Forum Index
»
Expectant and Postpartum Moms
Any one else planning a Home Birth?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This simply is not true - when birth moved into the hospital, MORE mothers and babies died and were injured due to infection and other invasive procedures. (Thankfully hospitals have improved since the 1930's!). However, there still remain many myths out there regarding the safety of childbirth. Homebirth is proven to be as safe or safer, with fewer interventions, than hospital birth for low-risk mothers and their babies. It is a fact. Although I (obviously) do not know any of the facts surrounding your SIL's baby, people frequently experience catastrophic events in the hospital that simply would not have happened at home, because at home there are no invasive drugs, chemicals, or procedures introduced into the process. One example (which probably was not the case with your SIL) is that because of meconium (which in itself is not a problem although in the hospital it is always treated as though it is an emergency) in the amniotic fluid, the baby's umbilical cord is cut immediately and baby is handed to the NICU team for invasive suctioning. Because the baby was no longer receiving oxygen from the cord, and because the team was so invasively suctioning the lungs, the lung collapsed - yet it was blamed on the meconium. In a homebirth, any necessary resuscitation is done with the cord still pulsing, so that the baby is still receiving oxygen for several minutes after birth, which greatly reduces the need for deep suctioning. Now, just to be totally clear: I am not saying this is what happened with your SIL -- I have no idea what happened! But this is a hypothetical example of how a babies lung could collapse in the hospital, yet there would not have been any trouble had the baby been born at home. When there is a true emergency during childbirth, homebirth midwives are trained to recognize the warning signs and transport women and/or their babies to any necessary medical care. Due to the continual presence and vigilance of the trained midwife, and the lack of iatrogenic injury related to hospital pharmaceuticals and protocols, homebirth can indeed be safer for both the mom and baby. |
Anonymous
Thank you for posting this! I was so disappointed to see this thread devolve into a hospital-is-best lecture. |
Anonymous
| The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, and the highest use of OBs/hospitals for births. Developed countries that primarily rely on midwives (and homebirth) have much lower rates of infant mortality. |
Anonymous
|
Yep, I've heard the same stats at 10:54 stated. It's a little crazy to think that we're not close to the best for infants surviving birth!
We're going with Birthcare in Alexandria for our first birth coming up, but I hope to be able to do a home birth in the future. Hopefully we'll have moved out of our tiny condo by the time #2 comes around! |
Anonymous
| Giving birth in hospitals is NOT what causes the high infant/maternal mortality rate in the US. If that were the case then places Zambia and Afghanistan would have the lowest infant/maternal mortality rates in the world. I'm not saying you can't have a safe homebirth. (I was reading this thread out of the same curiosity as many of the pro-home births here) but that statement is crazy! |
Anonymous
Well then, what is the cause? It's a pretty remarkable correlation, either way, don't you think? And we have much better prenatal and pediatric care than under-developed countries like Zambia and Afghanistan, btw. You are SO much more likely to have/need interventions if you give birth in a hospital and are delivered by an OB. And as a PP noted, a lot of interventions can cause problems (and death) to the baby that wouldn't be an issue in a homebirth situation. For uncomplicated/non-high-risk pregnancies, there is just no reason to deliver in a hospital/with an OB, other than your own piece of mind if you believe that you and your baby are safer in a hospital setting. FWIW, I'm delivering in a hospital, but with a midwife, and am making every effort NOT to have any interventions. This is my first and for subsequent babies I am hoping to birth at home. |
Anonymous
PP here who is planning to have a hospital birth but very respectful of home births. I'm glad poster above made this very good point. Well said. To address another poster's rather specious reasoning about Zambia and Afghanistan, one can't make a reasonable comparison between the U.S. and those countries because there are no control factors. Our standard of living, public safety infrastructure system (meaning clean water, etc) and access to prenatal care and nutrition are head and shoulders above many developing nations. No doubt, science has played a positive role in making childbirth safer -- we know to sterilize things, for instance. And certainly, having a hospital nearby has saved many mothers who were having home-births. But I agree with PP's who note that midwives know when the hospital is going to be necessary. You always hear those stories of homebirths that ended up in the hospital as if it's some grave thing, but I've never heard of any baby who died because a midwife delayed or missed a cue during a homebirth. I sadly, have heard of babies (and mommies) dying in the hospital because of a hospital mistake. Trust me, I'm not anti-hospital at all -- I'll have my first and all of my children in a hospital because I'm a fairly medically-oriented person (and my husband is even moreso). But what I'd like to see is us eventually have the best of both worlds -- hospitals and OBs who truly understand labor and delivery and facilitate it as opposed to "treat" it like a disease and OBs who will attend a home birth and midwives who are given full authority over childbirth in hospitals and less unnecessary intervention. There is a tremendous amount of credibility behind the arguments linking interventions with complications. The unfortunate thing is, surely hospitals have a role to play in safe prenatal and neonatal care -- particularly in cases of high risk or complications. And I think things are changing in hospitals for the better, but they're not infallable or even head and shoulders above competent midwifery. |
Anonymous
|
Who gives a sh--. I would never have a home birth. If you want to, fine. Your baby.
You're simply not going to convince me that a home birth is safer; I'm not going to convince you that a hospital birth is safer. Agree to disagree and move on. |
Anonymous
|
My understanding is the #1 killer of birthing women in developing countries is hemorrhage. Women in developed countries have less hemorrhage because of
- A skilled birth attendant who watches over the birth of the placenta, making sure there are no pieces of membranes left in the uterus, making sure the uterus is contracting (massage the lower ab and/or giving a shot of pitocin or rectal cytotec if there's too much bleeding) - good nutrition (especially iron) to ensure good blood clotting - interventions to limit prolonged labor - more skillful instrumental delivery when necessary Home or hospital birth - both birth places must address the above factors in order for there to be good outcomes. I think the real issue is that homebirth allows for more non-invasive interventions that work with the body and the birth process (such as keeping mom moving around, hydrated, fed, in the water for pain relief, etc). So there are fewer nasty side effects and no domino effect of interventions (ie one thing leads to another). |
Anonymous
|
Nearly one-half (49 percent) of all infant deaths in the U.S. in 2003 occurred to the 0.8 percent of infants whose birthweight was less than 1,000 grams. The three leading causes of infant death--Congenital malformations, low birthweight, and SIDS--taken together accounted for 45 percent of all infant deaths. For infants of non-Hispanic black mothers, the cause-specific infant mortality rate for low birthweight was nearly four times that for infants of non-Hispanic white mothers. For infants of non-Hispanic black and American Indian mothers, the SIDS rates were more than double the rate for non-Hispanic white mothers.
The above was taken from an abstract from a CDC Journal article. From the little information here, I'm assuming the biggest causes of infant mortality rate in the US has nothing to do with either home or hospital births, but instead, poverty and prenatal care. An additional abstract: Division of Reproductive Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Abstract Problem/Condition: The risk of death from complications of pregnancy has decreased approximately 99% during the twentieth century, from approximately 850 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1900 to 7.5 in 1982. However, since 1982, no further decrease has occurred in maternal mortality in the United States. In addition, racial disparity in pregnancy-related mortality ratios persists; since 1940, mortality ratios among blacks have been at least three to four times higher than those for whites. The Healthy People 2000 objective for maternal mortality of no more than 3.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births was not achieved during the twentieth century; substantial improvements are needed to meet the same objective for Healthy People 2010. |
Anonymous
| PP...anyway, so the high rates of mortality in the US probably have more to do with the fact that many people don't have health care and can't see the doctor before they give birth than the setting where they actually do give birth. And I saw a few articles stating that the risks of home/hospital births are pretty much the same...though I didn't quote them because they were from The Journal of Midwife something or another, and figured they may be biased. Still...prenatal care, not drinking, smoking, or being obese are the biggest factors. |
Anonymous
|
I agree with pps, my understanding is that higher U.S. mortality rates around childbirth are due to not receiving adequate (or any) prenatal care--not due to giving birth in a hospital. But I don't have the stats to back this up. I do agree that all the interventions given in a hospital up the rates of c-section and other interventions around birth--but that's not the same as saying they increase mortality.
I have a huge admiration for women who have home births. That said, I would never be comfortable with one--and was struck when a doula friend of mine said that she refuses to attend home births herself, based on experiences with them, because she's not comfortable with them, either. |
Anonymous
| NP here. I recall reading that at least one reason for higher infant mortality rate in the US vs many other countries is the very definition of what a live birth actually is (particularly relevant in cases of extreme prematurity). In some countries, for example, the baby has to be at least a certain gestational age and/or certain minimum weight in order to even count as a live birth, regardless of whether the baby actually lived after birth. So that skews numbers to the disadvantage of US, which doesn't have those "rules". If a 23-weeker is born alive and dies in the next few hours, it counts as an incident of infant mortality if it occurs here in the US, but in many countries it doesn't because based on their definitions it was never alive to begin with. Or something like that, I don't have the sources nor the time to look them up, but that's the jist. |
Anonymous
|
It's kind of a silly debate, because women should be able to birth in whatever way or setting that is best for them. To each their own, in my opinion.
However, we unfortunately have a culture of fear regarding childbirth, so many women do not even realize the possibilities - nor do they have any accurate information about homebirth. Those who most strongly denounce homebirth as "unsafe" are usually the same women who have literally never researched it. The same women who talk about the grave risks have never even interviewed a midwife who provides homebirth services; has never looked up the statistics regarding outcomes of planned homebirth for low risk women; never even compared outcomes of low-risk woman birthing at home to those same low-risk women birthing in the hospital. It is astonishing to me that so many women (and OB's, for that matter) are happy to spout about the dangers of something that they truly know nothing about -- except for what our culture has taught them over the decades. Our media, movies, books, random newspaper articles, passing comments by other people and by doctors, often lead women to believe something that really has no basis in reality. Not that I need to convince anyone -- I truly, honestly, do not care where or how any woman has her baby, as long as she is satisfied and feels great about her choices. But the facts are there for anyone who wants to research them: planned homebirth with a skilled attendant is as safe or safer, with fewer interventions, for both mom and baby. |
Anonymous
| I agree with the PP, though fewer interventions does not always mean safer. I knew a high risk woman who refused to have a cesarean, and then they HAD too anyway, but it was too late. The baby went through too much stress and didn't survive. I also know of babies that got infections in hospitals...I don't think either way is perfect. Giving birth ALWAYS has risks, and you just have to weigh your options, your health status, and your preferences to determine what is right for you. |