# Media In The Delivery Room.. Allowed or Not?



## 18G (Feb 2, 2011)

There is a heated issue present with one of the local hospitals in my area. On November 1, 2010, Meritus Hospital implemented a policy that bans parents from videoing or photographing their child's birth. Perhaps some on the forum have heard about the ban as it has gained National attention.  

The hospital claims that the policy is out of safety and concern for the Mother and baby so there are no distractions. I completely disagree and call BS as it's clear that the policy came from risk management as a way to eliminate proof of any wrong doing. 

As a parent I believe strongly in having the right to capture the process of birth and that moment as the child transitions to the outside world. 

I posted this to get the feelings and opinions of those in the EMS community. 

What are your thoughts on the banning of media in the delivery room?

http://www.herald-mail.com/news/hm-meritus-ban-cameras-delivery-01072011,0,4581878.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03birth.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp


----------



## PotashRLS (Feb 2, 2011)

I agree.  Why not.  I took pictures before and immediately after but not during.  Our doctor let me assist in delivery so I was a bit busy. Those parents that want to preserve the moment with photo or video will likely choose a different hospital to deliver at.  

I personally know of a couple who have a special needs daughter who is the result of a doctor who pushed the envelope of "natural birth" beyond what the parents were comfortable with during the time of delivery.  The baby became stressed and was lacking O2.  A C-section was performed yielding a blue baby.   I think there was a settlement but I am not sure.

What if something goes wrong with a surgery that is being observed by students or others?  Is there a difference really?  It will be interesting to see if this is a trend.


----------



## HotelCo (Feb 2, 2011)

Idk about all that, but I want to delivery my kid. 

.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 2, 2011)

I'd just go to a different hospital, it doesn't seem like a trend. The nice thing about doctors and health services is if you don't like one, yo just go to another.

There is always the possibility of having a home birth with a midwife. 

This may come as a bit of a shock, but women have babies outside of the hospital all the time and always have.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 2, 2011)

PotashRLS said:


> What if something goes wrong with a surgery that is being observed by students or others?  Is there a difference really?  It will be interesting to see if this is a trend.



Sort of...

I don't think any attorney in their right mind would call a student as a witness. "So in your expert opinion as a student, what did the fully qualified surgeon or anesthesiologist do wrong?" 

That seems like something that would get little credibility initially and would be destroyed in cross. 

When I am scrubbed in and doing something (usually saphenous vein harvesting), it is taking absolutely my full attention, I don't notice time passing and the only thing I really look at is the vital sign monitor from time to time and the equipment I need.(particularly of interest to me is how many of the little vein clips I have left in the magazine, because it is never enough.) Being left handed, the clock is always behind me when I stand on the patient's left anyway. Asking me in court (or anywhere else) what the surgeons were actually doing in the chest would be absolutely useless, I can't see in there until almost the end, and while I know what they were supposed to be doing, I didn't witness if or how.


----------



## PotashRLS (Feb 2, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Sort of...
> 
> I don't think any attorney in their right mind would call a student as a witness. "So in your expert opinion as a student, what did the fully qualified surgeon or anesthesiologist do wrong?"
> 
> ...



Makes sense, but in the case of child birth, or at least during the delivery of my 2 kids, all medical staff in the room were tuned in directly with Mom, Baby and Doctor.  They were all witnessing what was going on as described in the original post.  It sounds like in your case, individuals are tuned in to what they specifically are doing first, overall situation second.  

As far as people viewing certain procedures, I also doubt any attorney will consider the viewers to be expert witnesses.  I am sure the attorney will direct interviews/questions in a manner that uses testimony to corroborate or refute specifics that are appropriate to the witness.  Heck, video can and does miss things too so there is no guarantee it is always a liability.


----------



## Aerin-Sol (Feb 2, 2011)

I feel like the majority of the policies & procedures in L&D wards are for the benefit of the staff, not the "safety of mother & baby." This is just another manifestation of that.


----------



## 281mustang (Feb 2, 2011)

Their rational seems like a scapegoat, but the hospital choice of where to have your baby delivered IS one that is voluntary.

FWIW much of the current research done with deliveries seems to be very favorable to the home birth w/ midwife route anyway.


----------



## abckidsmom (Feb 2, 2011)

PotashRLS said:


> Makes sense, but in the case of child birth, or at least during the delivery of my 2 kids, all medical staff in the room were tuned in directly with Mom, Baby and Doctor.  They were all witnessing what was going on as described in the original post.  It sounds like in your case, individuals are tuned in to what they specifically are doing first, overall situation second.
> 
> As far as people viewing certain procedures, I also doubt any attorney will consider the viewers to be expert witnesses.  I am sure the attorney will direct interviews/questions in a manner that uses testimony to corroborate or refute specifics that are appropriate to the witness.  Heck, video can and does miss things too so there is no guarantee it is always a liability.



In the delivery room, there are typically:  the nurse assigned to the laboring mom, the physician present for the delivery, and the "baby nurse" who spends the last few minutes waiting for the baby checking the baby equipment again.

If the baby needs any kind of resuscitation, the baby nurse(s) and the doctor (or NICU staff) would be paying close attention to the baby, and would never notice what a staff member was doing with mom.

I agree with the post who said that this just joins the other list of things that are for the safety and comfort of the staff, without a thought for the comfort (or wishes) of the birthing family.

One more reason to homebirth.

If this catches on, I could see it spreading to all or most hospitals, like the "no delivering in the water" rules, or "pt must remain NPO during labor."


----------



## katgrl2003 (Feb 2, 2011)

abckidsmom said:


> "pt must remain NPO during labor."



Oh, SCREW that. I'm hungry, so I will eat. Guess I just got talked into a home birth.


----------



## MMiz (Feb 2, 2011)

I thought that not allowing video/photography in the delivery room was the norm these days due to liability concerns.

I can't say that I agree with the policy, but I can understand the concern, and understand that most expectant mothers have a choice of hospitals.


----------



## 18G (Feb 2, 2011)

First and foremost, Mom, Dad, and Baby need to come first. Some may perceive the capturing of video or photos as trivial but the value is priceless and the sentiment that these images will yield in years to come, especially after the child reaches adulthood, is sacred to the parents and child. 

I have been following the media coverage and have conversed briefly online with the two women that have initiated the campaign to have the policy removed. The hospital publicly made the claim that they were looking out for the welfare of Mom and Baby which is clearly not the case when looking at birth statistics and there being no record where any Father or other family member taking pictures has ever resulted in a medical mistake or issue with a delivery. No single incident prompted this policy. It was created as a means to remove any sort of photographic or video evidence of medical mistakes. And the thing that is most irritating to me is that they lied to the Community to make it look like they are looking out for them when they are only looking out for themselves. 

The reality is that 90% of delivery's are completely normal. Almost 10% require minor care such as blow-by O2 or assisted ventilations for a few seconds while the baby transitions from fetal to extrauterine circulation. ONLY 0.12% of births require invasive resuscitation involving intubation, medications, IV/IO, etc.

It's not as easy as saying "go to a different hospital" or "deliver at home". What if someone had prior kids and wanted to keep the same OB Dr and deliver at the same hospital as previous? Why should parents have to undergo the inconvenience of choosing a new OB and new hospital with which they are not familiar and which is probably in another town some distance away?

If it were me I would take pictures and video anyway. What recourse does the hospital really have? Have the Father removed? Arrested? It's certainly not illegal to take pictures of your own flesh and blood. And who is paying the bill, me.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Feb 2, 2011)

HotelCo said:


> Idk about all that, but I want to delivery my kid.
> 
> .



Same here. 

Well.....actually, as my mother always told me, doctors, fathers, etc only "catch" babies. Mothers actually deliver them.


----------



## Aidey (Feb 2, 2011)

I'm of a mixed mind, although I do believe this policy is more common than people realize. One of the problems with allowing media in the delivery room is that the parents can sue up until the patient is 17 years 364 days old. One of the MDs I worked with had a horror story from a colleague who had been sued for something there was no way in heck could be proven to be from the delivery, but it still cost the doc a ton of money. 

At 14 little Johnny is diagnosed with dyslexia and the generic "learning disability", parents have a tape of the birth that shows the MD holding Johnny 2 inches above level while cutting the cord. Suddenly the MD is being sued for causing Johnny's problems because he must have been deprived of oxygen during delivery because of those 2 inches.

Yeah, I don't blame the MDs and hospitals.


----------



## MrBrown (Feb 2, 2011)

So basically its because like everything else, America is afraid of getting sued.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Feb 2, 2011)

MrBrown said:


> So basically its because like everything else, America is afraid of getting sued.



Well, kind of. Yes America is afraid of getting sued, but it is because not only do stupid people sue about stupid stuff, but stupid judges rule in favor of stupid people, leaving the honest man to fend for himself. 

As usual, the bad seems to prevail. Why the h:censored::censored::censored: is that? :glare:


----------



## MrBrown (Feb 2, 2011)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> ...not only do stupid people sue about stupid stuff, but stupid judges rule in favor of stupid people, leaving the honest man to fend for himself.



Why do you think Brown wants a .380 auto?


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Feb 3, 2011)

MrBrown said:


> Why do you think Brown wants a .380 auto?



.380???? Blahhhhhhhh........ Get a .40S&W. And don't listen to jt's S&W comments. Or his rants about 10mm Auto. Ok mate?


----------



## PotashRLS (Feb 3, 2011)

MrBrown said:


> Why do you think Brown wants a .380 auto?






lightsandsirens5 said:


> .380???? Blahhhhhhhh........ Get a .40S&W. And don't listen to jt's S&W comments. Or his rants about 10mm Auto. Ok mate?



Thats funny!!

I'm a .45acp guy myself.  Besides, didn't Australia and New Zealand strip gun ownership rights?  

Anyway, no doubt sue happy America is certainly the reason behind this policy.


----------



## Seaglass (Feb 3, 2011)

It reminds me of how a few of my classmates freaked out and swore they'd be too scared to grab a wall-mounted AED because some of them have voice recorders. Legal concerns aside, some people get really nervous when they're on camera. 

Some people also get really aggressive about filming everything when you put a camera in their hands, and I could see that becoming an issue as well. 

That being said, I think the family should be allowed to do what they want in the delivery room. If hospitals are really nervous about future uses of the footage, perhaps they could have them sign a waiver... then again, though, they might be better protected by focusing on getting their personnel comfortable around cameras, and making sure they're not very likely to screw up. 



MrBrown said:


> So basically its because like everything else, America is afraid of getting sued.



Yep.


----------



## enjoynz (Feb 3, 2011)

Wouldn't this be breaking one of your Human Rights....Freedom of expression?
Given that any such use of the recording would not be used in breaking any of the other Rights or Acts.
I think couples that wishes to record their child's birth, have the law on their side.
After all, it would not be breaking the Privacy Act if the mother of the child gave her concent to be filmed.
Then again, wouldn't you just die if your parents decided to show the recording at your 21st Birthday!h34r:

Enjoynz


----------



## abckidsmom (Feb 3, 2011)

enjoynz said:


> Wouldn't this be breaking one of your Human Rights....Freedom of expression?
> Given that any such use of the recording would not be used in breaking any of the other Rights or Acts.
> I think couples that wishes to record their child's birth, have the law on their side.
> After all, it would not be breaking the Privacy Act if the mother of the child gave her concent to be filmed.
> ...



The Constitution forbids the federal government from interfering with your right to free speech.  Thankfully, the Constitution protects businesses' right to not allow whatever they want in the privacy of their own institutions.

Whether I agree with this or not, I think it's something the free market should work out, not something the government should swoop in and get involved with.


----------



## Aidey (Feb 3, 2011)

one of the really good points that was brought up was the staff's right to privacy. Would all of those people want to be on someone's facebook or youtube? Which really makes sense to me, I dislike having my picture online, and I would be pretty irritated if some one filmed a birth with 20 minutes of footage of me in it and put it online.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2011)

Aidey said:


> one of the really good points that was brought up was the staff's right to privacy. Would all of those people want to be on someone's facebook or youtube? Which really makes sense to me, I dislike having my picture online, and I would be pretty irritated if some one filmed a birth with 20 minutes of footage of me in it and put it online.



I would just charge extra for use of my likeness or image


----------



## enjoynz (Feb 4, 2011)

Aidey said:


> one of the really good points that was brought up was the staff's right to privacy. Would all of those people want to be on someone's facebook or youtube? Which really makes sense to me, I dislike having my picture online, and I would be pretty irritated if some one filmed a birth with 20 minutes of footage of me in it and put it online.



Then wouldn't you say to the couple that it would be ok for them to have the birth filmed, as long as your face was excluded from the film, even get them to sign it in writing.
That way, if they played it on youtube for the world to see, you could sue the pants of them?

I don't want to get off track with this thread, although I'd like to make a point, if I may. 
Tell me if there is one of you on this EMS site that have not watched a medical procedure or EMS training of some description on youtube?

I remember when I was at the station for 12 hours per shift (that was before St John took the online time of us, Mr Brown),I found youtube a great learning tool.
One day my Station Officer (an EMT-I) came in and I'd not long found a very good english film on intubation. I told him about it and he said to me....
"Yes, but you shouldn't look at things on youtube as it can be inaccurate."
I thought I'd show it to him anyway.
He played it over about 4 times before sending the link to his home computer.

I've also used youtube as a tool while writing my novel. If it had not been for some patients that had a family member or friend
take a recording of their chest drain being removed, I would not have accurate report of the event.
Don't get me wrong though...I would never in a million years have wanted the births of my children filmed or played for the world to see,
but for those that do...from a medical view they have done many of us a service to some degree. Tell me how many EMT-B's or P's for that matter,would have seen a birth first hand, before seeing it on film???
Although I think the percentage of couples that would want the birth of their child recorded, would keep this miracle of life to themselves, don't you?


----------



## Aidey (Feb 4, 2011)

> But some mothers who think they want the whole experience recorded  change their minds. Robin Dobbe, 27, was angry when she first learned  about the Meritus policy (“It’s my body”), and she signed the petition.
> 
> 
> But once she was giving birth to her son, Charlie, she wanted her  mother by her side, not taking pictures. Her mother was allowed to start  shooting within 30 seconds.
> ...


From the NYT article.

Those in their 20s have spent all of their teenage and adult years with the internet available to them. To them and younger generations social media is becoming ingrained in daily life, and it is normal to share everything.


----------

