reputable homebirth info/stats needed

Elfanie wrote:

Except I don't think most people who plan to birth unassisted do so
while looking for an assistant..

Agreed, assuming we're talking about folks who are
not birthing unassisted due to lack fo resources.

I believe that most people who plan to birth unassisted would birth
unassisted even if there was a midwife living next door to
them....that most who plan an unassisted homebirth are CHOOSING an
unassisted homebirth, not taking the lesser of two evils (unassisted
or hospital) due to the lack of midwifery assistance available....

I'd be very curious about this, though I doubt there's
actual research. I know some who've chosen unassisted birth
because they fundamentally believe in in and others who'd
have preferred an assisted birth with the right sort of
care provider but were unable to find that person. In my
personal experience, the latter are more common, but my
personal experience may well not be representative. Also,
I now live in a state were DEMs are illegal, which may well
cause more of this sort of thing.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Donna Metler wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
news

I dunno, but that doesn't sound like a resounding
endorsement of our maternity health care system.
Sounds to me like what is seen in the movies is
actually pretty close to the norm.


Or, that only women who were dissatisfied and didn't get what they wanted
participated in the survey. Or that they surveyed women of a range of ages,
instead of what is happening NOW.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of the women
*were* satisfied with their birth experiences. That's one
of the interesting paradoxes in the study that deserves
much attention. The women did not get what they *wanted*
and many acknowledge that they were not sufficiently
informed (and more appear to have been less informed than
ideal without acknoledging it directly), and they received
many medically unnecessary interventions, but they were
still pleased with the experience. In my experience, this
rings completely true. Women who've had the most harrowing
birth experiences that were almost certainly the result of
interventionist policies frequently do NOT attach any blame
to the care providers. Instead, they rationalize and believe
that their care providers *saved* them from a terribly
freak of nature situation. I think there are lots of reasons
for this that make a lot of sense, but find it very ironic.

Surveys are one of the most easily biased form of data, but usually are the
best we have when dealing with human beings.

Well, there are lots of ways to approach these things,
and different methods have different strenghts and weaknesses
and are more appropriate for different parts of the research
process. I tend to think that surveys are quite useful for
scoping out a problem, but you usually have to go beyond
surveys to get actual explanations. What I think this survey
does is paint a picture that highlights several areas of
serious concern with maternity care in the US, but much more
needs to be done to get real explanations and solutions.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:18:13 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:

Daye wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:41:09 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:


The first country to give women the right to vote


Aussies claim that too. I wonder if this part of the NZ = part of
Australia thing?


Woman received the right to vote September 19, 1893. Australia gave
woman the right to be elected to Parliament first..

Of course Australia did not exist until federation in 1901, but IIRC
Victoria gave women the vote before NZ (as did one or two US states).
So there are arguments in favour of both, but NZ was teh first whole
country to do it!

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

emilymr wrote:

I think there are plusses and minuses for both systems.

Of course. All systems ration care. The question is on
what basis they ration care. In the US, care is rationed based on
ability to pay. With universal coverage (whether gov't provided
or single payer) care is rationed typically based on medical need.
In general, how one weighs out the two systems often depends
on which rationing system would affect one personally ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 01:46:21 -0800, "Jenrose"
wrote:


I keep telling my family that if the US keeps getting more wacko, we should
move to New Zealand. It's always seemed like a much saner place.

Well, as I commented on livejournal today, if one of you have a
bachelor's degree, you'd probably qualify to emigrate!

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

"In general, how one weighs out the two systems often depends
on which rationing system would affect one personally ;-)"

Exactly -- and unfortunately, IMO.

Em
baby boy, due Nov. 18

On 3 Nov 2004 08:28:09 -0800, (Cathy Weeks)
wrote:
There are problems either way... Here's it's more expensive
out-of-pocket, but it's much easier to get what you want (though not
in childbirth - we ARE backward). There it's less out of pocket, but
access is harder in some ways.

What is always missed in these discussions is that we also have the
same option you guys do. We can go write a cheque (or claim on our
insurance, increasing numbers have it as an employment benefit these
days) to jump waiting lists or get non-essential treatment and people
frequently do. We have the same choice you do in that regard *but*
for the most part we don't need it because our taxes pay for treatment
which is free at the point of need. The big difference is *everyone*
qualifies for that treatment, not just those with good insurance,
regardless of whether they can pay or not. Oh and we pay a heck of
lot less in extra taxes than insurance seems to cost (because even if
your employer is paying it for you, its costing you)!

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

Buzzy Bee wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 01:46:21 -0800, "Jenrose"
wrote:



I keep telling my family that if the US keeps getting more wacko, we should
move to New Zealand. It's always seemed like a much saner place.


Well, as I commented on livejournal today, if one of you have a
bachelor's degree, you'd probably qualify to emigrate!


/writes to parliament to quickly tighten emigration laws

**** off there are enough people here, you all stay away or I'll be at
the airport beating you back with sharp sticks.
Elections soon and all may change, there's a big push for tighter
emigration laws so be warned ;-)

Andrea

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Buzzy Bee
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:18:13 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:
Daye wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:41:09 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:
The first country to give women the right to vote

Aussies claim that too. I wonder if this part of the NZ = part of
Australia thing?

Woman received the right to vote September 19, 1893. Australia gave
woman the right to be elected to Parliament first..

Of course Australia did not exist until federation in 1901, but IIRC
Victoria gave women the vote before NZ (as did one or two US states).

Okay, I live in Victoria, so maybe that is why I hear the claim. When
they say "we" they obviously mean Victoria rather than Australia.

Thanks for clearing that up!


--
Daye

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:40:05 +1300, "Mum of Two"
wrote:

"Daye" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:41:09 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:

The first country to give women the right to vote

Aussies claim that too. I wonder if this part of the NZ = part of
Australia thing?

Aussies also claim the Pavlova and Russel Crowe. Take their claims with a
grain of salt ;-)

Well, Russel Crowe did act in Australia, and he currently lives in
Australia. So he is at least part Aussie.

However, I have heard people claim NZ films as "Australian". That is
why I asked if it was part of the "NZ = part of Australia" thing.

When I corrected something that a film was actually from NZ, their
answer was, "Well, NZ is part of Australia. Close enough." I felt
like beating them and saying, "NZ is another country. It isn't part
of Australia!!!!" But being a good American who lives in Australia, I
didn't.

--
Daye