home birth

-L. wrote:
experience pregnancy and childbirth. Worrying about what type of birth
to have seems silly and incidental to many of us who are Primary
infertiles.

Ummmm... so those of us who are lucky enough to not have to deal with
infertility shouldn't discuss, and make those decisions? It's not
silly nor incidental, and given what you say below - you don't really
think it's silly or incidental either (that it's ****ing nuts to have a
birth outside a hospital).

Personally I think anyone who takes the risk of homebirth is ****ing
nuts. But hey - that's just me.

This is merely showing your ignorance of the actual statistics
surrounding birth. For those of us who were lucky enough to have an
low-risk uneventful pregnancy, home birth is JUST as safe, and in some
ways SAFER than hospital birth.

The rate of healthy babies is roughly the same as in the hospital, but
the rate of healthy mothers is actually higher at home. No unnecessary
episiotomies, no unnecessary abdominal surgeries, etc.

So for me, my own opinion is that unless the hospital is indicated due
to a high-risk nature of a particular pregnancy, why would I want to go
where there are lots of sick people, and risk my own and my baby's
health by putting us near those sick people, or risking putting myself
at risk of unnecessary surgery, and other interventions that might
actually risk my or my baby's health?

In reality, I think a woman should - given a low-risk pregnancy be able
to choose where she is most comfortable - at home, in a birth center,
in a hospital, and that a state and insurance companies should not put
undue burdens on mothers, thus virtually eliminating the ability to
make that choice. In Missouri, where I'm from, all home-birth midwives
must have an OB backup. You know how many OBs are willing to back up
midwives? Not very many. OBs don't trust midwives, and besides,
midwives are often competitors. Insurance companies often refuse to
cover home births, despite the lack of evidence for their danger. In
2001, my home birth cost $3500. Not many women can afford that kind of
expense, thus virtually eliminating it from their options. I was
fortunate to give birth in NJ, where home birth is relatively easy to
come by - my midwives actually helped state legislators draft
legislation protecting home birth, etc. I believe the laws there
require licensing the midwives, thus ensuring women get trained
attendants.

Cathy Weeks

Cathy Weeks wrote:
-L. wrote:
experience pregnancy and childbirth. Worrying about what type of birth
to have seems silly and incidental to many of us who are Primary
infertiles.

Ummmm... so those of us who are lucky enough to not have to deal with
infertility shouldn't discuss, and make those decisions? It's not
silly nor incidental, and given what you say below - you don't really
think it's silly or incidental either (that it's ****ing nuts to have a
birth outside a hospital).

I think it's silly and incidental enough not to make a fuss whether or
not you can have one. I mean, seriously. If that's all you have to
worry about, you've got it easy. "Oh woe is me! I can't birth at
home! Whaaaa!!!!!" Please - spare me.



Personally I think anyone who takes the risk of homebirth is ****ing
nuts. But hey - that's just me.

This is merely showing your ignorance of the actual statistics
surrounding birth.

I don't believe any of it - you (generic) can make stats say what you
want. I did it for years.


For those of us who were lucky enough to have an
low-risk uneventful pregnancy, home birth is JUST as safe, and in some
ways SAFER than hospital birth.

The rate of healthy babies is roughly the same as in the hospital, but
the rate of healthy mothers is actually higher at home. No unnecessary
episiotomies, no unnecessary abdominal surgeries, etc.

So for me, my own opinion is that unless the hospital is indicated due
to a high-risk nature of a particular pregnancy, why would I want to go
where there are lots of sick people, and risk my own and my baby's
health by putting us near those sick people, or risking putting myself
at risk of unnecessary surgery, and other interventions that might
actually risk my or my baby's health?

Hummm....Maybe - just maybe - because if something does go wrong you
have a team of well-trained medical professionals seconds away and not
minutes or hours away? It's not rocket science.


In reality, I think a woman should - given a low-risk pregnancy be able
to choose where she is most comfortable - at home, in a birth center,
in a hospital, and that a state and insurance companies should not put
undue burdens on mothers, thus virtually eliminating the ability to
make that choice. In Missouri, where I'm from, all home-birth midwives
must have an OB backup. You know how many OBs are willing to back up
midwives? Not very many. OBs don't trust midwives, and besides,
midwives are often competitors. Insurance companies often refuse to
cover home births, despite the lack of evidence for their danger. In
2001, my home birth cost $3500. Not many women can afford that kind of
expense, thus virtually eliminating it from their options. I was
fortunate to give birth in NJ, where home birth is relatively easy to
come by - my midwives actually helped state legislators draft
legislation protecting home birth, etc. I believe the laws there
require licensing the midwives, thus ensuring women get trained
attendants.

So you want the tax payer to fund a "whole 'nother" level of birthing
"professional" which is redundant. I see.

-L.

In article . com, -L. says...


Cathy Weeks wrote:
-L. wrote:
experience pregnancy and childbirth. Worrying about what type of birth
to have seems silly and incidental to many of us who are Primary
infertiles.

Ummmm... so those of us who are lucky enough to not have to deal with
infertility shouldn't discuss, and make those decisions? It's not
silly nor incidental, and given what you say below - you don't really
think it's silly or incidental either (that it's ****ing nuts to have a
birth outside a hospital).

I think it's silly and incidental enough not to make a fuss whether or
not you can have one. I mean, seriously. If that's all you have to
worry about, you've got it easy. "Oh woe is me! I can't birth at
home! Whaaaa!!!!!" Please - spare me.

This is just you wanting attention.

Banty

-L. wrote:

I think it's silly and incidental enough not to make a fuss whether or
not you can have one. I mean, seriously. If that's all you have to
worry about, you've got it easy. "Oh woe is me! I can't birth at
home! Whaaaa!!!!!" Please - spare me.

Spare you? Well, you *did* jump into the conversation. If you don't
like the discussion then why did you take part? Just because the topic
causes you pain due to your own situation, doesn't mean it should be
discussed at all, or that people should strive to make their situation
better.

I don't believe any of it - you (generic) can make stats say what you
want. I did it for years.

Uh, ok. Your point is what? That anyone can make the stats say
whatever they want? Doesn't that work borth ways? The hospitals (and
you) can make it look dangerous (even if it's not?). Or are you just
not willing to accept anything that doesn't jibe with your
pre-conceived notions?

Hummm....Maybe - just maybe - because if something does go wrong you
have a team of well-trained medical professionals seconds away and not
minutes or hours away? It's not rocket science.

Hmmmmm... it may not be rocket science, then why do as many babies die
every year in the hospital as they do at home? (This is after
controlling for high-risk pregnancies). Those teams of well-trained
medical professionals cannot prevent hospital-caused infections. They
cannot prevent those occasional women who have complications from
anesthesia, and become paralized from the epidural, they cannot prevent
the occasional epidural from not taking so that the mother can FEEL her
abdomen being cut open (Just google Sophie Macgehee over at
misc.kids.pregnancy about that one). Hospitals aren't panaceas for
birth. They do not save all babies no matter what. I very recently met
a baby whose scalp was cut so badly during his c-section birth that it
required stitches. Fortunately, it was in his hair, so it will not be
permanantly disfiguring. In the end, he'll be fine. But hospitals are
NOT without risks to either mother or baby. So your rocket science
comment was just plain silly.

So you want the tax payer to fund a "whole 'nother" level of birthing
"professional" which is redundant. I see.

No, I don't think you do. You see, home birth is CHEAPER than hospital
birth. In 2001, when I had my daughter, the cost of my home birth was
$3850 (normally only $3500, but I had a non-stress test at one point).
Your average hospital birth costed $7000, and considerably more for
C-sections - beginning at $10,000. Midwives have a c-section rate of
10% or less, and many hospitals have c-section rates approaching 40% -
the national average is now over 25%. You can do the math if you wish.

One of my midwives did her thesis on how homebirth saves money for the
insurance industry (her practice alone had millions of dollars for the
insurance industry). And in low-income neighborhoods, where midwives
practice (and have the same good outcomes as doctors despite lack of
prenatal care) they save the taxpayers lots of money too.

So it's cheaper, often safer, and gives a better level of care.
Midwives usually spot complications earlier in the process than do
doctors, and give more choices. But, I guess nobody ought to have more
and even better, choices. I see.

Cathy Weeks

enigma wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote in
:

Grahame wrote:
Thats true, Im sure if my child died, I would blame myself
anyway, beyond reason.
But to me thats more of an unlikely situation, than
complications of childbirth.

However, *statistically*, that's not true. If you
start
from the baseline of normal, healthy women having normal,
healthy pregnancies, then the vast majority of
complications can either dealt with at home just fine or
give enough time to transport to deal with appropriately.

out of curiousity, how much time *is* 'time to deal with
appropriately'?
i live in a semi-rural area, but there are 3 hospitals within
a 35 minute drive by car. however, in the case of an
emergency, there's the time it takes to call 911, talk to the
dispatcher, get the emergency crew dispatched (i *think* the
ambulance drivers are at the station during the day, but not
at night, but the crews would be at thier regular jobs & have
to get here too), have the entire EMT crew get to the house,
stabilize & transport... adding a minimum of 20 minutes or so
onto the trip... (i'm guessing on the time because that's how
long it took for the fire dept to get here when i had a
chimney fire. i live less than 2 miles from the station)

FWIW - part of the reason I was comfortable with a homebirth is that I
live a few blocks from the fire station/paramedics, and 5-10 mins from
the nearest hospital (depending on whether or not you hit red lights).
I specifically chose a midwife who was not hesitant about transfering
to hospital if necessary, who didn't have an anti-hospital bent (a few
midwives in the area are less inclined to transfer, altho my midwife
has only done so a handful of times in over 300 births).

Knowing I had that safety net, and was a low-risk mother, I quite
happily homebirthed. As most of you know, we *did* transfer and it was
a life-saving-measure most likely, since DD was intubated immediately
upon birth. My midwife did not hesitate to transfer once she saw
meconium - altho she decided to call 911 when she detected a strange
heartbeat, the paramedics arrived very quickly, we decided to wait a
few more minutes because the heartbeat returned to normal and I was
already pushing. Once she saw the meconium however, she decided we
needed to go immediately (she has delivered meconium babies before, but
that plus the 1-off heartbeat convinced her to go).

Will I homebirth again, given what happened last time? If I have a
healthy low risk pg, yes. I'll be nervous I'm sure, but OTOH, I feel
even more confident of my midwife's abilities now, knowing how she
handled a potential crisis situation.


on a related note, is it really that uncommon here in the US
to go into a hospital birth with a birth plan spelling out
exactly which interventions you will not allow, or things you
want done? i don't remember everything on mine, except no
drugs, no cutting the cord until all the blood drained, & thatn,
i wanted Tom to help with the delivery. it had a whole page
worth of stuff though.

I'm not a shrinking violet, but i wouldn't have wanted to argue
adherence to my plan when in labor. Even if I'd been confident with my
OB respecting my wishes, the place was full of nurses who all knew what
to do. My first OB admitted to me she rarely shows up til the very end.
While I liked her for many reasons, her reliance upon the medical model
for the sake of it bothered me. For example, tests - they were
there, you did them. No questions asked. When told I didn't want
certain tests, she really didn't not know how to handle it. Now,t he OB
who ultimately delivered DD, with whom I'd had no prior contact, was
different. She was very open and listened to my midwife, because she
knew not only had my midwife known me for 9 months, she had been with
me throughout labor and had the best sense of what was going on.
Interestingly, the nurses did not have that respect for my midwife.

But I don't like hospitals. They're for sick people. Working in health
care, and dealing a lot with nosocomial infections, I'm more apt to
stay away from a hospital *unless* I am sick. DD was in NICU for 17
days, and I am very grateful for the care they provided. I don't shun
modern medicine. It has its place, and we used it when needed.

Overall, however, I do think a homebirth is safer. And if any choose to
use my anecdotal experience as an argument against homebirth, here's a
counter one - a colleague of mine had a c-section the week before I
gave birth. Whether or not it was necessary was debatable. She ended up
with a very typical hospital acquired infection (and she's an infection
control nurse at the hospital) and was in hospital for weeks.

-L. wrote:
Cathy Weeks wrote:

I don't believe any of it - you (generic) can make stats say what you
want. I did it for years.

Here's something for you ...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19....ap/index.html

If you don't believe this article, then don't bother reading any
further.

These were very sick babies (premature) who shouldn't have been born
anywhere but at the hospital - they were in the neonatal intensive care
ward. However what they died from was a virulent infection that would
have been dangerous to ANY infant despite being healthy at birth. You
cannot truely separate the germs and the sick from the healthy in a
hospital envrironment.

You can state that having a baby outside the hospital is nuts. But *I*
can say that a) no birth, regardless of location, is without risks and
b) women should be given accurate information so that they can weigh
the risks of either location, and c) decide which risks they are most
comfortable with. Because the truth is, that a birthing woman needs to
be confortable with her decision, and trust her caregivers, because a
comfortable woman means one who can relax and concentrate on giving
birth.

I also don't think that we should accept the status quo, or that we
shouldn't strive to better our situation. Your "shut up and accept your
lot" attitude is well.... remarkably cold, and in my opinion is the
type of attitude that prevents progress toward a better place.

Let me ask you this - would you want your son, should he perceive an
unfair, and unjust situation, just look the other way, and accept his
lot in life, or would you hope that he'd struggle to fix the problem?
I'm keeping this hypothetical, because no one can ever really agree on
the appropriateness of any concrete situation, so I'm keeping it
hypothetical.

Cathy Weeks

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chookie wrote:

Of course, I have a particular attitude because I was "low-risk" right up
until the moment I had eclampsia. Even fifty years ago, I probably would have
left the hospital in a box :-/

There are certainly things that happen, though
I think people often underestimate the ability of midwives
to spot trouble and transfer as needed.

Mine missed the onset of my preeclampsia altogether, and I had to catch
the symptoms myself. By the time I transfered, I was *really* sick,
with a pressure of 220/116 and well into kidney and liver failure.

Granted, not all women with a rise of 40/20 and trace proteinuria are
going to develop severe preeclampsia, but she scheduled my next
appointment two weeks out and sent me on my merry way. It has
convinced me that some midwives do not spot that particular sort of
trouble very well.

Within a few years everyone we send to midwife care in first world
countries, i.e. 95% of the population, is going to have a stamp on her
chart reading "sFlt-1/sEng PASSED" so it probably doesn't matter all
that much.

--
C

In article . com,
says...

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chookie wrote:

Of course, I have a particular attitude because I was "low-risk" right up
until the moment I had eclampsia. Even fifty years ago, I probably would have
left the hospital in a box :-/

There are certainly things that happen, though
I think people often underestimate the ability of midwives
to spot trouble and transfer as needed.

Mine missed the onset of my preeclampsia altogether, and I had to catch
the symptoms myself. By the time I transfered, I was *really* sick,
with a pressure of 220/116 and well into kidney and liver failure.

Granted, not all women with a rise of 40/20 and trace proteinuria are
going to develop severe preeclampsia, but she scheduled my next
appointment two weeks out and sent me on my merry way. It has
convinced me that some midwives do not spot that particular sort of
trouble very well.

Wow - those were pretty much exactly my symptoms (as well as general malaise),
and, as soon as my BP was taken, the nurse turned me to my left side and ran for
my O.B.

Banty

Mine missed the onset of my preeclampsia altogether, and I had to catch
the symptoms myself. By the time I transfered, I was *really* sick,
with a pressure of 220/116 and well into kidney and liver failure.

Granted, not all women with a rise of 40/20 and trace proteinuria are
going to develop severe preeclampsia, but she scheduled my next
appointment two weeks out and sent me on my merry way. It has
convinced me that some midwives do not spot that particular sort of
trouble very well.

hang on, you had a rise of 40/20 and trace protein? and she took no further
action? I realise that rise could still put you in normal blood pressure
zone, say 140/80, from 100/60 but isn't that why they take bp each time.
Shouldn't trace protein always be investigated, I don't think that vaginal
discharge causes a positive on that, in the same way it does on white cells,
so the only explaination other than there actually is protein there is
amniotic fluid. Maybe she was right to not do anything that day, but just a
regular appointment 2 weeks later seems incredibly lax, I don't know whether
the bp was taken at an office visit or not, but the very least I'd expect
would be a 2nd bp reading a day later and if possible doing it at home in
case of white coat hypertension, and education about what signs to watch out
for and when to call etc. Did you follow up afterwards what the course of
action should have been with the changes you mentioned?

Anne

I think it's silly and incidental enough not to make a fuss whether or
not you can have one. I mean, seriously. If that's all you have to
worry about, you've got it easy. "Oh woe is me! I can't birth at
home! Whaaaa!!!!!" Please - spare me.

It's not incidental, babies die because they are born in hospital. If you
can't have a homebirth because of medical circumstances, maybe that
sometimes comes across of bemoaning the inability to have a homebirth, when
it's more the women bemoaning her own body and the loss of trust she has
maybe had in it, so let them have their woe is me moment, they may follow it
up with "I can't birth at home", though the deeper meaning may well be very
different. But if the inability to homebirth is due to lack of provision and
so on, then I'm all for a jolly good moan, if a healthy women can't choose
what she feels is the safest environment to have her baby for whatever
reason, they I jolly well think they should get on their high horse and make
a fuss.
Anne