Midwives & Home birth vs. an OB & hospital ?

Will look for the book - but do you recall if the book mentiones anything
about a VBAC at home with a midwife ? I have heard widely varying opinions
on the VBAC thing. Don't know who to beleive. Rupturing the uterus is what
they are threatening anothe rfriend with. Sh efeels so guilty about doing
another C section. They induced the first one for reasons I don't recall.
Every single induction of freiends that I remember ended up in excessive
hours of labor and fnally a C section. They just don't have induction down
yet - we will find some hormone or soemthing that they've been missing all
these years to explain the poor rate of induction success.

L.


"Mary" wrote in message
...

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

LSU Grad of '89 wrote:

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.

If you live in a state where midwifery is regulated, you can investigate
with the state her history to see if it includes complaints. You can
ask for her educational history also. Out of curiousity, is this what
you did with your surgeon? I'm not being flippant, but I think there is
a blanket trust for anyone with "M.D." behind their name. I've known
women who struggle to decide over shoes longer than they did to choose
their doctor.

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 ?

I think given your history of surgical birth, that this is a very real
possibility.

Kris

LSU Grad of '89 wrote:


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%.


It may just be your area. Midwives are not evenly
available around the country, and different states also have
different laws (CNMs are legal in all 50 states, but the laws
regarding DEMs vary). You might just live somewhere that
midwifery is less common, and therefore you have less exposure
to it.


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?


Well, yes and no. When you look at the things that
have killed women in childbirth historically, they tend to
fall into categories that wouldn't make one eligible for
a homebirth or midwifery care anyway. For instance, babies
who were transverse were extremely dangerous, and would be
now as well, but a transverse baby would risk one right
out of a homebirth now, so it's totally a moot point.
Infection killed an awful lot of women, but that's one
area where death rates for women shot *UP* when physicians
started attending births (because at that time they didn't
know to wash their hands between patients). Infection
is something that can be handled just as effectively at
home now, and staying at home reduces the risk of iatrogenic
infection (which is a not insignificant problem these days,
although medical professionals don't like to talk about it).
Basically, as long as the pregnancy proceeds normally
(and midwives are perfectly capable of determining whether
it is), the likelihood that a woman will die in childbirth
is excruciatingly low--and no higher than it is in the
hospital. In fact, to the extent that interventions like
c-sections and epidurals are used without an absolute
need for them, they drive the maternal mortality rate *UP*.


My whole point is that wouldn't it be safer to have your bets hedged by
giving
birth in a hospital ?


I know that it seems intuitively obvious that this is
the case, but study after study have shown that it isn't. And
what it really boils down to is that you're right--birth entails
some risk, no matter how you do it. The key is that there are
*different* risks with hospital and home birth. If you choose
to be at home, there is a very tiny chance that an unforseen
emergency will develop that if you don't have high tech
medical specialists and equipment immediately to hand, the
baby or mother will die. On the other hand, if you choose
to be in the hospital, you accept the chance that the baby
or mother will die *because* of some intervention introduced
in the hospital that wouldn't have been introduced at home.
While the risks are different, the *magnitude* is roughly
the same, which is why the studies show roughly equivalent
safety stats. Fortunately, mortality rates are blessedly
low whichever way you choose, but you don't *get* to make
a choice that removes the risks. You only get to choose
*which* risks you'd rather take. Some people are more
comfortable with the risk that their baby will die because
of something the hospital did, and some are more comfortable
with the risk that their baby will die because it took them
too long to get to the hospital in a transport situation.
Anyone who thinks they're eliminating the risks is just
in denial, though none of us like to think of those
possibilities.

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....)


Well, but to be fair, where are your stats that
hospital birth is safer? There are quite a few organizations
that have determined that midwifery care and homebirth are
at least safe enough that they should be available as options
for all women (e.g., the appropriate governing bodies in
England and most of the Scandinavian countries), with some
even saying that midwifery care should be the standard for
all normal births. In fact, the country that has the highest
rate of homebirths actually has *better* infant mortality
stats than the US does. The Cochrane Group has determined
that there is no evidence that homebirth and midwifery care
are unacceptable (they don't discuss the issue in their
layperson's _Guide to Effective Care..._, but they do in
the big two volume set _Effective Care in Pregnancy and
Childbirth_ by Chalmers et al.)--and the Cochrane Group
is recognized as one of the leading institutions for
evaluating evidence based medicine.
There are studies out there that show homebirth to
be less safe, but if you look at the studies themselves,
you will find seriously flawed methodologies. For instance,
some of them lump planned and unplanned homebirths together,
when in fact, the safety stats for the two are *very*
different. People arguing against homebirth often trot
out these studies as evidence that out of hospital birth
should not be allowed, but if you actually look at the
studies, the ones that are methodologically sound support
the safety of homebirth and midwifery care.


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....?


You may have inadvertently stepped into the hornet's
nest. Women who choose homebirth often find themselves
enduring thinly veiled attacks for their entire pregnancy
that often take the form that you used. Most have heard
things like, "Well, that's nice if you want it, but if *I*
had had a homebirth, my baby would be dead," or, "Why would
you want to be a martyr--enduring pain doesn't make you a
better mother," or any number of other comments that are
meant to tell them their choices are dangerous and
inappropriate. I think it's somewhat understandable that
people who've had to hear those sorts of comments for
months on end might get a bit sensitive to them. It does
get old after a while that so many people *assume* that
you'd make a choice without having any clue about whether
it was safe (though of course women who choose to do whatever
their doctors say get a pass because the assumption is that
their doctors would never tell them anything that wasn't
the best possible care).



but why would that [whether a midwife could write

prescriptions even matter


It matters, because this person is adamant about not ever

seeing a doctor.


But my point is that there's nothing in a normal
pregnancy that absolutely *requires* a prescription. You
can get prenatal vitamins without a prescription. Midwives
who can't write prescriptions simply refer clients to
a doctor when and if a prescription would become necessary.
As far as your friend being adamant about
not ever seeing a doctor, I imagine that has to be qualified
with as long as her pregnancy is normal. I rather doubt
that she would refuse to see a doctor if she went into
labor with a transverse baby and it was either see a
doctor or die. In fact, I suspect she'd even go see
a doctor if her blood pressure went up and she started
spilling protein in her urine (something that any midwife,
whether CNM or DEM would be checking for, and which doesn't
require a prescription).


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.


I'm glad you were able to look past the frenzy.
I rather suspect that your friend was as fervid as she
was simply because she's swimming against the mainstream.
While there are women out there who are so adamant that
they won't see a doctor ever, for any reason, they are
few and far between. And regardless of the woman's views,
many midwives would refuse to take on a client or continue
to provide care if the pregnancy showed signs of being
so abnormal that a homebirth would be too risky. Many
midwives would lose their licensure if they attended
high risk births. Certainly, there's argument about
precisely where these lines should be drawn, and some
midwives and clients are more conservative than others--
but then again, some OBs are more conservative than
others too!
As far as why people are so passionate about
this, I'm sure it's very hard for you to imagine given
your background. But honestly, if you had *any*
inclination in that direction and you'd experienced
homebirth, I think you'd see why. It's not just
like a hospital birth but without the interventions.
It is a qualitatively different experience. While
this difference may not matter for some women, for
others it's a pretty big deal. Birth is always a
life changing experience no matter how you do it,
and I'm not saying that women who've chosen hospital
birth are somehow "less than" because they didn't
get to experience the "whole thing," but if what
you're looking for, in addition to the healthy
mother and baby that we *all* want, is more in line
with homebirth, the experiential difference is
HUGE. It's one of those things that is virtually
impossible to describe to someone who hasn't
experienced it. That doesn't make those who choose
homebirth better in any way, but it does make homebirth
a better choice for some women in some situations when
that's what they want. And I have to say that while
I don't think hospital birth is some sort of horrible
thing, I do think it's a crying shame that we live in
a society where most women don't even have any *IDEA*
what the alternatives are, or even that they exist.
They don't know what they're missing, so they're
really denied the opportunity to even *make* an
informed choice. Even if everyone knew, there would
still be women who would choose hospital birth, and
that's fine by me, but I think it's a shame that people
don't know and that our society and media persistently
present a very biased picture that reinforces the notion
that only hospital birth is acceptably safe when that
is demonstrably untrue.

Best wishes,
Ericka





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.

LSU Grad of '89 writes:

: My whole point is that wouldn't it be safer to have your bets hedged by
: giving birth in a hospital ?

Actually, no. I tbink Ericka has explained WHY this is not the case
adequately enough, so I will let it lie.

: 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....)

Please see the list of cites for peer reviewed studies at the end of this
post. Happy reading.

: Instead of getting some
: kind direction from open minded people, I get attacked....?

As was previously explained, your post came across as an attack on the
practice of homebirth, and a personal attack on anyone who chose it.
I am glad that was not your intent.

: I guess I have been thinking that hospitals were the only responsible
: choice.

Expressing this sentiment is what you were "attacked" for because it
is itself an attack on everyone who makes a different choice.

: Yes, I had been thinking that, but alot of posts here have
: changed my mind,

I am glad. That kind of open mindedness is all we ask. :-)

: 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

OK. I have no problem with this as long as you would hold an OB to
the same high standard of accountability and require that he (or she)
show that (s)he is "true blue."

Good luck,
Larry

PS: Here is the list of cites for articles discussing the safety of
homebirth. Note that while many are US articles, there are also
articles from all over the world.


Articles on the relative safety of homebirths attended by a Direct
Entry Midwife versus those attended by an OB in a hospital:

Abernathy, Thomas J and Dontia M Lentjes
"Planned and Unplanned Home Births and Hospital
Births in Calgary, Alberta, 1984-87", Public Health
Reports 104 373 (1989)
Planned home births: 61, Control group (Hospital): 33,777.
The article does not study neonatal mortality but relies on
other measures of birth outcome (Onset of respiration,
duration of labor, gestational age and birth weight)

Burnett IN, Claude A et al.
"Home Delivery and Neonatal Mortality in North
Carolina", J American Med. Assoc. 244 2741 (1980)
Planned home births attended by a midwife: 768, Control
group (Hospital) 242,245. Neonatal mortality: 4/ 1000
(12/1000 for the control group.

Campbell, Rona et al.
"Home Births in England and Wales, 1979: Perinatal
Mortality According to Intended Place of Delivery",
British Medical Journal 289 721 (1984)
lntended homebirths 5917, no control group,
NeonatalmorLality:4.1/1000.

Cunningham, John D
"Experiences of Australian Mothers who Gave Birth
Either at Home, at a Birth Centre, or in Hospital Labour
Wards", Soc. Sci. Med. 36 475 (1993)
The article studies the reported birth experiences of mothers
electing home births and compares them with mothers
electing births in other locations.

Declercq, Eugene R.
"Out-of-Hospital Births, U.S., 1978: Birth Weight and
Apgar Scores as Measures of Outcome", Public Health
Reports 99 63 (1984)
Midwife attended home births: 9,504, Control group
(Hospital): 3,268,805. The article doesn't use neonatal
mortality as a measure of birth outcome.

Durand, A. Mark
"The Safety of Home Birth: The Farm Study", Am. J
Public Health 82 450 (1992)
Midwife attended births: 1,707, Control group (Hospital):
14,033. Perinatal mortality 10/1000 (Control group
13/1000).

Fedrick, Jean and N R Butler
"Intended Place of Delivery and Perinatal Outcome",
British Medical Journal 763 (1978)
Home births: 156, Control group (Hospital): 14,033 Death
rate 8/1000 (Control group: 13/1000) The article concludes
that hospital births are safer than home births, however it
makes no accounting for birth attendant.

Hinds, M Ward, Gershon H Bergeisen and David T Allen
"Neonatal Outcome in Planned vs Unplanned
Out-of-Hospital Births in Kentucky", J. American Med.
Assoc. 253 1578 (1985)
Planned home births: 575, Control group unspecified.
Neonatal mortality: 4/1000 (Control group: 5/1000)

Mehl, Lewis E. et al.
"Outcomes of Elective Home Births: A Series of 1,146
Cases", J Reprod. Med. 19 281 (1977)
Perinatal mortality: 9.5/1000 (Control group: 20.3/1000)

Murphy, J F et al.
"Planned and Unplanned Deliveries at Home:
Implications of a Changing Ratio", British Medical
Journal 288 1429 (1984) Planned home births: 315, Control
group: 44,52 1, Neonatal mortality: 3.2/1000 (Control group:
10.7/1000)

Schneider, Dona
"Planned Out-of-Hospital Births, New Jersey,
1978-1980", Soc. Sci. Med. 23 1011 (1986)
Planned out-of-hospital births: 775. The article uses birth
weight as a measure of outcome. It examines the
demographic makeup of women electing home birth more
than it examines outcome.

Schramm, Wayne F et al.
"Neonatal Mortality in Missouri Home Births, 1978-84",
Am. J Public Health 77 930 (1987)
Planned, professional-attended home births: 1770. Neonatal
mortality: 5/1770 (Expected 3.92/1770)

Shearer, J M L
"Five Year Prospective Survey of Risk of Booking for a
Home Birth in Essex", British Medical Journal 291 1478
(1985)
Planned home births: 202, Control group (Hospital): 185. No
perinatal deaths in either group. Other factors show home
birth outcomes better than hospital births.

Shy, Kerkwood K., Floyd Frost and Jean Ullom
"Out-of-Hospital delivery in Washington State, 1975 to
1977", Am. J. Obtset. Gynecol. 137 547 (1980)
Home births: 1614, Control group: 157,868. Neonatal
mortality: 28/1614. The article concludes that home births
are more dangerous but doesn't account for birth attendant.
Of the 28 neonatal deaths, 15 were the result of prematurity,
Of these 12 births were unattended.

Sullivan, Deborah A. and Ruth Beeman
"Four Years' Experience with Home Birth by Licensed
Midwives in Arizona", Am. J Public Health 73 641 (1983)
The article traces the decline in the number of
complications in home births with time after Arizona began
licensing midwives.

Additional more general studies comparing the safety of home versus
hospital birth.

Janssen PA. Holt VL. Myers SJ
Licensed midwife-attended, out-of-hospital births in Washington
state: are they safe?
Birth. 21(3):141-8, 1994 Sep.

Woodcock HC. Read AW. Bower C. Stanley FJ. Moore DJ
A matched cohort study of planned home and hospital births
in Western Australia 1981-1987
Midwifery. 10(3):125-35, 1994 Sep.

Sakala C.
Health Policy Institute, Boston University, MA 02215
Midwifery care and out-of-hospital birth settings: how do they
reduce unnecessary cesarean section births?
Social Science & Medicine. 37(10):1233-50, 1993 Nov.

Declercq ER.
Merrimack College, North Andover, Massachusetts
Where babies are born and who attends their births: findings
from the revised 1989 United States Standard Certificate of Live Birth
Obstetrics & Gynecology. 81(6):997-1004, 1993 Jun.

van Steensel-Moll HA. van Duijn CM. Valkenburg HA. van Zanen GE.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Erasmus University Medical
School, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Predominance of hospital deliveries
among children with acute lymphocytic leukemia:
speculations about neonatal exposure to fluorescent light
Cancer Causes & Control. 3(4):389-90, 1992 Jul.

Ford C. Iliffe S. Franklin O.
Department of Primary Health Care, Whittington Hospital, London
Outcome of planned home births in an inner city practice
BMJ. 303(6816):1517-9, 1991 Dec 14.

Mehl, L.E., Scientific Research on Childbirth Alternatives:
What It Tells Us About Hospital Practice, in Stewart & Stewart, eds.,
21st Century Obstetrics Now!, 2nd edition, Vol. 1, pp. 171-208,
NAPSAC International, Marble-IEIL 1978.

Outcomes of intended home births in nurse-midwifery practice:
a prospective descriptive study.
Murphy PA, Fullerton J
Obstet Gynecol 1998 Sep;92(3):461-470

Perinatal loss in planned and unplanned home birth. The Northern Region's
Perinatal Mortality Survey Coordinating Group. BMJ 1996;313:1306-9.

Home versus hospital deliveries: a prospective study on matched pairs.
Ackermann-Liebrich U, Voegli T, Guenther-Witt K, Kunz I, Zullig M, Schindler C,
et al. BMJ 1996;313:1313-8.

Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies
in the Netherlands. Wiegers T A, Keirse M J N C, van der Zee J, Berghs G A H.
BMJ 1996;313:1309-13.

Prospective regional study of planned home birth. Davies J, Hey E, Reid W,
Young G.
BMJ 1996;313:1302-5.

"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...

LSU Grad of '89 writes:

: I guess I have been thinking that hospitals were the only responsible
: choice.

Expressing this sentiment is what you were "attacked" for because it
is itself an attack on everyone who makes a different choice.

It's the wording of "only responsible choice" that's the problem. If it's
the only choice YOU would consider as responsible for YOURSELF, that's fine.
I chose a hospital birth for my recent VBA2C even though I could have chosen
a homebirth with a local homebirth midwife* (the only one in the area who
will attend VBACs). I also agreed to a number of interventions (continuous
monitoring, external at first, then internal; an ultrasound measurement of
my scar, antibiotics for my GBS+ status, etc.) that I felt were good choices
in my situation. However, I understand when other people make different
choices. A local woman recently had a VBA4C with the aforementioned local
homebirth midwife*.

*As it turns out, it's as well I didn't go with her as a midwife that night.
As it was, I had hired her to be my doula, and she left her pager in the
living room and fell asleep in her bedroom. I went into labor at 1am; we
called repeatedly from home and the hospital and she never called back nor
came. She didn't get the messages until the next morning....5 minutes after
my daughter was born. So I shudder to think if I'd been trying to push my
baby out for 4 hours with my legs cramping at home, and no one in attendance
because the only midwife who would attend me....made a mistake that night.
I'm not naming names because anybody can make a mistake, but I'm still glad
all the same that I was with my OB (who came in on her day off to attend me)
and not with this particular lady.

--angela

Chotii writes:

: "Larry McMahan" wrote in message
: ...

: LSU Grad of '89 writes:

: : I guess I have been thinking that hospitals were the only responsible
: : choice.
:
: Expressing this sentiment is what you were "attacked" for because it
: is itself an attack on everyone who makes a different choice.

: It's the wording of "only responsible choice" that's the problem. If it's
: the only choice YOU would consider as responsible for YOURSELF, that's fine.

You are absolutely right, Angela! However, the rest of her post clearly
implied that she thought the choice of homebirth by her friend was "unreasonable."

It is this more or less summary condemnation that I objected to.

:-)
Larry

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:11:39 +0800, "JoFromOz"
wrote:

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."

Is that when I'd get to say 'if you were my husband, I'd take it?"
(sorry, it makkes me puke too)

Hope

--
Riley 1993 c/s
Tara 2002 HBAC
http://www.babyslings-australia.com

LSU Grad of '89 wrote:

I agree. What I don't understand is why women remain immobile ? Do they
strap you down or something ? I was there when my sister gave birth - in a
hospital - and it was a "let's get this over with" experience. She just did
not feel comfortable and neither did I.

FWIW, I had a friend who was induced because she "might" be having a big
baby and had been very uncomfortable for the past week. She also ended
up with all kinds of pain drugs, plus continuous monitoring, including
an internal monitor on the baby. Plus, just to make matters worse, her
DH [who is a friend of mine too, and I like him quite a lot, but I would
not, under any circumstances, want him to attend my birth] is a medic
working on becoming a physician's assistant. Like the official staff,
he, too, was pretty gung-ho about using drugs.

My poor friend wasn't strapped down, but she was burdened with a lot of
tubes and wires and was kind of whacked out from the drugs. So she
stayed where she was told to stay and no one suggested she do otherwise.
No idea if this is what happened with your sister, but my friend's
situation is definitely one I'm holding up to myself as "don't do it
this way!"

PS: I'm sorry you've felt attacked. I've thought the posts were
reasonable, though often enthusiastic. I think this perspective and the
loyality it inspires could be pretty overwhelming to someone who isn't
familiar with it already.

Take care,
Valerie

In article , LSU Grad of '89 wrote:
I have heard widely varying opinions
on the VBAC thing. Don't know who to beleive. Rupturing the uterus is what
they are threatening anothe rfriend with. Sh efeels so guilty about doing
another C section.

Purely anecdotal, but a friend of ours and his wife did a home
VBAC, and she ruptured. They all piled into the subaru (midwife
trainee driving, husband in the front, midwife and mother
in the back) and drove to the hospital. Three hours after they
got to the hospital she made it into surgery for the rupture.

Mother is just fine, and the baby is a happy 5 yr old now. Rupture
happens, but I don't think that I would avoid a VBAC based on the
rupture risks.

Elaine

Elfanie wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:40:08 -0600, hierophant

THREE hours after? I'm shocked that she didn't bleed to death and her
baby survived without severe brain damage in that time. That's an
unbelievably long time.


That's because most people, when they hear the word "rupture", picture
a complete (catastrophic) rupture.
most ruptures are dehiscence of the scar...which is probably what she
had.

Dehiscence = split, so that's not a big deal?

Kris