wrote:
Bryna wrote:

I agree that it's not uncommon (I used an OB for my first birth --
never again!) but it can't simply be because of office hour concerns.
Many midwives run practices that are identical to OBs, but are
nonetheless able to "wait it out" with the woman in labor, often by
having group practices where one midwife is "on call" for office
visits, while the others attend laboring women. OBs, in my experience,
just have a different standard of care. If you want someone to be with
you during labor, use a midwife.

As noted in my post, many (most?) OB's have group practices too, to
allow some docs to be in the office while others are at the hospital
for labors and deliveries.

I'd guess that a bigger difference (allowing the typical midwife to
spend more time with the laboring woman) is simply the size and scope
of the practice. Midwives have fewer patients (and since they usually
only handle childbirth they DON'T also have patients with gyn-related
concerns), and are able to plan their schedule so that they won't have
more than a few women due any single week. I'm sure that when OB's are
hanging out in the hospital anyway, they aren't just sitting in the
doctor's lounge watching Oprah while waiting for Mrs. Jones to crown.
They are tending to the other 5 women who are in labor at the same
time, being called down to the ER to check on OB/GYN-related cases,
doing emergency c-sections, and much more.

Naomi

I guess I see that as a standard of care issue -- they schedule more
patients (therefore making more money) because they intend to spend
only a minimal amount of time with a laboring woman, which is SOP as
taught in medical school. For women with a separate support system, or
who don't need or want that type of "hand-holding," it can be a fine
set up. If, however, one wants more personalized attention during
labor, I would still recommend a midwife.

Bryna