establishment makes it very difficult to amend such a policy when the original reasoning and evidence for the policy gets supplanted, or even be aware that there is a policy in the first place until it's discovered through first hand experience. This is not science-driven healthcare. Even though the health care professionals involved may believe they are science-driven, it requires a specific kind of organization to ensure that they actually are[1].

My argument boils down to this: the staff did have a blind faith in something, and they themselves may have believed that something was science, but it was not science, and so science does not deserve to be tarred with the same brush[2]. Science is a process, not a set collection of facts (even if those facts were once derived scientifically). In this particular case, the something might be "outdated and unconfirmed scientific evidence," but this is not science itself.

[1] This is analogous to NASA's behavior prior to the Columbia disaster: Everyone in that organization honestly and deeply believed they were doing everything possible to ensure the safety of their flight crews, but sadly, they were not, as the sudden loss of Columbia demonstrated.

[2] For example, some people believe that astrology is a science. However, if someone blew all their money on the stock market because of what their horoscope said that day, we would not report that they're bankrupt because of a blind faith in science, but because of a blind faith in astrology.

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

Stephen, you are entirely right. (Your ability to slice through my more sweeping statements rocks.) Now you challenge me, I realise didn't mean science per se: I meant scientism, in the sense of an unquestioning belief in handed-down wisdom that has a "scientific" label attached. True science is of course questioning, experimentation and more questioning.

[stephencass.livejournal.com]

Your ability to deal with my cranky nitpicking with gracious reasonableness is most irritating and contrary Internet norms and traditions (which dictate a lengthy and increasingly vitriolic and pointless flame war). Shame, shame on you!

I do of course wholeheartedly agree with your disdain for scientism: it provided the platform on which modern racism is built, opens the door to misguided and even dangerous policy at all levels of government, and allows hucksters and frauds to exploit people every day.

On a related note, one of the things that I have always respected and appreciated about the community of professional magicians and illusionists is that it regularly produces anti-scientism champions, from Harry Houdini through The Amazing Randi to today's Penn and Teller. These individuals have often proved themselves less susceptible to scientism than many professional scientists (as demonstrated in a number of paranormal investigations), and Penn and Teller's promotion of critical thought and skepticism has probably done more to battle scientism than any of the worthy-but-dull anti-pseudoscience statements occasionally put out by the various National Academies. Science is too important to be left soley in the hands of scientists and those who claim to be scientists!

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

Now, you have me intrigued. How on earth do magicians and illusionists challenge scientism? In journals? On stage or atop high-wires? Tell me more about this phenomenon, please.

Part I (stupid 4,300 character limit!)

[stephencass.livejournal.com]

Harry Houdini used his fame to garner press attention when debunking the plague of mediums that appeared in the 1920's. This was at a time when some believed the amazing things that various paranormal hucksters did (like writing on a slate supposedly sealed between two wooden boards) were due 4th dimensional manipulation (the mathematical concept of hypergeometry had percolated into popular consciousness around the turn of the century and was reinforced by the publication of Einstein's theories of relativity).

Houdini would relentlessly expose these mediums as using a grab bag of fairly simple stage tricks and sleights of hand, even in those cases when scientists who attended the sessions had already declared that no mundane agent could be responsible for the events they witnessed.

Houdini began integrating a sort of debunking demo into his stage act, and in 1922 Houdini joined with Scientific American in their campaign to investigate mediums. Before he died in 1926, he testified before a congressional committee investigating fake mediums. Houdini's motives appear to be a little different from those who followed: after the death of his mother he developed a interest in spiritualists and mediums in the hope in speaking with her again. However, because of his background in stage magic he soon started recognizing the activities of these mediums as simple tricks. Outraged that these people were milking grieving families for money while offering nothing in return, he started attending seances in disguise and debunking them. He himself had an open mind on whether or not there was such a thing as a genuine medium, he just never found one.

The motivation of later magicians appears more explicitly grounded in an appreciation for science, while still retaining a disdain for charlatans who bilk people for money and fame: in part I suspect that stage magicians and illusionists take this so personally because, after all, when an illusionist performs honestly, i.e. billed as a magician, he must do his tricks pefectly right all night, every night. There is no room for failure. But when someone does the same tricks billed as a psychic, well, if something doesn't work, a small shrug of the shoulders and an explanation on the lines of 'bad energy', or 'uncooperative spirits' can suffice.

The Amazing Randi (James Randi) published a series of books, starting with an investigation of Uri Geller[1] (anyone remember that time Gellar was accidentaly caught cheating red-handed at spoon bending on one of these Noel Edmonds hidden camera pranks?). He also did a number of TV specials and series and was a founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, which publishes the excellent Skeptical Inquirer. He founded The James Randi Education Foundation, the most significant aspect of which is that it promises a million dollars "to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

Frequently, when challanged on chat shows or whatever about their abilities, psychics frequently state their intention to claim the prize: they never show up.

Re: Part I (stupid 4,300 character limit!)

[stephencass.livejournal.com]

the mathematical concept of hypergeometry had percolated into popular consciousness around the turn of the century

By the way, 1,234,789,003 nerd points are available if you (or anyone) call tell me the connection between this statement and the title of my LJ blog, i.e. "The Chromatic Sedition."

Part II

[stephencass.livejournal.com]

Penn and Teller integrate a great deal of debunking into their stage shows, often in the form of walking the audience through an "impossible" trick. They're even more explicity pro-science in their books, where they take aim at pseudoscientific hucksters with a vengance. These days they do a show for Showtime called Bullshit!. The rational for the show is "Penn & Teller have been dying to do a show like this. Confirmed skeptics and pro-science atheists (they refer to God as "an imaginary friend"), these magicians are big fans of the art of debunking...They also call upon the scientific community for back-up. Penn & Teller have discovered that the evidence debunking bogus operatives exists in countless books, scientific papers and government-sponsored exposés - research that nobody else has presented to the public with such zeal, passion, and conviction....As our increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-science culture moves on each day to new crackpot subject matters, Penn & Teller are there to aggressively shoot down whack-jobs and fuzzy thinkers, no matter where they originate. "

[1] Jimmy Carson gets an honorable mention here. A stage magician before breaking into TV and becoming the host of The Tonight Show, he booked Uri Gellar, but smelled a rat. As per Gellar's normal practice for TV appearances, the studio gathered up various spoons and other props so Gellar could demonstrate his psychic powers while claiming he'd never seen or touched the props before. As not per normal TV practice, Carson took the unusual step of insisting that a 24-hour guard be posted on the prop cupboard and invited The Amazing Randi to appear as well. Oddly enough, all of Gellars demonstrations fell flat the next night, and Gellar even tried suing Carson for making him look foolish.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

Now I want a T-shirt saying "Feminists: We Whine So You Don't Have To" :-)

On the substantive point, I actually agree with what stephencass says - this wasn't Science I was up against, so much as Scientific Politics, which is a horse of a rather different colour. Also the ingrained sexism, of course, and the snobbery - yes, my accent and education got me as far as I did. I doubt if I'd have got anywhere without them, in fact.

Feminists: We Whine So You Don't Have To

[ailbhe]

Mine's a UK size 12-14, please.

[radegund.livejournal.com]

...although actually, yeah, you didn't say Science, did you, you said blind belief in the power of Science. Which isn't quite the same thing, and is pretty much what I was up against.

Um, carry on.

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

You're right, but the sentence shouldn't require a second reading, so Stephen was also right to quibble. But you know what I mean anyway!

[radegund.livejournal.com]

my uncle used to be Master of Holles Street

That's it! I was wracking my brains trying to remember who it was who had some connection to a former Master. Thanks :-)

They don't want to be sued

Yes, and I completely understand their position. That's why my written, signed birth plan (also signed by the anaesthetist) states that I understand and accept that taking isotonic drinks and herbal tea may increase the risk to me should I require a general anaesthetic. It's also why I knew I wouldn't get a full-on, food 'n' drink concession out of them.

But the point is that labouring women in many developed countries (the Netherlands, Japan, Australia) routinely eat and drink what they feel like, so being entirely clinical about it, even if they let me eat and I aspirated vomitus and died, and my family tried suing, the hospital could argue that they were not in breach of global best practice. And if, when I'd gone hunting on PubMed, I'd discovered that pretty much everyone agreed that water only was the safest option, I probably wouldn't have pushed it. But in fact I found the opposite. (Oh, this is complicated. I sense a follow-up post...)