Midwives & Home birth vs. an OB & hospital ?

I live in Ontario, where midwives are regulated and licensed and
covered by health insurance - and low risk women can use midwives for
home or hospital births perfectly legally. When you are the patient of
a midwife, you do not see any doctors unless something really henky
starts to happen - in which case, the doctor is called in for a
consult, and if the problem is serious and ongoing you get transferred
over to the OB, with the midwife as support.

You should realize that midwifery managed pregnacies and births have
an absolutely STELLAR safety record here - its actually better than
the record for OBs managing similar low risk pregnancies - since women
using midwifery services end up with fewer interventions, less
surgery, less drugs, shorter hospital stays, and a much lower
complication rate. Never mind that they are very satisfied customers
and are usually thrilled with the kind of support they've gotten.

Your comment that you liked having had all kinds of tests etc. tells
me you overestimate the value of a lot of those tests in improving
pregnancy outcomes.
A lot of them - and ultrasound is a prime example - do next to nothing
in terms of changing the way things shake out in the end in terms of
healthy mom, healthy baby. Midwives here can and do order standard
tests.

Of my three kids, I had the first with an OB, the second with a
GP/midwife combination and third with midwives. All three were
hospital births (#3 was planned for home, but I developed a platelet
problem late in the game that made it prudent to be in hospital), and
I had no pain drugs at all for #2 and #3. You seem to think that not
having pain drugs is a result of some sort of martyr syndrome. I
didn't do it so I could brag about it, nor do I enjoy pain and
suffering. I did it because when I had them during my first labour, I
hated what went with them - which included a C-section which was a
direct result of the pain drugs and other interventions I had. I just
didn't want to go there again, and believe it or not, with the right
support, I did just fine with no drugs. It was quite managable, and a
very positive experience - and being able to move around and respond
to what my body was telling me to do was really amazing. Not only did
my lunatic plan to try another route result in VBACs, but I felt like
a million bucks within minutes of each birth, not drugged up and
waiting hours for stuff to wear off.

So, to each her own, but I've done it your way and I've done it the
other way, and all I can say is don't knock it until you've tried it.

Mary G.

However, I completely understand that each person has a right to their own
method, and just because I cannot identify with this, it doesn't mean it's
wrong. I just have this nagging feeling that if it were me, I'd be concerned
that I wasn't doing the best I could do for my baby. I can't help worrying
for her but I don't know why...

A great book for you to read, to understand the options better, is "The
Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth."

Statistically, it's safer for the baby to be born with a midwife than
with an OB in a hospital (assuming otherwise-equal, low-risk
pregnancies, of course -- if you have a medical condition or a pregnancy
complication, it's safer to be in a hospital). Everyone's different,
and you're certainly not *harming* your baby by going to a hospital with
an OB and drugs and all that, but your friend is statistically more
likely to have a healthy baby.

Mary S.
mom to the Sproutkin

Fia wrote:

On 11 Sep 2003 08:28:27 -0700, (Cathy Weeks)
wrote:


It was only in the last two centuries that
doctors took over birthing - and women started dying more often


This would seem to be a tough statistic to prove.


Nevertheless, it is known and there were studies, though
they were, IIRC, done in England.



I'd love to see such a study of these records, if one exists, though.


If I get the time, I'll look it up (life is really
crazy right now), but I do know one book that refers to them.
It's by William Arney (I think that's the right spelling) and
the title is _Power and the Profession of Obstetrics_. I've
got a copy kicking around somewhere, so if I get a chance I'll
post the details.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"LSU Grad of '89" wrote in message .. .
OK, this really so I will share IT


HAPPY 911 2003 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 BANG





HAPPY 911 2003




wait we all have been brainwashed with magic wtc not gone

http://www.ijamming.net/NewFiles/wtc0.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------


who said people can't fly.

people having sex in the air because they know it will
be the last time they see each other.

http://www.twin-towers.net/jumpers.htm

usa #1 song

god bless a america for bin laden to test the america
system because it needs to tested now and then to show
all that it's all ****ed up but maybe uall america
assholes will get it right at 911 #2.

------------------------------------------------------------


to the folks that lost so many of their brothers and sisters.


lost not lost just rewind the video tape and their they are.

WELL IF THE DUM STUIP FIRE BOYS DID NOT GO INTO A 600FT.TALL skyscraper
THAT READY TO FALL DOWN THEY WOULD ALL BE HERE NOW. NEXT TIME I BET YOU
THINK YOUR HEAD AND NOT WITH YOUR DICK.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAPPY 911 EVE USA HA HA HA


http://www.stanley2002.org/Images/upsdFlag.gif

-----------------------------------------------------------

Bush said Sunday night

IM A PUZ DINGO

USA A PUZ DINGO

IM A PUZ

USA A PUZ

LADEN NOT PUZ DINGO

-----------------------------------------------------------

why couldnT superman save the WTC

his viagra wore off.

SEE UALL IN 4 DAYS

CHEERS,

BIN LADEN

Naomi Pardue wrote:
Just out of curiousity, if a mother says, "No, you will NOT give me
pitocin," what happens then?

Then the bully doctor (if it is his shift) will come in and tell the woman:
"If you were my wife, that is what I'd have you do." (particularly sickening
if the woman is Muslim)

Most women just do what they're told, anyway. No amount of gently telling
the woman that she can do it will change her or the doctor's mind. It's
pretty much policy.

Jo

--
Babies are Born... Pizzas are delivered.

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
LSU Grad of '89 wrote:

risks, if only slightly. I know you don't mean to
suggest it, but your comment above really is quite
insulting in that it implies that women who choose
midwifery care and homebirth don't care about their
babies as much as you care about yours.

I didn't say that to insult anybody, I just could not identify with her
choice.
I recognize that she cares very much - she's very intelligent. I just was
wanting
to know other opinions of the midwife thing. I have *never* met anyone
before who did the midwife thing 100%.

There is some risk with epidural, yes, but there are all kinds of risks with
pregnancy in general. Historially women have died quite often giving birth,
correct?
My whole point is that wouldn't it be safer to have your bets hedged by
giving
birth in a hospital ? So far in this thread, people have quoted namless
statistics. I always felt that not naming sources was pretty lame. (not
talking about you here....)

All in all, I want to stres that my statements here were initially to try
and understand
the midwife/home/no doctors/less technology route. *Not that it is worse *
I repeat--
Not that it is worse, but that I DONT UNDERSTAND IT. Instead of getting some
kind direction from open minded people, I get attacked....?



Some midwives can write prescriptions and some can't
(depends on the kind of midwife),

Thank you.

but why would that even
matter?

It matters, because this person is adamant about not ever seeing a doctor.



You can get perfectly good non-prescription prenatal
vitamins that have everything the prescription ones do.
And if a midwife can't write prescriptions for something
that is actually needed, then she refers the woman to a
specialist who can do so.

There's the doctor...and now you begin to make sense.

So what I am saying is that I HOPE my friedn does go to a doctor if
her midwife tells her soemthing needs to be checked out better
than she (the midwife) can do. That makes sense. You see,
when she and I were having this conversation she acted as if hospitals
and doctors were evil. I just didn't understand the fervor.
Like it's a religion or something. I can definitely agree with her
decision not to have doctors strapping her to a bed and not lettign her
drink
anything for hours of labor. I agree that hospitals are barbaric in many
ways.
But I never went through that. I had a neat scheduled C-section
(not by choice).

I guess I have been thinking that hospitals were the only responsible
choice. Yes, I
had been thinking that, but alot of posts here have changed my mind, and so
I got what I came for, albeit attacked for doing so.


and sensible as long as she's having a normal pregnancy.
And if her midwives are worth their salt, if she
shows any evidence of NOT having a normal, healthy
pregnancy she will consult with an OB and will change
plans as necessary to accommodate the situation.

I guess this is where my own trust in a midwife would break down.
If I did the home birth mid-wife thing, I would want the extra assurance
that the midwife was true blue....somehow I am still a snob about this
and I want to figure out why. I think it's simple ignorance of the
professionalism
of midwives, training they receive, etc. Looks like I still ahve to work on
this, but
I am closer to overcomign my "snobbery" for lack of a better term.

I respect my friend's decision. Truly I do, it's just one of those things
where
I am having difficulty identifying with it. Maybe I am so afraid of the
natural
process of giving birth that I think the risks of a birthing disaster are
much greater
than they really are ? It may be a natural thing, but.....I have had 2
friends with
high risk births and pre-eclampsia, and it seems like the extra insurance of
havign
a birth in a hospital is worth the discomfort of a horrible hospital (metal
beds,
nurses who demand you breast feed RIGHT NOW at 2 AM and interrogate you
like they're the breast police because you defied their desire to stuff a
bottle in your helpless
babies' mouth - can you tell that I did not have a pleasant experience in
the hospital ?!?)

I definitely understand her desire to NOT be in a hospital...I just hope
that everything goes
wonderfully (and I am 99% sure it will.)

L.

"Fer" wrote in message
. ca...
repeat performance. My OB was 100% behind me. I refused to be monitored
internally, I refused drugs, I basically told them in no uncertain terms
that I was to be left alone! I was having a baby not ill! My OB came in
on
his day off to be there for the delivery of my daughter and it was a
wonderful experience! Dr. Ivey I hope you are enjoying your retirement!

Good for you ! I think in my friends' case, then, she is doing the best
thing for her.
She is not a very outspoken or defiant type, she is easily swayed soemtimes.
I agree that you have to have a strong will to fend off the hospital
vultures. I
instructed DH very carefully about what I did and did not want beforehand,
and
he was determiend to fight for it,. but when youre really tired, you tend to
let them do
what they want to you - which is why a home birth - or say a non-hospital
birth
would be preferable. You've got me thinking about our gameplan for the
post-C-section
of my next one, edd 4-28-04. I have a good OB, but you are absolutely right
that they
can switch on you and of course the OB isn't going to be there for the days
after the birth.
I had one Nazi nurse who was a total bitch to me, and anothe rwas a
fruitcake who
kept waking me up to pray/massage/chant over me (no kidding). There was only
one that
was normal and behaved professionally and with kindness. Grrr....it's all
coming back.

L.

"Jenrose" wrote in message
s.com...

"LSU Grad of '89" wrote in message
...
short time for the euphoria and less pain in the future. A c-section is
the
ultimate of this--okay, you feel *nothing* for the birth, but then you
have
to recover from major surgery. With a newborn. Yuck. Okay if you need it,
but to choose it? That's like drinking yourself drunk to cure a headache,
only to get the hangover 10-fold the next day.

Ever had one ? Ever had a C-section ? I did, it was not painful, no more
than your epesiotomy was.
I was walking the next morning, no problem. Never had any problems with it,
was able to take care of
my newborn fine. It DID affect when my milk came in, though. I think it took
5 days becaus e
I had a C-section, even though I was in labor before the C-S.

L.

"Daye" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:47:07 GMT, "LSU Grad of '89"
wrote:

Hope this isn't a flame starter, I just cannot identify with the natural
at
home no doctors thing

I am not going to flame you. If you feel this way, then you make the
decisions for your pregnancy and your birth that you feel comfortable
with. Just remember, you can't make decisions for other people.


Yes, I agree. If you read my othe rposts, I am better eduated about it now.
Unfortunatley, the way I stated my feelings was not guarded enough, and
people
take offense although none was intended. As for the pain of labor, I suppose
it
can be painful, beautiful and a wonderful experience - just like breast
feeding is
for some. I think the important thing is just what you say above - to each
her own,
and I have not made any decisions for others, I just wanted to understand it
better.
Thanks for not flaming me.

L.

It's hard to prove because he's full of crap, Fia. Can't you tell he's
constantly posting "statistics" that he doesn't back up. He's the newsgroup
equivalent of the guy wearing the sandwhich board placard with some doomsday
saying on it. I ignore him.

L.


"Fia" First in April wrote in message
...
On 11 Sep 2003 08:28:27 -0700, (Cathy Weeks)
wrote:

It was only in the last two centuries that
doctors took over birthing - and women started dying more often

This would seem to be a tough statistic to prove. Birth and deaths
were required to be registered (in the US) until 1912. Some
localities had local laws, but the federal requirement to document
these events and their causes is less than a hundred years old. Other
countries have similar timelines for such documentation, although it
varies by a few years.

One could do a study of cemeteries and church records to get an idea
of what the rate was before other records exist, but even then your
coverage isn't going to be statistically accurate enough to make such
generalizations. A church record will simply document that a child
died when it was only a few hours/days old and that its mother died at
about the same time. Still births were recorded sproadically, and was
highly dependent on the religon of the family. Whether or not a
doctor, midwife or some other support was present wouldn't be in
either church or funeral records. Nor would be the cause of death,
which could have been from something entirely different than
childbirth with incredibly unfortunate timing.

I'd love to see such a study of these records, if one exists, though.

--
Help the women of Afganistan
http://www.rawa.org/

"You despise me, don't you?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."