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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend of mine had two 10 lb babies at home. No way most OB's would have "allowed" that at a hospital. And had she not been able to move around and get in the best position, her labor would have surely stalled. Here's an example of where it was best to labor at home. Had her labor truly stalled, her midwives have competent hospital backup.

My sister had 2 10lb babies in the hospital. Your point is ... ?

Not much of one. Pp just like to offer conjecture and speculation as to why hospitals are so bad and giving birth at home 1800s style is best.

PP, if you have been following this thread, then you know that modern planned home births are not "giving birth at home 1800s style". If you have not been following this thread, then why are you commenting on p. 23 (I think) of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend of mine had two 10 lb babies at home. No way most OB's would have "allowed" that at a hospital. And had she not been able to move around and get in the best position, her labor would have surely stalled. Here's an example of where it was best to labor at home. Had her labor truly stalled, her midwives have competent hospital backup.

My sister had 2 10lb babies in the hospital. Your point is ... ?

Not much of one. Pp just like to offer conjecture and speculation as to why hospitals are so bad and giving birth at home 1800s style is best.

Yeahhh.... There are lots of valid points raised by both sides on this issue, but this comment just makes you look dumb. Giving birth at home is not "1800's style" in any way.

[Anonymous]

Home birth is safe. Please read the following. Some blogs, some essays, some articles, some reporting on the Dutch study and Cochrane reviews that we've already discussed in this thread. The last article, although from a "biased source" (midwifery today) is very well-sourced and has good suggestions for further reading. You may read it all and still feel in your gut that homebirth is less safe. And certainly, many will feel that while it may be safe, it's not for them. But I just wish that anyone with knee-jerk reactions about home birth, who think parents are taking these HUGE risks with their babies' lives for some sort of crunchy experience, would read these things with an open mind. You might learn something new or get a new perspective.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250452.php

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/06/16/study-home-births-may-be-safer-than-hospital-births/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22888411

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/homebirthissues.asp

[Anonymous]

http://www.skepticalob.com/2013/10/no-homebirth-studies-have-not-shown-that-there-is-no-increased-risk-of-death.html


Homebirth advocates in general, and the Midwives Alliance of North America in particular, love the “big lie.” They have no intellectual respect for each other and operate on the assumption that homebirth advocates will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous, if you just say it loud enough and long enough.

For example, MANA executive Wendy Gordon CPM (and placenta encapsulation specialist!), writing in the comment section of her Science and Sensibility piece, which has been ripped to shreds. is still telling lies as fast as she can make them up.

But what seems to be clear, time and time again in the most rigorous studies on homebirth safety, is that for women with healthy low-risk pregnancies, there is no increased risk of death (however that is defined in those studies) …

That, like most of what comes from Wendy Gordon and MANA is bullshit!

Why? For a very simple reason.

Prior to the recent Grunebaum paper showing that homebirth increases the risk of an Apgar score of 0 by nearly 1000%: THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE HIGH QUALITY STUDY OF NON-NURSE MIDWIFE ATTENDED HOMEBIRTH IN THE PAST 8 YEARS!

In fact, the has only ever been ONE STUDY that specifically addressed non-nurse midwife attended homebirth, the Johnson and Daviss study, which claimed to show that homebirth with a certified professional midwife (CPM) in 2000 were as safe as hospital birth. There’s just one teensy problem. The authors didn’t compare homebirth in 2000 with low risk hospital birth in 2000 because that would have shown that homebirth with a CPM had a death rate nearly 3X higher. In order to hide that fact, Johnson, the former Director of Research for the Midwives Alliance of North America, and Daviss, his wife and a homebirth midwife, compared CPM attended homebirth in 2000 with a bunch of out of date papers extending back to 1969 when (conveniently) the perinatal death rate was much higher than 2000.

[Anonymous]

Moreover, the state of Oregon collected their 2012 data of planned homebirths attended by licensed midwives and had it analyzed by Judith Rooks, CNM. It showed that homebirth has a mortality rate than is 9X higher than comparable risk hospital birth.

There is ANOTHER source of data for the death rates of homebirth attended by non-nurse midwives. That’s the database of approximately 27,000+ planned homebirths assembled from 2001-2009 by MANA itself. What’s the death rate for those births? MANA REFUSES TO RELEASE THE DEATH RATE!

[Anonymous]

And now that Beetlejuice has shown up, we can close the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And now that Beetlejuice has shown up, we can close the thread.

You hoped to do whatever it takes, to get it shut down a long time ago, huh? Hence, all your efforts at derailing?

[Anonymous]

I think that "Beetlejuice" refers to Amy Tuteur, the "skeptical OB".

And, indeed, any rational, evidence-based discussion of home births is over when Amy Tuteur shows up.

(Actually I wondered when Amy Tuteur would show up.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Home birth is safe. Please read the following. Some blogs, some essays, some articles, some reporting on the Dutch study and Cochrane reviews that we've already discussed in this thread. The last article, although from a "biased source" (midwifery today) is very well-sourced and has good suggestions for further reading. You may read it all and still feel in your gut that homebirth is less safe. And certainly, many will feel that while it may be safe, it's not for them. But I just wish that anyone with knee-jerk reactions about home birth, who think parents are taking these HUGE risks with their babies' lives for some sort of crunchy experience, would read these things with an open mind. You might learn something new or get a new perspective.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250452.php

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/06/16/study-home-births-may-be-safer-than-hospital-births/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22888411

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/homebirthissues.asp

Homebirth is exponentially safe for those of us who feel dangerously unprotected
and vulnerable to standard proceedures, regardless of our polite requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home birth is safe. Please read the following. Some blogs, some essays, some articles, some reporting on the Dutch study and Cochrane reviews that we've already discussed in this thread. The last article, although from a "biased source" (midwifery today) is very well-sourced and has good suggestions for further reading. You may read it all and still feel in your gut that homebirth is less safe. And certainly, many will feel that while it may be safe, it's not for them. But I just wish that anyone with knee-jerk reactions about home birth, who think parents are taking these HUGE risks with their babies' lives for some sort of crunchy experience, would read these things with an open mind. You might learn something new or get a new perspective.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250452.php

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/06/16/study-home-births-may-be-safer-than-hospital-births/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22888411

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/homebirthissues.asp

Homebirth is exponentially safe for those of us who feel dangerously unprotected
and vulnerable to standard proceedures, regardless of our polite requests.

...in a hospital. Thank you very much.

[Anonymous]

For the love of fucking Christ, someone post a photo of some kittens or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend of mine had two 10 lb babies at home. No way most OB's would have "allowed" that at a hospital. And had she not been able to move around and get in the best position, her labor would have surely stalled. Here's an example of where it was best to labor at home. Had her labor truly stalled, her midwives have competent hospital backup.

My sister had 2 10lb babies in the hospital. Your point is ... ?

By c-section? How about a baby that was almost 12lb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend of mine had two 10 lb babies at home. No way most OB's would have "allowed" that at a hospital. And had she not been able to move around and get in the best position, her labor would have surely stalled. Here's an example of where it was best to labor at home. Had her labor truly stalled, her midwives have competent hospital backup.

My sister had 2 10lb babies in the hospital. Your point is ... ?

By c-section? How about a baby that was almost 12lb?

No, vaginally, and one at a time (not twins!) It was not a big deal at all. She's tall, so is her DH. A 12 pound baby does seem to be getting to the more problematic end of things, though -- if it was due to uncontrolled GD I've seen figures showing a very high complication rate, so a c-section would seem justified. My sis's blood sugar was always perfectly normal, she just has giant babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that "Beetlejuice" refers to Amy Tuteur, the "skeptical OB".

And, indeed, any rational, evidence-based discussion of home births is over when Amy Tuteur shows up.

(Actually I wondered when Amy Tuteur would show up.)

You have to put "OB" in quotes since she's unlicensed and has no practice. But she did go to med school, people! LOL. When she's not working to defend mothers from greater freedom of choice in birth and safer home birth options, she's working hard to convince mothers not to breastfeed.

Amy, go be a polemic and a troll on your own blog. Nobody wants you here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend of mine had two 10 lb babies at home. No way most OB's would have "allowed" that at a hospital. And had she not been able to move around and get in the best position, her labor would have surely stalled. Here's an example of where it was best to labor at home. Had her labor truly stalled, her midwives have competent hospital backup.

My sister had 2 10lb babies in the hospital. Your point is ... ?

By c-section? How about a baby that was almost 12lb?

No, vaginally, and one at a time (not twins!) It was not a big deal at all. She's tall, so is her DH. A 12 pound baby does seem to be getting to the more problematic end of things, though -- if it was due to uncontrolled GD I've seen figures showing a very high complication rate, so a c-section would seem justified. My sis's blood sugar was always perfectly normal, she just has giant babies.

I wasn't the PP who suggested that this wouldn't have been "allowed" in a hospital, but the truth is that if the OB (or other care provider) suspects the baby is big, the mother is more at risk for complications (this is peer reviewed research, not just me spouting off on DCUM). This is true regardless of whether or not the baby is big. Congratulations to your sister! I know several women with babies that size and bigger (including mine at 11lb+) and only the ones who had home births were able to have them vaginally. She definitely was bucking the trend there. Many women also are pushed into c-sections for "large babies" that turn out to be smaller than 8lbs.