Home Births 'As Safe As Hospital'

[NashVegas]

The largest study of its kind has found that for low-risk women, giving birth at home is as safe as doing so in hospital with a midwife.

Research from the Netherlands - which has a high rate of home births - found no difference in death rates of either mothers or babies in 530,000 births.

Home births have long been debated amid concerns about their safety.

...

The research was carried out in the Netherlands after figures showed the country had one of the highest rates in Europe of babies dying during or just after birth.

It was suggested that home births could be a factor, as Dutch women are able and encouraged to choose this option. One third do so.

But a comparison of "low-risk" women who planned to give birth at home with those who planned to give birth in hospital with a midwife found no difference in death or serious illness among either baby or mother.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7998417.stm

Imagine the change in hospital bills.

[Lyric]

1. Yuck. No way, not for me.

I'd rather stay at the hospital with the anesthesiologist and the epidural, thanks anyway.

[enlightenment]

9. No offense (really), but there's the problem in a nutshell.

Birth is not a medical condition to be treated, but the medical community has managed to convince women that it is one. The golden ticket is the promise of 'no pain'.

[Lyric]

12. I don't think it's anyone else's business.

It's my body and my pain--I'll treat it or not treat it as I wish. I am not making that decision because I think that birth is medical problem; I'm making it because it hurts like hell and there's an easy to way to make it NOT hurt. Really, we mothers and mothers-to-be aren't just a bunch of poor brainwashed morons.

:hi:

[get the red out]

23. Personal medical choice

Something needed in so many areas of health care. No kids of my own, but I have known women on both sides of this argument who were adamant that the decision they made was right for them. No one else's business but theirs and their health care professionals of choice.

[NashVegas]

25. Agreed

[Shell Beau]

48. Thank you!!

And I personally feel safer at a hospital. Just me though! And I feel my baby is safer too.

[Lyric]

59. I had my baby in a hospital too.

I had a medically-necessary c-section for a 10 lb, 11.6 ounce babysaurus rex because I had gestational diabetes, and a long, drawn-out labor and delivery might have killed both of us.

When I have my next baby, I do intend to try VBAC (with epidural) but I have zero intention of doing a home-birth, even if I have no other complications. I want the comfort of knowing that if something goes horribly wrong, the OR and the life-saving c-section are right down the hall. My sister was a low-risk pregnancy who'd already delivered a previous healthy baby with no problems. When she was trying to push her second baby out, he got stuck--badly. When manual instruments didn't work and his heart rate started dropping, they had him out via c-section in minutes because she was already at the hospital. He had seizures for a month afterward because he'd been oxygen-deprived for a few minutes when he got stuck--if not for that lightning-fast access to the OR, he would have died. He's normal now, thank goodness.

I believe in women making their own choices, even when those choices involve risk, but my personal preference is to be at the hospital, where lives can literally be saved within moments thanks to medical science. My baby's safety means more to me than my own comfort, even if I had to lay on a cold, hard table and not move an inch the whole time--not that most women ever have to do anything like that these days.

As for the argument that some are making about how hospitals force you to lay down--wtf? My sister didn't have to lay down during her labor. I was there with her the whole time. They let her be in whatever position was most comfortable, they let her soak in a warm whirlpool tub, she had massages and ice chips and dim lighting and soft music and all the pillows she could ask for to help make herself as comfortable as possible. Her delivery room had comfy chairs and even a fold-out bed for Dad to sleep over. When she was trying to push the baby out, she didn't have her feet in stirrups--she had her legs propped with pillows and was sitting up, not laying down--her bed had a fold-out section right under her bottom that the doctor could reach the baby from if she started delivering from that position. And this is in West Virginia--I have a hard time believing that our hospital birthing rooms are somehow vastly superior to those in states with a LOT more money than we have.

[Shell Beau]

62. I know! It sounds like those people were at bad hospitals to me.

And you did have a baby dinosaur!! :o

[Ilsa]

106. You are not "low risk". A midwife, after doing labs and finding your

gestational diabetes, would have referred you to an OB. A V-Bac isn't low-risk either, especially if induced.

[Lyric]

109. My sister was. Did you miss that entire part of my post?

It was only 3/4's of what I wrote--I guess that was easy to overlook?

[Ilsa]

134. Actually, I didn't want to go into all the nitty gritty things a midwife does

in case of a "stuck" baby, but here it is: The midwives I know turn the mother into a knees & hands on floor position. (The only time I have heard of a midwife putting the mother into a position that the midwife wants.) The baby will quickly get "unstuck". Midwives don't end up with babies with shoulder dystocia, etc. And one of my friends delivers 10 pound babies every three years, at home, with a midwife and her husband.

But of course, it is always the mother's choice where she wants to deliver.

[Maru Kitteh]

117. Don't you know women deserve all that pain? Lazy broads, always scheming to avoid agony.

Sheesh.




I hope I don't need a sarcasm tag here.

[alcibiades_mystery]

156. The argument against epidurals isn't about deserving pain

It's about reducing the time to delivery, increasing the safety of the child, and preventing unneeded caesarian sections.

My wife did two natural childbirths largely because she didn't want a 40 hour labor and didn't want a c-section.

She was, of course, low-risk for both.

[K8-EEE]

198. The pain in childbirth is unique -- different from other pain

The pains are instructive.....they are also like a wave, you can count on resting times between them.

The idea of somebody plugging something in my back so I can't feel what's going on below my waist and then just informing me when the baby comes.....ugh, no thanks. I mean obviously if I had been in severe pain I would have wanted it but it is kind of sad to me that people don't even try to just have a baby without all the artificial surgery and plugs and stuff. It's actually pretty cool! And I felt 100% great five minutes later (tired, but not drugged out or numb.)

I dunno maybe I'm just curious to the point of crazy but I wanted to feel every feeling when I had my kids and highly recommend doing it that way!

Another really good thing is breast feeding gets off to a better start when you're fully awake and not recovering from surgery. It's really important that first couple of days to get things flowing so to speak. A lot of the moms I knew who had cesarians had a hard time breastfeeding.

[Maru Kitteh]

206. Seriously? FUCK THAT.

Twice.

Hard.

I don't have any strange need to "experience" pain I don't have to just because I belong to a mammalian species that has reached it's outer limit of volume, brain wise....

The CS I had saved my life, it saved my daughter's life and I breastfed for 9 months.


Oh, and BTW - I WAS LOW RISK.

We probably BOTH would have died if I had done something stupid like discarding 200+ years of advancement in maternal/neonatal care and opting for the 18th century option.

[K8-EEE]

210. Oh calm down

I'm not for outlawing CS just saying natural birth was a nice experience for me and the pain was surprisingly managable -- I highly recommend it and am grateful I didn't need surgical intervention. Of course if I needed it or if I needed pain meds I would have had it.

My experience was they just kept asking me AM I SURE AM I SURE I didn't want an epidural and "warning" that it was my last chance etc etc.....I think they try to scare people into it, as it was they billed my ins. company THOUSANDS for simply catching the babies!

[Luminous Animal]

184. I support that decision 100%

but I am going to offer up another side that most women who eschew drugs experience. The problem, though, is that it is difficult to put in words because it is like no other experience.

Yes, labor is pain and it ain't pretty either but towards the end, the last half hour or so, the pain goes away and is replaced by an overwhelming sense of euphoria and well-being. All the stars are aligned and you become the center of all that is good and pure in the world, I became bigger than the moment, bigger than the universe. It is beyond something that I could have ever imagined without having lived through it. If a feeling could be heaven, that would be it. Now, twenty years later, I am fortunate that, in times of stress, I can close my eyes and evoke those enormous feelings of peace and perfect happiness.

So, when a new mother to be asks me for advice in regards to drugs or no drugs, I tell her my experience (and affirmed by thousands o other women) but I also tell her to do what feels right for her.

[nolabear]

191. I'll add my affirmation!

One of the finest experiences I've ever had was the sense that my firstborn and I were connected all the way back through time to the very concept of creation. I've never before or since felt anything like it. And yep, there was pain; the unique pain of bringing another human being into the world. Absolutely do what you have to do, but normal childbirth is a healthy thing.

[JeanGrey]

213. I know - it was fantastic. Better than drugs!

[Samantha]

188. You are exactly right

It is no one else's business, your choice, and no one should try and tell you differently.

Sam

[TahitiNut]

21. So, the high rates of infant mortality and death in childbirth in "third world" countries ...

... and historically in the U.S. should be ignored? Perhaps it'd be better to regard the increased POTENTIAL for a "medical condition" (requiring treatment) as a result of childbirth, not just for one person but for two, is what has driven folks to regard delivery a legitimate hospital function??

:shrug:

[jwirr]

38. You do have a point but there has been a lot learned about sanitary

birthing that can be used as easily in the home as out of it.

[Oregone]

54. And most of the time, there is less MRSA at home, ya know.

[Shell Beau]

79. But you don't want to be irrationally cautious!

MRSA is another one of those things.

[Oregone]

82. Is it?

More people get MRSA infections from hospitals than babies that die from unmanaged nuchal cords. Many times over. Check the stats and run the numbers.

[Shell Beau]

86. I am just pointing out that we can get "irrationally cautious" about

anything.

[Oregone]

55. You know, there is more to the picture too

Historically, even in hospitals, over-intervention and the use of forceps/suction devices attributed negatively to infant mortality, as well as to hemmoraging. That advent of medical technology isn't always statistically beneficial to the health of the mother and child. Perhaps the dramatic decrease in infant mortality is partially a result of an unnatural increase due to irresponsible over-intervention. Just a thought, you know.

[Maru Kitteh]

133. #1. More birthing mothers and infants do NOT contract MRSA than die of unmanaged cords

in unattended births, so that is an utterly useless 'statistic.'

#2. Forceps are all but vanished from birth centers now. Any honest evaluation of relevant statistical information is quite clear - you cannot deny that the advent of modern medical care has vastly improved infant and maternal mortality, and that those facts are well borne out through vast amounts of statistical data.

FYI, forceps were first used in about 1500 BC, so you might want to rethink heaping tar on the heads of the medical practitioners of the last century. They made mistakes, but more mothers and babies survived their deliveries even then thanks to modern medicine.

[Oregone]

149. Wheres your numbers...

How do you know that MRSA is not more often contracted at hospitals than the incidence of babies that die of unmanaged cords ?

Remember, you should looked for homebirths for that statistic. It may not be statistically higher at all than hospital births at all, but its probably important to find a relevant statistic. If there is no statistical increase in that mortality rate in homebirth, than it undermines the mentioning of that argument in the first place. Ill check when I get back from running out.

Secondly, yes, I am aware that forceps have vanished. Im not implying that they were still in birthing centers and its still a problem. Yes, modern medical care has made some improvements, but at the same time, we may want to look at what was happening in the 18-19th century. Ill try and find a few papers Ive seen in the past about it, suggesting that a lot of harm could be attributed to poorly trained doctors over-intervening. All I was saying is that such mistakes caused an unnatural increase in problems with childbirth, despite the onset of technology at the time, so it should be of no surprise that in the last century that rate has dropped dramatically from people backing off a bit. Understand?

Its sort of like if everyone practiced throwing a baby on the floor for a few hundred years and all of a sudden stopped. Well, they could attribute the drop in the mortality rate to just about anything, but there is an obvious factor people might be overlooking.

[Oregone]

157. More on this

Ill look in a moment...

But to be fair, you need to consider both outcomes are possible in both situations.

I would bet the incidence of death due to nuchal cord in homebirths is not significantly different than a hospital. I will check.

I would bet the incidence of MRSA contraction in a homebirth is dramatically lower than a hospital.

Ill run the numbers in a minute

Im not saying contracting MRSA is the same as dying. What I am presuming, is that the rate of contraction is so many times higher in one scenario, whereas the actual death rate of this one situation is not significantly different. If that is the case, and these were the only two problems one would consider, risk management would tend to pick the scenario with less MRSA contraction.

[Oregone]

159. Real quick, just about nuchal cord danger in general:

Outcome of infants born with nuchal cords, J Fam Pract. 1992 Apr;34(4):441-5.

"Several studies in the past have implicated nuchal cords as a cause of fetal death.<1,17-20> Harrar and Buchman<17> reported 14 unanticipated death occurring in the second stage of labor due to nuchal cords. in contrast, several authors agree with the present study that nuchal cords do not increase fetal mortality.<7,10-12> Shui and Eastman<8> found a higher fetal death rate in those deliveries not involving nuchal cords, and concluded that coiling of the umbilical cord around the infant's neck was a rare cause of perinatal death. Horwitz et al<9> found the neonatal death rate to be 1%, regardless of the presence of nuchal cord."

So, its something to consider in the realm of risk management, when it may have no impact whatsoever on mortality rate (of course, we should compare homebirth to hospital). But to consider than, and then consider as much as 80% of MRSA infections occur in the hospital, well, hows that work into risk management?

[Oregone]

165. Homebirth nuchal cord mortality rate...

Here is a study that found 1 incident in 5400 studied homebirths in North America:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=558373

Im not sure you are going to find a significant difference, period, in nuchal cord deaths in homebirths or hospitals.

But I ask you...do you think the incidence of MRSA contraction will be higher in hospitals (if not many times higher)? Lemme know if you question that.

In fact, read that entire study I posted.

"The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America. No mothers died. No discrepancies were found for perinatal outcomes independently validated.

Conclusions Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States."

[recoveringrepublican]

96. There are other reasons for high rates of infant mortality than just home birthing

in third world countries. Lack of prenatal care, malnourishment, lack of vitamins, lack of education, lack of antibiotics etc.

[Ilsa]

137. Antibiotics would have prevented alot of infant and maternal

deaths in previous centuries. Better information about blood, RH, and transfusions would have helped also.

I suspect eventually we'll get to a more compromised situation in hospitals or birthing centers. Alot of women feel disempowered by current hospital routines, even in some of the better hospitals. There is alot of pressure on the patient to conform to what the staff wants, including constant monitoring. And alot of doctors ignore the treatments and therapies that midwives have developed over the centuries. I've seen midwives cringe over stories they've heard about hospitals births that alot of people would consider routine, including pre-cocktail hour c-sections on Thursdays and Fridays after laboring all day.

Statistics have shown that there are better outcomes for mom and baby, including fewer c-sections, if there is a doula or midwife just sitting in the room, not actively helping the mother. Why? Because the doctors reconsider what is best for the mother and baby if there are others in there looking after mom.

[Shell Beau]

140. Sitting in the room of a hospital?

My doctor never had to reconsider what was best for me. That was always his number one priority. My well being and the baby's.

[Ilsa]

175. That's great. But I've WITNESSED doctors going for those

5pm cocktail hour c-sections. Ten minutes after an experienced L&D nurse leaves a room after telling the mother that her labor is progressing just fine after both examining for dilation and reading the stress of the contractions, the doc comes in and completely contradicts what the nurse says, telling the mother she has to have a c-section. I've seen these moms go home in physical pain and pissed. I've lived in one of the worst c-section counties in Texas. Our rate has gone down, probably because we have more women OBs locally.

Alot of docs are very trustworthy. But not all of them. I've seen enough go into rehab, lose licenses, etc. They are not "above" making self-serving decisions.

On edit: Yes, there have been studies on this: doctors tend to let the mother keep trying to deliver vaginally if they know there is a midwife in the room, even if she is not actively participating in helping comfort the mother. Obstetrics has turned into a money machine for hospitals.

[Shell Beau]

179. It is important to have a doctor you trust with your life.

If you have to shop around, so be it. It is like every thing else in life. There are lousy doctors who only do it for the money. But I have had no experience like that. I would never go to a doctor like that either. And honestly, I don't know anyone who has. I am not saying that it doesn't happen. I know for sure it does. But to assume that OBGYNs are money machines, I think that is unfair.

[Crunchy Frog]

204. More to do with other factors. In fact, mortality rates went UP in this country

when birth first moved from home to hospital. High mortality rates in the third world are more about poverty, poor health in general, lack of sanitation, and lack of trained professional attendents.

Certainly hospitals are life savers in some instances, but not as often as we have been conditioned to think.

[TZ]

30. Bullshit.

I have a friend that both children were born by Cesarian AND had been bad bleeding problems. In other words SHE WOULD HAVE DIED OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL.
Man I hate this bullshit about "natural" being safe.
There is a reason WHY child and parent survival rates have gone WAAAY up since the implementation of modern medicine.

[jwirr]

39. The OP says for low risk mothers. There is nothing in this study that

suggests every birth is safer at home.

[Oregone]

56. A lot of people don't understand this about homebirth

1) Focus is placed on pre-natal conditions, such that the risk level can be lowered

And

2) If a pregnancy becomes high risk, as identified, it is not done at home, period

In most cases, homebirths are within some safe distance from hospitals, just in case.

[Kali]

43. normally your scientific background stands you well in these sorts of discussions

but please reread the OP and your reply. A c-section is not a normal (natural) birth in the first place. Use the medical knowledge to asses risk level, and in high risk or emergency situations OF COURSE use hospital. duh. But the reality is we have been grunting them out for a hella long time. Yes skull size is an issue but the high mortality rates are also nutritional and bacteriological. Control those and I suspect the study is quite accurate - home births are just as safe as medical births for healthy, low risk events.

I do want to add that I entirely back anybody who wants a medical birth for the convenience/avoidence of pain - womans choice for sure! I just want others to not be frightened who may lean to making the other choice.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. About 1 in 4 births are by C-section.

Sounds pretty normal to me.

But if you're trying to say that low risk pregnancies without any medical complications are not a medical issue- OK. The only thing wrong with that statement is redundancy.

"Yes skull size is an issue but the high mortality rates are also nutritional and bacteriological."

Of course you're leaving out a huge number of complications which aren't involved in that. Pre-eclampsia, for example.

[Fireweed247]

52. The c-section rate is much higher in the US than elsewhere

Is it possible that our hospitals are making unneccessary interventions?

[Oregone]

57. Perhaps...

Time constraints, nursing insurance, and impatience attributes to it.

They can probably charge insurance far more than if the woman was in labor 4 times as long. And they are sure the doctor will be available when it needs to happen.

My wife was in labor 26 hours or so. It sucked to be patient and relax. She never had tear/hemmoraging or any other problems that women often have from birth. Longer labor, but quicker recovery.

[ejpoeta]

91. i remember hearing that csections may be overused here.

i don't know myself... i have never had one. I have had two healthy babies with NO epidural. generally, the kids come too fast. and that's fine. i know i have been lucky. i joke about having this one at home, but that is because i want a bathroom in my room. and the maternity ward at my local hospital where my two girls were born has like two or three rooms with bathrooms in them. it really sucked with emy walking down the hall to use the bathroom. i had stitches and it hurt!!! i demanded a room with a bathroom with ashley. But that birth had no tearing and no stitches. and i felt much better after she was born and ready to go home. i refused staying an extra day. i just wanted to go home. the doctor said that she wanted me to stay so i could get some 'rest'. the idea was that the nurses could help with the baby so i could sleep. i informed her that since ashley had been with me the whole time so far, what's the difference if i stay or go home!! i'd get just as much help there. i really do not like my local hospital!! i wish i could go somewhere else to have my baby. but that is another story altogether.

[Kali]

111. 25% c-section rate sounds like evolutionary disaster to me

not anything close to what I would call normal. Normal is a natural vaginal birth. C-sections are major abdominal surgery.

And no I am not saying shouldn't be done when necessary. I am saying I bet a shit load of them aren't even necessary.

[Shell Beau]

144. I agree with you there. Many are not necessary.

A lot of people can choose to have an elective c-section. That wasn't the case with my OBGYN, but I know it happens.

But I also look at it this way, if it can be beneficial to mom and baby, even if it isn't extremely necessary, and the benefits outweigh the risks, I have no problem with it being done. We have come very far in our medical technology. I am not saying that I, as the patient, should be able to decide if I can have a c-section though. But mom's health and well being directly affect baby's health and well being.

[JeanGrey]

214. Elective C sections should not be allowed. And frankly,

I'm surprised that insurance companies will pay for them. If there is a solid MEDICAL REASON, fine. But unfortunately, we're not doing that in this country.

[Shell Beau]

50. But even with low-risk mothers, things can happen in the blink of an

eye that may require an emergency c-section. Cords getting wrapped around the baby's neck, increased heart rate, mom's blood pressure shooting up, etc. These things can happen in an instant.

[Oregone]

58. "Cords getting wrapped around the baby's neck"

Yah know, this isn't the most uncommon thing in the world. Most of the midwives we talked to experienced this (in the hundreds of births) and sort of laughed it off. You unwrap it. Thats what my dad did. He looked in a book, turned around, and unwrapped the cord. No biggie.

People are so damn paranoid about this stuff. It seems like all sorts of animals in nature have this stuff down smack, and they do it in the dirt by themselves. But when it comes to us, bring on the full hospital staff!

[Shell Beau]

60. Well I am paranoid about it for 2 reasons. My nephew almost

died because of it, and I have a friend whose baby did die because of it. It isn't always as simple as to unwrap it. When the baby is in the birth canal and with every push, the cord gets tighter, it isn't always so easy to go in there and unwrap it.

Also with animals, many of babies die during or after birth.

[Oregone]

63. 1 in 3 babies are born like this (And how often do you hear of deaths from it)?

Its common and its not the end of the world (and it isn't something a trained mid-wife cannot handle). I also knew a child who died spinal meningitis, yet its not my number 1 fear as a parent. I think anecdotal experiences can skew one's perception of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuchal_cord

[Shell Beau]

65. It is common. Which is exactly why I want to be in a place that

can handle it if it turns into an emergency. Also, experiences can make you more cautious which can be a good thing.

[Oregone]

72. Its common and dealt with all the time, which illustrates you don't have to be anywhere special

You want to be in a place that can handle it? What is a midwife for? Are you under the impression they don't come with a bag of surgical tools and devices for these types of situations? Based on this statistic alone in the OP, it would imply (since the occurrence is common), that midwives are equally as adept as doctor's as dealing with a wrapped cord. Otherwise, there would be a much higher incidence of death among the babies born at home with a wrapped cord (and 1 out of 3 of them have this). Make sense?

Being irrationally cautious is not necessarily a good thing. For example, spending billions to fight terrorism (that has killed 3K people in a single occurrence) could be more effectively aimed at treating drunk driving, which kills that many people in Florida alone, every single year. Being overly cautious can make you irrationally fear something that may drain energy and resources best spent elsewhere.

[Shell Beau]

78. I would not call being concerned about the health and wellbeing of my child as irrationally

cautious. I prefer a hospital. I had to undergo an emergency c-section. Yep, you bet I am happy I was at a hospital for it too. Nothing against mid-wives, but their expertise only goes so far.

[Oregone]

81. There are rational and irrational ways to be concerned with the health of a child

And just a thought, many people that "require" c-sections in the US wouldn't of required them elsewhere.

[Shell Beau]

87. I would have required mine anywhere. The position of my baby

was transverse, and that is almost impossible to deliver vaginally.

[Oregone]

93. You didn't try upside down, in a cool pool of salt water with a breathing apparatus?

Maybe you weren't trying hard enough?!?


;)

[Shell Beau]

95. Aw, man!! No one told me about that method!!

:P

[Ilsa]

138. Midwives do slow turns of babies in transverse positions.

Occasionally a hospital will have a nurse that is certified to turn a baby, but it is usually done rapidly and painfully, unless the nurse learned it directly from a midwife.

[Shell Beau]

145. Most times it can't be done. Most transverse babies will

have to be delivered via c-section.

[Ilsa]

176. Yeah, because they are in a hospital with a doctor that won't do it,

or allow a turn to be tried. They are very good at helping the hospital and their practices make more money.

[Shell Beau]

178. My doctor wanted to do everything possible to avoid a c-section.

I am not sure why you believe doctors don't want to try to turn the baby. Manipulating the baby can also be dangerous as well.

Sounds like you have either had bad doctors or bad experiences. My doctor is nothing like what you describe.

[Ilsa]

187. I am not sure why you believe doctors don't want to try...: It's been my observation as a nurse.

And I didn't say all doctors are creep, or don't want to try. But not everyone gets to choose their doctor. There are cities were there aren't enough doctors, not to mention rural areas. Not everyone has the money to defy the "in-contract" clause on their insurance, if they have insurance.

The statistics speak for themselves, when c-section rates hit 25-33% for some areas.

[Oregone]

185. Off topic...

I use to watch my mom do that to her animals when I was a little kid. She wasn't a doctor and she had 4 hoofs to compete with. Didn't look too complicated. None of them died.

[Kali]

114. or you can get in an accident on the way to the hospital

yes things can happen in an instant. I don't try to talk anybody out of a medical birth - I just wish those that choose that method would restrain with the fear mongering for others that might be thinking of another way. Really - you don't need to carry on with everything that might possibly go wrong - pregnancy and motherhood tend to get one into that mindset all on it's own!

[Shell Beau]

125. You need to be prepared. And that includes weighing all of the odds.

Hopefully it will always be smooth sailing, but I am not relying on that. I have no problem with anyone wanting to give birth at home. More power to them. It isn't for me. I couldn't live with myself if something terrible happened that could have been dealt with properly at a hospital.

I don't call that fear-mongering. I call it being prepared for all possibilities.

[CTyankee]

73. I have, and have always had, an extreme aversion to pain.

Perhaps it is complicated by my own conviction that pain is not ennobling, something that should be withstood. There is not reason for me to endure pain. Pain signals something wrong most of the time, and I want pain meds immediately (after a reasonable amount of diagnosis). I tried natural birth with my first baby and swore "never again." The epidurals were wonderful. No bad outcomes at all...

[Kali]

120. And I am glad you have the choice to avoid that pain if you want.

Now if we could mesh the pain relief with the home birth I might even think of having another!:rofl:

NOT. I'm a tough old broad. I wanted to do it myself. I was low risk so I did so - twice.

[CTyankee]

123. I'm a pretty tough old broad myself so don't give me that. I simply don't believe in

gritting teeth and bearing it. Why? You see, I'm a pragmatist. I believe that if I am disabled by pain I won't be well functioning during the birth process. Either you managed the contractions really well or you went through hell out of some idea of enoblement. Uh, no thanks to the enoblement part. You can have it, sainthood and all. Me, I'll be well rested and welcoming my new baby!

[JeanGrey]

215. Then why on earth would someone want a csection?

It causes way more pain than a vaginal birth, which is what I don't understand.

[Maru Kitteh]

207. Most pregnancies ARE low-risk, until they are not

I was textbook for low risk. White female, 22, adequate and early prenatal care. Normal weight, no medical problems, no medications.

If I'd not been in a hospital to begin with in labor, it's likely both my daughter and I would have died.


If we are an anomaly, we will not be silent ones.

[roody]

67. Did you see the words "low risk"?

[Fireweed247]

41. then when arriving at the hospital, everything done is for the convenience of the doctor

The reason that so many need pain medication is because as soon as you arrive they make you horizontal so that they doctor can see better. Gravity works really well. Exercise also speeds up the process. Laying on a table waiting causes the problems in many cases. This is just one example.

I have given birth two times without pain medication, once in a hospital, once at home in a hot tub. After the hospital birth, the nurses all told me that if it were them, they would have their babies at home. Hospitals are for sick people. There are all kinds of germs, and unneccessary interventions and drugs. We had to fight to do(or not do) what we wanted in the hospital. You are put in a position of powerlessness. I wanted to be in charge of my labor, so I was the next time around. When I went into labor at home, the midwife watched my 2 year old while my husband and I took a walk around the ranch. When I got back it was just about time, hopped in the hot tub and gave birth by myself. The midwives were there to help afterward as I was a little out of it, but that was quite empowering and to be at home and just snuggle the baby without someone coming in the room every five minutes was priceless.

To the people who think it is so unsafe....a responsible homebirther has a midwife and you are evaluated medically for potential problems ahead of time. If it is an at risk birth, you don't do it at home. Homebirth has been the way it was done since the beginning of time. The US does not have a good record as far as hospital births. I had great insurance, but after doing the research choose homebirth, even though I had to pay thousands out of my own pocket for it.

[Kali]

45. damned Alaskans

always being self-reliant and all that shit.:rofl:


:thumbsup:

[Fireweed247]

51. I was actually in California at the time

but it was my independent spirit that drove me up here. That and the fact we could build our own house overlooking glaciers and craggy mountain peaks without building permits and government intervention. The moose giving birth in the field next to us and getting to watch the baby get up and walk the first time....is also a plus! God I love this place!!

[uppityperson]

66. Nurse in Fairbanks hsp "couldn't believe" I didn't want all the latest

high tech stuff 21 yrs ago. They wanted to rupture the amnionic sac so they could screw a (tiny) thing into my baby's skull to monitor him. 2 issues with that: if you rupture the membranes then you need to give birth within a sooner time range since more chances of infection, fetal monitors had been found to show more false "omg intervention needed" stuff at that time, leading to more unnec c-sects. So, with the ok of my doctor, I refused.

Nurse went off in a snit "as a nurse I can't believe you refused". I refused BECAUSE I was a nurse in a low risk pregnancy.

[CTyankee]

75. I sounds like you weren't screaming in pain, tho. If you had been, would what you

describe be tolerable? I think it worked well for you because you were managing the contractions well. BUt you have to realize that not all women can tolerate it. I don't see the value in a woman forced to endure agony.

[Kali]

115. if you are at the point of screaming in pain they won't give it to you anyway - too late to work.

[CTyankee]

121. some women are screaming earlier than you may think. I for one

cannot tolerate pain. Others may do so with no screaming at all. It depends on your tolerance. So what is your measure of pain? At what point should a woman no longer suffer? I really want to know here. I am not be facetious. To me it is a serious point in childbirth issues and one that needs to be addressed...

[Kali]

189. I don't understand your question.

"what is your measure of pain?" I don't know what you are asking. To rate some pain against another?

As for "what point should a woman no longer suffer?" The simple answer is when SHE decides. But the reality is some things can't be given after a certain point so if she does decide, it needs to be ahead of time - it can be too late if she decides she can't handle it after all. On the other hand nobody dies of "pain" (although they might pass out - I have never heard of that during labor, but maybe it happens?) so presumably they can and do handle it all the time. I know my experience was that I didn't think I could handle it anymore for quite a bit of labor, both times - but of course I did and I am fine. In fact after "not being able to handle" it the first time I had another a couple years later. The new arrival and time quickly take care of that trauma.

[RayOfHope]

102. Not to mention they won't let you drink anything. I read something that said

something along the lines of "you wouldn't expect someone to run a marathon without staying hydrated, why would you make a laboring mother do it?"

I agree--flat on your back, legs spread so the perineum is tight is not the best way to be, but sure is the way the docs like it.

[Shell Beau]

103. They let me basically because I demanded it.

Every bit of it came back up too! Twice!

[RayOfHope]

129. Mine didn't. At all. Someone finally 'relented' and let me chew on a wet washcloth n/t

[walldude]

64. LOL... my first wife was all about natural child birth

right up till the pain started...

It may not be something that needs to be treated but if there is no risk to the baby why wouldn't a woman want a bit less pain?

[recoveringrepublican]

98. um there is risk to the mother and baby with all interventions, the doctors just don't tell you

that until they have you scared out of your mind if you don't listen to them. At least this has been my experience after 3 births, all done med free, intervention free, in spite of having a doctor. My last was 9lbs 6oz.

[CTyankee]

122. But if a woman (not you) asks for pain meds, would you say "no"?

If the woman is suffering who are YOU to judge that she should not get medication? How do you know that she is not as conscientious a mother as you would be? I really don't understand this...

[recoveringrepublican]

124. Hell no! BUT many women aren't told of the risks until right before, when she is in pain.

[CTyankee]

127. I'm all for full disclosure but surely you know that there are conflicting studies about pain

management in childbirth. My daughter, a very well educated woman, went thru an awful "natural" childbirth experience in Princeton, New Jersey at Princeton's University Hospital and was told ahead of time she could ask for meds if she needed them but when she did ask she was told "too late." She suffered greatly and had urinary problems after birth. That did it for her. When she moved to Boston she found a doctor who promised an epidural if she said she needed it. Even tho it was promised she had to fight for it...and this was at Women and Brigham's Hospital, considered a "great" hospital...

Why aren't women trusted when they WANT medication but totally trusted when they DON'T?

[recoveringrepublican]

158. They aren't trusted in any situation while they are in the hospital

it's that simple! Well I guess you could compare urinary problems to paralyzation, but I wouldn't.

[Shell Beau]

146. I am not so sure of that. My doctor asked me if I was

planning on using pain meds or not. Regardless of my answer, he had to inform me of the risks. Doctors pay out the ass for insurance. I believe most, not all, but most, try to cover all bases.

[recoveringrepublican]

161. I can only go by my experience, and that of my friends, I've had 3 kids, 1 just last July

The only reason we discussed pain options was because I brought it up. With my first the only thing my doctor said was "well you get meds for a root canal don't you" (which is funny because my friend in Germany says she doesn't). That was it. With my second nada, with my 3rd I was going to a midwife that worked with ob/gyns, she was awesome, but left, and my idea of natural birth (even though I had already done it) was compeletly poo pooed. When my baby was estimated to be over 10lbs, my doctor walked in and said "well we are scheduling a c-section", when I got pissed and told her the hell we were, she proceeded to tell me all that possibly go wrong (again I have had two vaginal births previously), but nothing on the risks of c-section to both my and the baby.

Maybe it's because I'm in Florida and everything seems backassward in this state? Oops, I do want to state that I had to sign up for an epidural in case I wanted it with my first. The anesthesiologist did quickly go over the risks.

[Shell Beau]

162. What does a midwife do if the baby has had a bowel movement

inutero? It can be a major issue. It happened to me, but luckily my doctor realized it happened. You don't want the baby to inhale the meconium.

[recoveringrepublican]

173. My son did pass meconium. Like you said, it can be a major issue

Remember that my midwife left the practice. When my baby was born, it wasn't the doctor who saw to my son, it was the nurse. Midwives have as much training in regards to birth and labor as ob/gyns to, at least here in FL. For all 3 of my births, it was the nurse who took care of me, the doctors only showed up in time to catch the baby. With my second he didn't even have his gloves or smock thing on yet when her head was already out.

[JeanGrey]

216. Sounds like your doc was scared he'd be sued. My sister

had three boys - all over ten lbs, one weighed 11.4 and all were vaginal births but one She is a small woman as well, 5 foot 4.

The third one when they INSISTED on an epidural and c section they almost killed her by giving her too much anesthesia and she started to strangle on her own spit.

She said the third one was worse than the other two put together.

[CreekDog]

135. do you think women should not have access to pain management?

while in labor?

[Doremus]

195. Sorry, I know a woman who lost her firstborn because of a poorly trained midwife.

Surprise breech birth, midwife thought she could handle it.

She should have been prosecuted for murder.

My kids (one of whom was breech and delivered vaginally btw) were born in the hospital and I would recommend women give it serious thought before home birthing.

The .0001% of unknowns and surprises is reason enough.

[Dulcinea]

80. To each her own.

For a low-risk, uncomplicated pregnancy & birth, giving birth at home is probably just as safe as being in a hospital.

That said, I'd never do it! My first was a by-the-book delivery until she got stuck & had to be vacuumed out, & with my second, labor progressed so quickly there was no time for an epidural. She was born in the emergency room...no time to get up to labor & delivery! I can't imagine why anyone would voluntarily give birth without an epidural, but YMMV.

Plus, birth is a messy process. Who wants to clean all that up? Ugh.

[K8-EEE]

182. I've done natural childbirth twice -- it's really not that bad.

I'm not saying there's NO pain but it's totally manageable most of the time. Yet in a hospital birth they are CONSTANTLY ON YOU TO INTERVENE! They won't give you any peace.

My family & hub got on me for the "risk" and had this info been out I would have def had more leverage to do it at home. I was doing a mental pain management/distraction thing in the hospital and all they did was annoy me, distract me and keep giving me fake deadlines like "if you're not this amount dialated by this time then we might have to give you such and such of med." They NEVER just let a woman have a baby in peace! There's ALWAYS something "irregular" with every single pregnancy, ask any woman, they NEVER don't intervene! I can't believe 100% intervention is necessary.

[valerief]

2. Adoption is even safer. nt

[Shell Beau]

147. I am not sure what this has to do with the OP.

Adoption is wonderful, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Number23]

150. I know, right??

What a strange comment.

[Shell Beau]

163. Nice avatar!

:P

[Number23]

167. Too funny! You're a Southern girl with a hamster avatar

Are you married to an Aussie?? If you are, I'm going to have to start wondering if we're the same person!

:)

[Shell Beau]

168. Nah, I am married to a nice southern guy!

But I do love the Aussie accent!

[Carni]

3. I'll take their word for it

UG--no thanks.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. It is more likely that this speaks poorly of their neonatal care than the safety of home births

The research was carried out in the Netherlands after figures showed the country had one of the highest rates in Europe of babies dying during or just after birth.




And I would add that no single study can be offered as proof of anything.

[NashVegas]

10. re: Neonatal Care

Super-high immigration in the Netherlands could be a factor.

[Maru Kitteh]

11. Good point, Too many variables to jump to conclusions from one study. n/t

[joeybee12]

5. Hospital births becamse popular in the early 1900's as a way to make money...

...there was never any evidence it was safer for low-risk women, but hospitals promoted it that way, and it caught on.

[Maru Kitteh]

14. And, as an amazing coincidence, infant mortality dropped like a STONE.

[Iris]

18. It did? The U.S. currently has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized

world.

[moc]

44. Yes, it did (although I wouldn't attribute it to hospital births but to

reduction in infection.) Indeed, initial hospital births were associated with higher rates of maternal and infant mortality because of increased infection, aka "child bed fever" rampant in the 20s and 30s. It wasn't until the introduction of antibiotics in the late 30s/early 40s that this issue began to decline.

An interesting read, by the way, is "Demon Under the Microscope" about the development of antibiotics.

You are correct that the U.S. has the highest IMR of the developed world, but that doesn't obviate that infant deaths have been cut by over 90% compared to 100 years ago.

[Iris]

155. we're talking about now. see post #61

I don't think women should be put in a position of making decisions based on data from 70 years ago.

[moc]

193. I'm well aware of the statistics regarding infant mortality. I have a doctorate in maternal and

child health, and I teach MCH at the graduate level.

Your post was not referring to today's statistics. You questioned whether IMR rates had dropped dramatically since births moved into hospitals. They have. Whether or not they are high relative to other countries today is a separate issue.

[Kali]

22. that happened because of sanitation over all - lots of medical procedures

ended in death, not just births (which isn't even a medical procedure if normal) it wasn't because of the switch to hospital births - it was from attendants washing their damn hands.

[Crunchy Frog]

196. No. Perinatal and maternal mortality INCREASED when birth first moved to hospitals.

For the first few decades of the 20th century the death rates were SUBSTANTIALLY lower in home births. The numbers only started improving with the advent of antibiotics.

[TZ]

31. How many women do you know that had C-sections?

You realize almost all of them would have DIED if they had gone the natural way. Unfuckingbelievable

[uppityperson]

68. Working in maternity ward, it depends on the place and yr

Some yrs they were very over reactive in doing c-sections. If they are needed, they are needed, but they have been done to women unnecessarily.

[recoveringrepublican]

99. who says, the doctor trying to justify the c-section. Guess I've been reading too much Ina May nt

[JeanGrey]

217. Would "elective" c sections fall under death?

[cali]

6. I think home births are great- if the woman is low risk

I wanted a home birth, but my wonderful midwife advised against it- partly because I lived 40 minutes from the hospital on back roads.

[Kali]

27. I had my youngest out here on the ranch.

But I had already done a home birth for my first in Tucson when we lived there. Of course my midwife had just had hers out in a rural area herself. It was quite the party - My mom, husband, me, oldest son, midwife, her baby, and her assistant (to watch her baby) and my almost 89 year old grandfather. Not that I cared who was around doing what, I was busy.

[Still Sensible]

7. It makes sense statistically, but

on an individual basis if the delivery runs into complications the statistics won't mean much.

[Iris]

16. of course, there's also the possibility complications arise from the "interventions" of the hospital

so some women may prefer to avoid that risk

[TZ]

32. Yes the hospital causes breech babies and excessive bleeding

and babies who are too large to get born through the birth canal. GEEZ. Does no one here know ANYTHING about birth risks?
As I said upthread..my friend would have died if she had tried to give birth outside of the hospital.

[LeftyMom]

42. Bad management of labor causes quite a few problems. The literature is very clear on that.

Let's look at these separately:

1. Breech births are generally not an emergency. Some breech presentations can be delivered as-is with no particular risks, especially if laboring positions for the birthing mother are used to maximize the size of the pelvic outlet. Some breech presentations can also be corrected by external version or the baby moves on their own before second stage labor. Only a few presentations are a bar to vaginal delivery and these cases are easily transported to a hospital for surgical delivery- doing so generally involves no more wait time than moving in-hospital since a surgeon must be prepped, and OR readied, etc and as a practical matter this takes longer than moving the laboring woman in most cases.

2. Excessive bleeding can generally reduced as a possibility or managed successfully in home births. Many practices at hospital births, notably some medications used for pain control and inductions, are associated with heavy bleeding immediately after delivery. These risks are eliminated in home birth. Common home birth practices such as putting the baby on the breast immediately after birth are designed to reduce bleeding risk by causing the uterus to shrink immediately. In situations where abnormal bleeding occurs and can not be dealt with, transportation is always an option, but this is rare, as most cases can be successfully addressed in the home.

3. True cephalopelvic disproportion is almost unheard of in women who have not suffered a pelvic injury or malformation. Most purported cases result from bad labor management and can be successfully addressed by use of positioning in the laboring mother that increases the size of the pelvic outlet. It is fairly common for women who have had a previous abdominal delivery for diagnosed CPD to deliver a larger baby vaginally either at home or in a hospital or freestanding birth center under competent medical care.

[uppityperson]

69. how about prematurely rupturing membranes to "speed things up"?

How about giving pitocin to "speed things up"? How about then having to do more serious intervention to take care of issues related to "speeding things up"?

Does no one here know ANYTHING about birth risks related to interventions?

There is no one right answer for everyone.

[RayOfHope]

141. My doctor nearly ruptured my uterus from those interventions

I was hugely uninformed and my OB happened to be my father's neighbor.

I was induced with a drug called cytotec, which wasn't approved for that use. Then my membranes were ruptured several hours later. Then I was given pitocin. My contractions suddenly went off the charts, things started happening very quickly, and I was given meds to completely stop the labor. I ended up having a csec 20 hours from the time induction started.

None of this worked because my baby was presenting posterior. This could have been fixed with me being allowed to labor on my hands and knees (a simple non medical non drug related 'intervention"), but once they strip your membranes, you're confined to bed.

With my second baby, I was much, much more informed, had a doula and a different doctor..

[LeftyMom]

170. Cytotec is dangerous for laboring women. But it's easy and very cheap.

It's also widely used for DIY abortions for the same reasons. The funny thing is that almost nobody uses it for the intended purpose anymore, because there are better ulcer drugs, and it's used almost exclusively for inducing uterine contractions.

[Iris]

154. There are ways to correct the position of a breech baby. Doctors just don't do it any more.

Why bother when most women barely educate themselves anymore and are more than happy to have the epidural and resulting c-section?

[Shell Beau]

180. Whoa! I don't think it is fair to say that most women don't educate themselves.

Epidurals don't necessarily end up in c-section. Some do, sure, but that is a woman's personal choice. Why do you assume they don't know the risks that go with an epidural. Are women stupid? Some people have extremely low tolerances of pain. And some births are more painful than others. I think that statement is very unfair. Because someone chooses a different way, they must not know the risks? No, I am not buying it. I know many who didn't plan on having an epidural. But when you are in so much pain, you change your mind quickly.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Why take the chance? Makes no sense. nt

[Kali]

13. Uh, because a normal birth is a natural process, not a medical procedure.

Makes a hell of a lot of sense, actually.

[TZ]

33. Ummm you realize that infant and mother deaths from birth trauma

is highly "natural" too? Birth is one of the riskiest and most stressful of the "natural" biological processes.
Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it safe. Or we all would be drinking snake venom..:eyes:

[Kali]

118. You are correct about the risk and stress.

Indeed you are correct with the general sentiment that "natural is not proof of safety" but you also seem to be blind to the possibility that there are also serious risks to the "unnatural" method. I think the study has something to say, it is a pretty big sample and there have been others. Choice is a good thing. The infant mortality record in this country is nothing to brag about anyway. Please don't contribute to the hysterical atmosphere of fear that eliminates the choice for those who want to birth at home. I have an emotional anecdote that could counter yours - we both know that is not scientific. It is part of what drives choice.

[Iris]

203. well-said.

[Lyric]

36. Everything that our bodies do is a natural process.

I bet the people on beta-blockers have no complaints about Eeeeeevil Medical Technology interfering with the way that adrenaline reaches their beta receptors, thus making their hearts work more efficiently and with less strain. My aunt has no beef with her synthetic insulin injections interfering in the "natural" process of diabetes. My Mom was quite happy to welcome the unnatural cardiac stents that helped hold open her coronary arteries that were "naturally" too narrow and blocked by the natural cholesterol that her liver naturally produces too much of on its own. I can personally attest that I was grateful as hell for the unnatural synthetic opiate pain injections that helped relieve the natural pain of a kidney stone passing.

"Natural" is a meaningless term.

[Kali]

119. so everybody should just go have a bunch of medical procedures

because they are an improvement over nature?:shrug:
Look, I'm not rejecting modern medicine, but let's be honest it works a lot better for acute conditions and trauma than it does for a lot of other problems people face. Sometimes the shiny new drug/technology just isn't the tool needed. In the case of birthing it clearly isn't needed (or wanted!) by every woman. Why can't they have the choice?

[NNN0LHI]

126. Tobacco is "natural" too

Isn't it?

Don

[NashVegas]

20. Assuming Low-Risk, Only

With a cost of 6-10k for uncomplicated births, home-delivery begins to make sense. Mind you, you're going to have nurse/mid-wives or a doctor on hand, but it's still considerably less. Also, the chances of cesareans go up when you plan for a hospital, as doctors prefer it as means of controlling their schedules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. I was born at home. Mom was 48 AND high-risk.

Really, I'm alive by sheer luck.

[Iris]

17. according to the medical establishment, yes.

But I have several relatives that were born under circumstances similar toyours.

[supernova]

19. No way I could have gone for home birth

I have congenital heart disease, so I'd definitely have to have been in a hospital setting, for prepared childbirth, at least, if I had had children.

But, I think for normal healthy women with no complications and a normal pregnancy, it could be very great to have a home birth.

[Voice for Peace]

24. I had three home births. I wouldn't do it any other way.

I think the risks are higher in hospitals but I don't know any statistics. I just knew I wanted to be at home to give birth, surrounded by friends and competent midwives/birth assistants.

[NashVegas]

29. I Think The Risks Are Variable

On one hand, if there are any complications a mid-wife can't handle, of course a hospital will manage better.

The other side of the coin, for low-risk women, is less risk of exposure to infection, I'd suspect.

[Robb]

26. My sister's second pregnancy was in the Netherlands

...And the reaction at the hospital was kind of, "Why would you want to come here? Are you sick?"

That said, when all went well and my niece was born, they scooted her out pronto. Like just a little too pronto... as in they acted put out when my brother-in-law insisted they stay there until he could run home and get the infant seat for the car to take the new one home in. Because no one there thought it was a big deal to just carry the kiddo on a lap on the highway.

Of course, knowing what I do about the Dutch, they were probably surprised he didn't ride his bicycle there. :D

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. In my second and last pregnancy I was considered high risk because of my age

and that I had a c-section with my first. I decided to do natural the second time around and although the pregnancy was without any incidents I thank goodness I was in a hospital. I went into the last stage of labor very fast, and my son had the cord around his neck. They knew he was in trouble because of the fetal monitor. I delivered him in three pushes but he wasn't breathing. We were so lucky that there was a doctor there to siphon out his lungs.

[hedgehog]

34. Statistics are statistics and are correct in the long run, but in the short

run, why take the chance? I had excellent pre-natal care, monthly visits for the first two trimesters, weekly exams at the end,passed a glucose challenge, no anemia, everything perfect, normal labor and then, just before crowning, my fourth child was in extreme distress and had to be delivered with instruments. He was a little blue and spent a few hours in the critical care nursery, then he was fine. The point is, when things go bad during labor and delivery, they can go very bad very quickly.

Hospitals have listened to mothers and have changed their procedures for labor and delivery tremendously in the last 30 years. They're no where near perfect, of course. For one thing, a one size fits all two day stay after giving birth is foolish. Some mothers are ready to hop off the delivery table and walk home with the baby, others could use a few days rest. I've been in both places at different times. Increased use of nurse -practitioners and/or midwives for pre-natal care and delivery might be a good way to ensure good care at a lower cost. I'd still want hospital facilities and a doctor as back-up.

[Stuckinthebush]

35. No way, no thanks

My first daughter was a low risk pregnancy. An emergency c-section was needed because of the lack of oxygen to her brain due to a wrapped cord around her neck.

Had we not been in a hospital, my daughter may not have survived.

I know that it works for some, but why take the chance?

[Shell Beau]

53. I wouldn't chance it. Things can decline fast while giving birth.

It happens all of the time. Very normal and healthy pregnancies can turn into emergencies too quickly. I wouldn't dare take the chance.

[jwirr]

37. I was born at home in 1941. The doctor just made it in time. That was

more or less a practice then.

[MrCoffee]

40. We seriously considered home birth for our second...but in the end

neither of us wanted to clean up afterward.

[stellanoir]

47. I had my only child at home.

It was a wonderful experience and I wouldn't have done it any other way.

I had three really attentive midwives who provided weekly care when I traveled to them. Then for the last month they made weekly house calls.

The birth went beautifully with one really minor exception. When the midwives arrived they presumed as a first time mom, my labor would probably be longer than it actually turned out to be. One of them insisted that I eat something to keep up my strength. I said, "okay I'll have a slice of watermelon." She said, "and a banana." I acquiesced and wasn't able to hold that banana down for very long at all. So I sipped some heavily iced Recharge which is the health store version of Gatorade in order to keep my electrolytes up.

The midwives came to my house two times during the first week after giving birth and weekly for three more weeks to insure that my son was thriving and that I was adjusting well. They all lived about 50 miles away.

They gave me all that care and attention for a mere $1500. That was nearly 18 years ago.

I did have an examination and sonogram during the second trimester with a western neo natal doc mostly to allay the concerns of my more traditional relatives. He fully approved of home births. In fact, he specialized in attending water births. He said that more than 90% of potential complications present themselves long before birth though there are sometimes exceptions to that statistic.

Some of the people in my life remarked that I had been so brave to have my kid at home.

Well, we all know that there is a very fine line between bravery and foolhardiness.

But I would say, that I know my self. I harbor a very bad attitude towards large institutions and having not had many healing experiences through any treatments that weren't of an alternative nature, I probably would have messed things up in a hospital.

Sure I know that Western allopathic medicine serves the vast majority of folks quite (or relatively) well. Sometimes it's also catastrophic.

Drugs and surgery are not always the most appropriate treatment IMHO.

Or, as my midwives and my neo natal doctor all said. "Hospitals are for sick people. Pregnancy is a condition. Not a disease."

Flame away.

A home birth worked really well for me and my boy.

toodles and ladies please try to avoid the plethora of often unnecessary C Sections, based solely on scheduling, that have invasively ensued since then.

Peace & have great babies if you so desire.

Different conditions work better for different people, and there are very few absolutes having to do with birth, life, or death.

[shanti]

85. kudos

from one home birth mom to another..:) mine were in the early 80's and i had two CNM's to assist. it was a beautiful experience. my sister and mother watched (sis twice), and mom is an RN. she was dubious, but everything turned out fine, and they went very quickly 2-3 hours for each one. they were both in the correct position too. now....my first and last births were in the hospital and both boys were posterior (sunny side up), which takes MUCH longer and is more painful.

my sister often says how much she admires me for going thru the homebirths, but to me, it's no big deal :shrug: all of her four were cesareans...

[K Gardner]

101. I had one child at home and wish I had borne all three that way. The two I had in the hospital were

nightmare scenarios. Not for everybody, I agree, but it was by far the easiest and most pleasant out of all three.

[Spike89]

49. Selection error blurs the point being made here

Basically, we have a study showing that the healthiest and "safest" birthing group is dying at the same rate as the "at risk" group! This does anything but prove the point that home birthing is as safe as hospital birthing--the study shows the opposite is most likely true.

If I encourage the very best fire jugglers to juggle in a dried out forest setting, and sent the worst fire jugglers to a heavily watered island. Later, I find juggling-related fires to be basically equal in both groups, I don't think anyone would leap to the conclusion that dried out forests were just as safe as wet islands for juggling fire.

Once you pre-select, you simply can't then compare the groups and draw any valid conclusions.

[Kali]

190. huh?

both groups were low risk

[Fireweed247]

61. U.S. Ties Slovakia, Poland for 29th Place in Infant Deaths

"The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than rates in most other developed countries," note CDC researchers Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, and T.J. Mathews. "The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening."

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20081015/infant-mortality-us-ranks-29th

[uppityperson]

70. There is no one right answer for everyone, for every pregnancy.

Being informed about choices and having an advocate, or 2, with you is a good thing.

[FLAprogressive]

71. I wonder how home-birthed, circumcised, breastfed, vegan babies turn out.

Someone on DU should do a study. :popcorn: :P

[Spike89]

74. born in close proximity to second-hand smoke? n/t

[FLAprogressive]

77. or an Olive Garden.

[nonconformist]

76. I had all 3 of my kids in a hospital

All vaginal births, the last two totally natural (no drugs). OW.

While that was my choice based on many factors, I totally agree that for low-risk women with excellent prenatal care and a competent midwife, homebirths are as safe as hospital births. Any midwife worth her salt is totally prepared to handle small problems and has a plan in place for quick transfer to a hospital if the need arises. Birth is a natural process... serious problems are actually pretty rare in healthy women. Infant mortality isn't just affected by the advent of hospital births with many interventions... it's also a result of prenatal care awareness and screening.

As for the c-section rate in the US (1 in 4), studies have shown that many of them are NOT necessary. Many are scheduled at the request of the mother for whatever reason, and many others are the result of unnecessary interventions at the hospital. Some ARE necessary, of course, but many are not and studies have proven this.

[shanti]

83. guess i can vouch for that

having had two (out of four) unmedicated home births. of course, i was low risk, or i'd never have done it.

[DefenseLawyer]

84. Sure, unless something goes wrong

Oops sorry, we can't rush your baby into surgery in the kitchen. Better luck next time.

[Oregone]

97. But even when something goes wrong, and thats included in the statistics, it comes out as safe...

Also check out:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/3/315

Canada does quite a few studies on it, since their medical systems pays for (and encourages) midwifery (and you have the option to homebirth or hospital birth even if you choose a midwife).

Most of the time, when immediate surgery is needed, its often known prior to a birth. Hence, it wouldn't be a homebirth. They aren't going to have a woman give homebirth if there is teratology of the fallot or some other dire condition in the infant.

[Warpy]

88. Normal births in healthy women would have the same statistical

outcome no matter where they happened. However, once you start to throw in the myriad complications, that's where the hospital births rack up impressive safety records over out of hospital births.

The main advantages a hospital offers over a home birth are epidural anesthesia for the mom and the availability of a physician and operating room should something start to go terribly wrong.

[Blue_In_AK]

89. I had all three of mine at home, no problems

All beautiful experiences that I wouldn't trade. I guess it's not for everyone, though For me, it just made sense.

[Taverner]

90. Its safe until...something terrible happens

Breach delivery for example

Home births are like driving without a seat belt

[Iris]

152. The same could be said for many births in hospitals.

A lot of people give up all control and just trust that they have a doctor and/or nurse who knows what he's doing.

[Taverner]

153. Yes - you are absolutely right

But at least in the hospital, the right tools are available

The same cannot be said for the home

[davsand]

92. I'm glad to see women offered information so they can make informed decisions.

I can't tell you how happy I am to see information out there like this study that offers women a better level of understanding when they have to make this kind of decision. It was not terribly long ago that they put women to sleep to have babies--let alone discussed options like home birth. As it is, there is an enormous pressure on women to "perform" well as a mother--to the point that making any decision is a very complicated thing to navigate.

I had my kid in a hospital with all the wires, tubes, and whatnot. She did end up as an Emergency C-section, and at the time I was heartbroken that it went that way. (I dunno why I was so surprised, in retrospect, given the fact that I was a high risk pregnancy with a lot of issues from about 20 weeks on.) I felt like I was somehow a failure that I was unable to have my baby "normally."

I had a perfect little baby girl who was healthy and I somehow felt I'd let her and myself down. My baby was a low birth weight, and I felt like a failure that my body could not carry a baby "correctly." My baby failed to "latch on" effectively and I had to pump breast milk to feed her. I felt like a failure for THAT too. I only pumped breast milk for one year and then had to wean her because I was having a bunch of tests that would have made my milk unsafe for her--that was another failure...

My kid is now 11 and she comes home upset about the social stuff at school. I feel like a failure when I can't help her navigate that social scene. I'm probably gonna feel like a failure when she gets her heart broken and when other life things come up.

I have FINALLY realized that there are NO right answers for any of us.

Being a parent is one huge opportunity for guilt and the reason for that is because ALL of us are just trying to get it right. We love our kids and we want to do everything we can for them to make life safer, saner and happier. It only begins with pregnancy and delivery.

If studies like this one give moms more ammo to make informed decisions then I am ALL for it. If discussions like this one mean that fewer moms are gonna feel they have to do anything a specific way--then this is time well spent. If this all finally means that there is one less thing to feel guilty about then I call Hoo YA!!!!


Laura

[NashVegas]

128. Thanks So Much For Posting

I'm so sorry you felt to blame for any of your body's weaknesses that you couldn't control.

(ps - I think hearts need to break a little in order to grow, FWIW)

[CTyankee]

132. What is this "failure" idea? It's ridiculous and should be stamped out!

Both my daughters had problems with first baby breast feeding. My older daughter was able to breast feed more easily with the second and third child. My younger daughter has only her one child. I had had problems with feeding my first child (of three). I think it is because we are all of very fair skinned Anglo Saxon and Celtic (Scot and Welsh) bloodlines. Our skin is very sensitive. First time breast feeding was extremely painful and not successful.

I said to my daughter that the baby would survive just fine if he/she had formula and would benefit from extra milk they expressed. And it was true. No damage resulted in their subsequent lives.

I know this is not a breastfeeding thread but I'm just a little disgusted tonight with putting guilt on women. What a useless, stupid thing to do to them...we should be HONORING women for their heroic childbearing and childcaring, not picking them apart for their needs (many not chosen by THEM) and their choices....

[RayOfHope]

143. Pumping for an entire year is AMAZING, you know that don't you?

Seriously, most women that breastfeed, let alone pump, come nowhere near that. You should be hugely proud of yourself for that.

[davsand]

171. I did it one day at a time and I did it by being convinced it was best for her.

I can't say it was my favorite thing about having a baby, but it was what I chose to do for her. I stayed motivated by reading all the studies about breast feeding and how it benefits a child. One day I'd think about the immune boost I was hopefully giving her, and the next I'd think about how maybe the breast milk might be helping her brain function a bit. It was a matter of hope for me that I was doing something positive for my child, just like every mom hopes that what she does will help her child.

Had my husband been any less supportive, I know I would not have been able to go that long, and I celebrate him for that to this day.

Having SAID all that, I honestly feel that every mom needs to make the decision about nursing for herself. Too many women get guilted into it, and that makes me feel bad for them and for their babies. It worked for us--but it was what we chose to do and what we were able to do at that point in our lives. Dunno if we could do it again, and I have no idea if it would be worth it to us to try--it is a case by case thing, and I figure that as a mom I'm one person that has the stripes to make that argument.

:evilgrin:


Laura

[uppityperson]

148. I agree very much, call pg/birth books "joke books" because while some

have "perfect" labors and deliveries, there is soooooo much variation. Same goes for parenting. You don't have to do things in a specific way, specific timetable, there is a wide variety. I am for people being better informed about that also.

Talked with a mom of a kindergartener once, upset because he was still wet sometimes at night. I'd done some research and found out 1/2 boys that age still wet at nigh regularly.

We need to talk more, share more, do the best we can, and realize that there is no one right answer for everyone all the time. And most of the answers are trial and error.

Best wishes to you and other parents

[davsand]

172. There is NO such thing as "perfect" anything when it comes to parenting.

I'd go so far as to say that "perfect" and "parenting" probably do not belong in the same sentence--maybe not even in the same paragraph! There is a huge tendency for us all to think that we are alone in this occasional guilt trip called parenting (and most days it really IS just a hoot, if you're telling the truth about it...) We do a horrible job of supporting each other, in part, because we forget that everybody else is struggling sometimes too!

I was convinced it was "better" for my baby to have a no-drugs natural birth. Dunno for sure, personally, because that was not an option for us given the medical conditions present when I delivered. Maybe she WOULD have been more alert, less "mucousy," or somehow better off had it gone according to "plan" but then again--maybe not. Seems a moot point now.

It seems to be equally wasted energy to second guess how anyone else manages their labor and delivery and how they deal with the other aspects of parenthood much beyond embracing the usual care and love of a child. Parenthood is not for the faint of heart.


Laura

[datasuspect]

94. i was born in the backseat of a greyhound bus

[DefenseLawyer]

100. Rollin' down Highway 41? n/t

[Shell Beau]

104. You are so wrong. You know that, right?

:rofl:

[Fleshdancer]

105. If I get pregnant again and if the pregnancy is healthy and normal...

then I plan on having a home birth. My body has given birth once before, it knows what to do and I would be more comfortable in my own environment.

[Ilsa]

107. Good for you! I hope it works out for you. My neighbor had a home birth

earlier this year. She didn't want to deal with the local docs and hospitals. Everything here is done for the convenience of them, not the mother or baby. She was low risk except for her age. She and the baby did great! And it was like the whole neighborhood felt magical that day.

(BTW, I knew intuitively she was going to have a girl, and she did. Several days before she was born, I knew what they would name her, even though we had never talked about it. It really was a magical experience.)

[Fleshdancer]

108. Your neighbors' reasons for a home birth mirror my own

My hospital birth was horrible and even though I know it wouldn't be the same the second time, it's important for me to take complete control of the situation...something I didn't have the first time. Plus the idea of giving birth in the same place I've nested makes sense on an instinctual level.

[RayOfHope]

131. Good for you! I hope you have an amazing home birth experience (: n/t

[BlueIris]

110. Nice to have confirmation on something some of us have known for years.

Although I would not choose home birth or choose to go the midwifery route, personally, I think the evidence has shown it is as safe (even safer) than the hospital/birthing center option.

[Raine]

112. I was delivered at home so was my brother

no problems.

[rucky]

113. We almost had one. Thank GAWD we didn't.

Everything was normal through the pregnancy and most of the labor. Then came the point where my wife was in labor and pushing for nine hours - we could see the heart monitor go up and down - until the doctor finally called an emergency c-section. If we had been at home, we would've lost our daughter for sure.

[riderinthestorm]

194. A trained midwife would have had your wife in the car and to the hospital at the first irregularity

in the heartbeat. It's not like they aren't monitoring the situation.... :eyes:

The nurse midwives who delivered mine at home were highly trained. One of them was the chief midwife instructor for Rush Presbyterian St. Luke hospital in Chicago - a major, major training hospital in Chicago. The other was from the UK where virtually ALL births are home births done by trained midwives. She'd personally delivered more than 1000 babies before she delivered mine.

They both informed me that if the baby or I were in any trouble, by law they were required to transport. Home births are pretty strictly monitored. No way do the nurse midwives want a bad delivery. Not personally, not professionally. It's in everyone's best interest that they're so cautious. They made my husband and I sign papers that we wouldn't give them a single bit of argument if they made the decision to transport recognizing that the situation can become emotional.

Fortunately, both mine went smoothly and both were delivered at home.

I was with my sister when she delivered hers at the hospital and the doctor floated in only after the NURSE informed him of a problem.

In reality, nurses are truly the ones who do most health care. I'd gladly put my life (and my children's lives) in their hands any day.

[Egnever]

116. Totally misleading headline

as as hospital assuming no complications arise....

My kooky granola sister in law tried this foolishness twice and both times ended up in an ambulance, thankfully no serious damage resulted either time but why take the chance?

She had my wife talked in to this idiocy as well thankfully i talked her out of it in favor of a natural childbirth in the hospital. which in the end turned into nothing even close to a natural childbirth on the verge of a c section.

Feel free to gamble your own life and children's lives on this foolishness I will continue to plan for all contingencies and not just hope everything works out.

[SoCalDem]

130. My friend's 10 yr old son delivered his sister

on the kitchen floor (beige carpeting) & new bedroom furniture.. Mom's no dummy:)

She went into labor, called the hospital, and sis arrived before the ambulance.. (ambulance had a snow-drift problem..January in Kansas)..

bottle of rubbing alcohol
shoe laces & scissors

he did a great job:)

of course when the ambulance did get there, they were taken to the hospital, but Greg was not allowed outside the waiting room.. he was crushed:(

Dad got threre later in the day.. he was in NY on business.

[Colonel Bat Guano]

151. Uh, use the hospital, please...

When my wife delivered our first son at the hospital, everything was great. She was in pain, they gave her meds (not enough by her reckoning, I'm going to take her word on that), the baby was delivered six weeks early.

In about six hours, the neonatal unit went from "wow, what a wonderful child!" to waking us up at three am in my wife's hospital room, telling us that our son might not live through the evening, we'd better come see him now.

His lungs were weak from being delivered early. They had to put him on a respirator and transfer him to an intensive care unit for infants at a different hospital. No one would look me directly in the eye when I asked his odds for survival. No one would say so directly, but the manner and language was clear that they didn't think he'd survive the night.

He was on a respirator for weeks. Eventually he got stronger and we could leave. Now he's eleven years old, he's the biggest kid in his class, always happy, enrolled in the gifted program. It couldn't have turned out better.

But if we did some kind of home delivery nonsense, he would have been minutes or even hours away from proper care (we were exhausted, if we had him alone, we couldn't have diagnosed lung problems). Maybe he would have died in our arms before we knew what was wrong. Maybe he would have developed physical defects or brain defects from being denied the care he did receive.

Say it's a million to one shot that you have to do this. If you lose, your kid dies. No fucking way I'd take that risk after what I've been through, and I've told expecting mothers the same when they tell me they're just going to light a candle and do it at home.

Chances are you won't need the ICU. If you do, you want it to be down the hall, not across town.

Light the candle when you get home. But go to the hospital first.

[SoCalDem]

164. preaching to the choir, here..

Out of 3 pregnancies, I had two abruptions (7 mo & 8 mo)."died" on the table with the first..

no home births at our house:)..

(my "baby" is now 30 )

[Kali]

192. I think any competent midwife would have had you go to the hospital if labor 6 was weeks early.

[Crunchy Frog]

197. No respectable midwife would attend a birth at home six weeks early.

My twins were 6 1/2 weeks early and in the NICU for 3 weeks. Of COURSE I had them in the hospital. If this had been an uncomplicated singlton pregnancy though, I would have very strongly considered going with a home birth.

[Sabriel]

136. I was a "low-risk woman."

And I had an emergency c-section for a frank breech after about 20 hours of labor.

I hate to think what would've happened if I'd been trying that at home.

[Shell Beau]

139. It would be hard to live with yourself I think.

I am not downing people who choose to give birth at home, but even if there is a small chance something bad could happen, I want to be sure that I have the best care I can have. I would hate to live with the guilt of "what if?".

[Crunchy Frog]

199. Breech position is considered high risk, and an automatic contraindication

for home birth by most midwives. If you had been planning a homebirth, you would risked out anyway.

[Sabriel]

211. The point is, we didn't know until the last minute

After I pushed for four hours, the doctor's like, "Hey, that's a butt, not a head...."

[Stargazer09]

142. I had two home births

One in Arizona and one in California, both with midwives.

LOVED the experiences! I labored in my own bed/house/bathroom, had the babies in the living room, took a shower in my own bathroom, and slept in my own bed.

Midwives are awesome!

I wanted to continue having home births, but my fourth child was diagnosed with birth defects prior to labor, and I was no longer considered "low risk." He ended up being an emergency cesarean, so home births were pretty much out of the question after that. (Not because of an increased risk to me, but because of an increased risk to the midwife.)

Unfortunately, American women in general don't like to be prepared for labor. They just expect to get an epidural as soon as the first contraction hits. I taught natural childbirth classes for eight years, and I finally gave up trying to get women to understand the benefits. It's just too easy to get an epidural these days; I remember having to fight for a drug-free birth with my first child, and I saw many doctors who wanted all of the patients to be medicated as soon as possible after labor started. Easier to control that way, I guess.

Thanks for posting this!

[JVS]

160. I expect the insurance industry to pick up on this in order to avoid providing coverage.

[helderheid]

166. Welcome to Holland!

[madmom]

169. I was born at home, my dad delivered me,55years ago, no complications. On the

other hand I had my son 36 years ago at a hospital where they let me lay for 36 hours in labor before they decided to figure out what the problem was. It turned out to be my son was to big to be born natural birth ( he was 24 1/2 inches long and 12 1/2 lbs.) If it weren't for my dad and my husband threatening to call the head of the hospital the doctor would have continued as before. Turns out the nurse told us later if I hadn't had the emergency c-section we both probably would have died. Thanks doc.

[mod mom]

174. As someone who had a 95% head size baby w complications, I disagree.

[OhioChick]

177. Screw that. One of my pregnancies was considered to be "low risk"

And I nearly died during childbirth.

[Shell Beau]

181. That is my point. Low risk can turn into high risk in an instant.

[Maine-ah]

183. my pregnancy was low-risk

it was 11 hours before I accepted an epi, all back labor. After 24 hours and 2 rounds of pitosin (sp?) I only had dilated 5cm. At one point, while in a seriously painful contraction my midwife had said...you shouldn't be in any pain, the contraction you're claiming is not showing on the machine. She didn't have me hooked up properly. I ended up in an emergency c-section, after 24 hours of labor and damn happy I had decided to have my babe in the hospital than at home.

It's still a personal medical choice. I have a friend who had her little girl at home with no complications.

[supernova]

186. Exactly,

It's a personal choice the individual mom gets to make.

I don't understand why it needs to become another competition, the home-birthers vs. the hospitalers.

[Danmel]

200. Anyone can go from low-risk to high risk in a flash

And I'd rather have a c-section I didn't need than not have one I did need.

We know a family whose son has very severe CP from an anoxic birth accident. He has no quality of life and the family doesn't either. It is a tragedy. Until the actual birth, he was very likely a normal child who would very likely have had a normal life. 10 minutes in an emergency is the difference between a healthy child and a spastic quad. I can't see any reason to take that chance.

I had two kids- both c-sections. With my first, I was in labor for 22 hours- and never got past 5 centimeters- I had a c and my daughter was fine. With my second child, I intended to have a V-bac. At 36 weeks, my doctor did a sono becuase I was VERY large, but had not gained a lot of weight. They estimated the fetal birth weight to be about 10 pounds and recommended a c since I am a small woman.

He was 7-11, but had a really big head. When they sectioned me, the cord was around my son's neck, torso and thigh. He was so tangled that had i gone into labor and had he descended head first, he could have strangled or been brain damaged.

I think I just got lucky that they over-estimated his weight. You never know what can happen in a birth- the placenta can separate in a low-risk woman, the kid can be tripled wrapped in the cord like my son was. thankfully, he is fine- almost 15 and healthy, but why take that chance?

[Iris]

202. you seem to assume women giving birth at home do it in solitude

at any rate, your acquiescence to having a c-section you don't need is your right, but this kind of hysteria over anecdotes jeopardizes women everywhere. There have already been cases of forced cesareans in this country and that's just wrong.

[Danmel]

209. No such assumption

just an understanding that low-risk doesn't mean something can't go very very wrong and that immediate access to technology can save the mother and child from death or a lifetime of disability and heartache. This isn't ordering a pizza from a new place and not liking it. And I didn't acquiesce to an unnecessary C, I just said that if faced with a choice of an unnecessary C or not having a necessary C, I'd choose the former. And do things go very wrong with medical care? Of course they do. Do they go wrong BECAUSE of medical care? Of course they do. That's the point- things go wrong. Why increase the odds that if they do, they will be worse?

I would have preferred a natural delivery with my son. But it turned out to be fortunate that I went in for a scheduled C. And it was not for my doctor's convenience, or mine. I did not have an easy recovery from my first C and wanted to avoid a second one. But I trusted that doctor completely for many reasons which I do not have to detail, but among them was his seeing me at no charge for my first trimester until my insurance kicked in. He often saw me after hours, spent plenty of time with me and all of his other patients at each visit and railed against insurance companies and being told that he should practice medicine as if he was at the Quickie mart. He was European and had a very different view of the practice of medicine.

Could I have refused the planned C? Sure. Had they ben right about the fetal weight, would I have needed a C anyway? Probably, because I am a very small woman, with a small pelvis and passing a 10 pounder would have been unlikely. And had I not scheduled and he had been choked to death, or deprived of oxygen and brain damaged, or if I had to have an emergency C with that added risk, or had I chosen to do this at home, what would have happened? Maybe iy all would have been fine, but the odds were certainly not on our side.

And that anecdote? He is a 40 year old man who cannot walk, speak, feed or toilet himself and who requires 24 hour a day care for his whole life instead of being a healthy man. Had his mother been sectioned, they may have had a much much better life. The loss of the future potential of a child is heartbreaking. Not hysterical.

[gate of the sun]

201. I had 3 children born at home 1 at age 42

would say that it is the best alternative for mom and child and best for bonding. i am very happy with my decisions. For the most part childbirth is not a life threatening condition. It can be and you can be evaluated. with my last child at age 42 I hemorrhaged and we called the paramedics as my husband was delivering. I was fine I went to the hospital and had my uterus swiped for blood clots a very painful experience but my newborn son was not touched. I value that he was not. I was willing to go through the pain of my experience to have him born free of the medical profession. HE was not shot or had antibiotics put in his eyes , he was not subjugated to bright lights he was left alone to come into this world without intervention. I know allot of people are afraid of this idea but he is 9 now and hasn't had any ill effects from his non-intervention

[Vidar]

205. With a competent midwife probably safer.

[Hekate]

208. My low-risk daughter had an emergency C-section when the cord wrapped around her baby's neck

He was showing clear signs of fetal distress when the doctors intervened.

Shit happens.

My low-risk sister had a 36-hour hard labor with her son that left her with cystocele and rectocele, among other damage. She was determined against a C-section at the time, but in later years she wished she had one, because the damage was a bitch to live with and she kept putting off the surgery that was needed to repair it.

Shit happens.

Mind you, all this was part of Mother Nature's natural process, that good old "non-medical procedure" called childbirth.

My MIL gave birth at home in Belgium with a midwife and did fine. Of course the second twin was a really big surprise, but they and she were fine. Their older brother, my hubby, was a singleton.

My mother, on the other hand, had 4 live births in a California hospital that she was knocked out for even though she would rather have stayed awake (1940s-1950s), one stillbirth, plus 2 miscarriages that she almost bled to death from.

Ah yes, Mother Nature, every woman's gentle friend.

Shit happens.

My personal choice in the 1970s was to go to La Maze classes and give birth in a hospital with a minimum of anesthetic, because I recognized even then the part that sheer luck plays in this arduous process.

And because shit happens.

Hekate

[JeanGrey]

212. Maybe this will put a dent in the rising number of

"convenience" c sections. Horrifying.