For those of you who plan to have home births...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Thanks for pretending to be on the side of reason, then equating home birthing with cigarette smoking and the inaccurate "exponentially more risky." Check your facts before wading in again. thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

I also know women who have WANTED home births but who, when presented with medical information related to their specific case, chose to birth at a hospital. I know women who have planned home births and chose C-sections, based on the information they're provided. The information, in all those cases, came from their care providers (midwives AND doctors) about their own lab results, family history, ultrasound information, etc. The information did not come from and was not related to the overall general risks of birthing at home vs. hospital. A person who chooses to go with a different plan isn't going to make that decision because some hand-wringer on an anonymous message board posted a months-old study that says something is dangerous. It's a decision made in consultation with a medical professional acquainted with the facts of their specific case.

I know people who have had great births at home and great births in hospital. I personally had a great birth in a birth center. Some people felt really great about their C-sections, while others had months of lingering complications and trauma. But in the end, none of those people were taking their cues from things like this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my home births has (highly unusual) APGARs of 10 at both 1 minute and 5 minutes. that's about as useful information to you as this study.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Blah, blah, blah. I will repeat, my anecdote is about as useful as the information in this study. Do you get the point now?

Do you actually know what a study is? Do you have specific problems with the sample in this one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my home births has (highly unusual) APGARs of 10 at both 1 minute and 5 minutes. that's about as useful information to you as this study.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Blah, blah, blah. I will repeat, my anecdote is about as useful as the information in this study. Do you get the point now?

Do you actually know what a study is? Do you have specific problems with the sample in this one?

Yes I do. Did you read the link I posted earlier which outlines that this comes from birth certificate data which is notoriously unreliable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my home births has (highly unusual) APGARs of 10 at both 1 minute and 5 minutes. that's about as useful information to you as this study.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Blah, blah, blah. I will repeat, my anecdote is about as useful as the information in this study. Do you get the point now?

Do you actually know what a study is? Do you have specific problems with the sample in this one?

Yes I do. Did you read the link I posted earlier which outlines that this comes from birth certificate data which is notoriously unreliable?

Not PP but I was interested to see that the link you posted also included info that the main author of the study seems to have an agenda against home birthing. He has pushed for doctors to declare home births dangerous in the past. Hardly unbiased!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

No, you just got lucky. Fool.

BTW, since you distrust doctors so much, I assume you've ignored their advice on screen time, breastfeeding, and vaccinations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

I also know women who have WANTED home births but who, when presented with medical information related to their specific case, chose to birth at a hospital. I know women who have planned home births and chose C-sections, based on the information they're provided. The information, in all those cases, came from their care providers (midwives AND doctors) about their own lab results, family history, ultrasound information, etc. The information did not come from and was not related to the overall general risks of birthing at home vs. hospital. A person who chooses to go with a different plan isn't going to make that decision because some hand-wringer on an anonymous message board posted a months-old study that says something is dangerous. It's a decision made in consultation with a medical professional acquainted with the facts of their specific case.

I know people who have had great births at home and great births in hospital. I personally had a great birth in a birth center. Some people felt really great about their C-sections, while others had months of lingering complications and trauma. But in the end, none of those people were taking their cues from things like this post.

I think it's really creepy that we treat birth as some experience to optimize. The modifier "great" in your post makes me shudder. It's not ABOUT you. It's about the baby being delivered safely. Your need for a "great" birth is immaterial and secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

I also know women who have WANTED home births but who, when presented with medical information related to their specific case, chose to birth at a hospital. I know women who have planned home births and chose C-sections, based on the information they're provided. The information, in all those cases, came from their care providers (midwives AND doctors) about their own lab results, family history, ultrasound information, etc. The information did not come from and was not related to the overall general risks of birthing at home vs. hospital. A person who chooses to go with a different plan isn't going to make that decision because some hand-wringer on an anonymous message board posted a months-old study that says something is dangerous. It's a decision made in consultation with a medical professional acquainted with the facts of their specific case.

I know people who have had great births at home and great births in hospital. I personally had a great birth in a birth center. Some people felt really great about their C-sections, while others had months of lingering complications and trauma. But in the end, none of those people were taking their cues from things like this post.

I think it's really creepy that we treat birth as some experience to optimize. The modifier "great" in your post makes me shudder. It's not ABOUT you. It's about the baby being delivered safely. Your need for a "great" birth is immaterial and secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

I also know women who have WANTED home births but who, when presented with medical information related to their specific case, chose to birth at a hospital. I know women who have planned home births and chose C-sections, based on the information they're provided. The information, in all those cases, came from their care providers (midwives AND doctors) about their own lab results, family history, ultrasound information, etc. The information did not come from and was not related to the overall general risks of birthing at home vs. hospital. A person who chooses to go with a different plan isn't going to make that decision because some hand-wringer on an anonymous message board posted a months-old study that says something is dangerous. It's a decision made in consultation with a medical professional acquainted with the facts of their specific case.

I know people who have had great births at home and great births in hospital. I personally had a great birth in a birth center. Some people felt really great about their C-sections, while others had months of lingering complications and trauma. But in the end, none of those people were taking their cues from things like this post.

I think it's really creepy that we treat birth as some experience to optimize. The modifier "great" in your post makes me shudder. It's not ABOUT you. It's about the baby being delivered safely. Your need for a "great" birth is immaterial and secondary.

I think it's really creepy that we treat birth as an experience where the things we want are immaterial. Your suggestion that my saying I had a good experience somewhere other than a hospital means that I don't care about the safety of my baby is offensive and insulting. She was born safely. Neither of us had any complications. If there had been complications, I felt confident that the trained nurse midwives who attended her birth would have been able to handle it, but I also realize that horrible things DO happen. They're not always prevented by being in a hospital. They're not always caused by being in a hospital either. People will throw out examples of homebirths gone wrong as cautionary tales and then people will throw out examples of hospital births gone wrong to counter. What everyone refuses to accept in that argument is that both of those things are the exception, rather than the rule. Most people who have babies in hospitals do not die or have major complications. Most people who have babies at home do not die or have major complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

No, you just got lucky. Fool.

BTW, since you distrust doctors so much, I assume you've ignored their advice on screen time, breastfeeding, and vaccinations?

yes I was very lucky that I was able to birth at home and avoid a hospital. I was also very lucky that I could afford the extra expense of a homebirth and that I had good prenatal care and excellent midwives. My doctor was very supportive of my decision to have home births, as was my children's pediatrician. I certainly have not ignored their advice nor the advice of my very experienced midwives who are much more expert in normal uncomplicated birth than almost any OB, yet also experienced to recognize and diagnose complications and refer as necessary.

I'll say it again, I know with absolute certainty that most OBs in hospital settings would have responded to my perfectly natural and normal labor process with some interventions (Pitocin for example) that my body would not have reacted well to and the result would not have been good and would have reduced the possibility of an optimum outcome for both me and my baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

I also know women who have WANTED home births but who, when presented with medical information related to their specific case, chose to birth at a hospital. I know women who have planned home births and chose C-sections, based on the information they're provided. The information, in all those cases, came from their care providers (midwives AND doctors) about their own lab results, family history, ultrasound information, etc. The information did not come from and was not related to the overall general risks of birthing at home vs. hospital. A person who chooses to go with a different plan isn't going to make that decision because some hand-wringer on an anonymous message board posted a months-old study that says something is dangerous. It's a decision made in consultation with a medical professional acquainted with the facts of their specific case.

I know people who have had great births at home and great births in hospital. I personally had a great birth in a birth center. Some people felt really great about their C-sections, while others had months of lingering complications and trauma. But in the end, none of those people were taking their cues from things like this post.

I think it's really creepy that we treat birth as some experience to optimize. The modifier "great" in your post makes me shudder. It's not ABOUT you. It's about the baby being delivered safely. Your need for a "great" birth is immaterial and secondary.

This is a really complex issue and I don't think making black and white statements -- like saying that a woman should be willing to have whatever done to her in the name of "safety" or else she is selfish and doesn't care about her baby's life -- is helpful. Different people have different values and different risk tolerances. OBs have a risk tolerance profile that is very different from mine, because the average OB will do 1000 unnecessary inductions or c-sections to save potentially one baby. As one of the 999, that was not okay with me. My child was exposed to pitocin, expelled meconium because of it, and was basically blasted out of my uterus for no reason other than a doctor's greed and paranoia (he was a solo who was going out of town in a few days and wanted an excuse to induce so he wouldn't risk missing the birth). Fortunately, my baby did not suffer any other ill effects that I am aware of from this "safe" hospital birth, but I did, and I don't consider that unimportant. I will be having the baby I am currently expecting in a birth center unless I risk out of midwifery care. The bottom line is I trust my midwives to do what is right for me and my baby. I do not trust OBs any longer. I know they aren't all like that, but I trusted the one I was using until he turned on me and bullied me into an induction and then was cruel and disrespectful to me during the delivery.

Sorry to hijack with a personal experience. But if OBs are wondering why women seek out of hospital birth, they need to take a damn hard look in the mirror. (And I fucking hate the med mal attorneys who sue OBs, so they are not exempt from the wrath. Those sharks have fucked things up for everybody. And I'm a former attorney).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but how is this picking a fight? If I were planning a home birth (which I'm not), I would be interested in knowing this.

Do you really think anyone deliberately making a decision to not deliver at a hospital won't have already conducted some risk analysis? Personally, I think they're deluded, but OP's post is a bit like telling a smoker that cigarettes can kill them. The smoker knows this alread, and the woman who's decided to have a home birth already knows it's exponentially more risky.

Yawn. Take a look at the Cochrane link that a PP posted and then come back and tell us that it's "exponentially more risky". For me I can tell you with absolute certainty that a hospital would have been a more risky place for me to have had my two babies. I am certain that due to hospital "procedures" (that are about the hospital or the doctor not the patient) I would not have had the uncomplicated, drama free natural births that I had at home. I would have either had invasive induction methods or a C-section and for the second I would almost certainly have had a C-section. Much, much more "risky" than being in my own home with very experienced providers who know me and who I feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it was absolutely the right place for me to give birth. (Just like the hospital is the right place for many others).

I also know women who have WANTED home births but who, when presented with medical information related to their specific case, chose to birth at a hospital. I know women who have planned home births and chose C-sections, based on the information they're provided. The information, in all those cases, came from their care providers (midwives AND doctors) about their own lab results, family history, ultrasound information, etc. The information did not come from and was not related to the overall general risks of birthing at home vs. hospital. A person who chooses to go with a different plan isn't going to make that decision because some hand-wringer on an anonymous message board posted a months-old study that says something is dangerous. It's a decision made in consultation with a medical professional acquainted with the facts of their specific case.

I know people who have had great births at home and great births in hospital. I personally had a great birth in a birth center. Some people felt really great about their C-sections, while others had months of lingering complications and trauma. But in the end, none of those people were taking their cues from things like this post.

Very well said. When I was pregnant with my first, I was planning a homebirth, some risk factors arose and I was transferred to the care of an OB a few weeks before birth. I had a c-section that was absolutely the right decision and so now although I feel the same way about home birth generally being safe, the small but increased risk of uterine rupture freaks me the hell out and I wouldn't be comfortable with a home birth. But people posting links probably wouldn't have changed my mind then nor would they change my mind now.

[Anonymous]

Thanks OP.
I believe women who opt for home births in this day and age are ignorant and frankly, the decision to do so borders on negligence vid a vis their unborn child.

[Anonymous]

Having a home birth was the best decision I ever made. It was exactly what I needed to finally feel 100% in control of my life. Even though my child's arrival wasn't easy, it happened the way it was supposed to, surrounded by wise women and in the comfort of my own home, where I was "in charge" of myself, and no one questioned my knowing exactly what my baby and I needed.

If I had gone into a hospital and been subjected to all their regulations, I would have come out feeling invaded and less of a respected human being, and not very empowered to take on the profound task of parenting.