I tend to agree its a matter of accepting risk, but I think your numbers are wrong. The neonatal death rate 7 days post delivery (which sort of looks like what the study mentioned above is looking at) in the U.S. is 3.7 in 1000 (2003 numbers from the CDC). IF homebirth does increase that by a factor of three (and I haven’t read the study) you are looking at going from a .37% of infant death to a 1.11% chance. (I’d assume that since home birth is relatively rare in the U.S. that 3.7 per 1000 would be pretty stable if you took out homebirths - I could be wrong).
My kids do all sorts of things that are “less safe.” I let them go to the park alone - they therefore have an increased risk of being abducted. My son skateboards - a risky sport. But that sort of increased risk over that short a period of time would be too big for me. I have LOT of confirmation bias going on though about how labor and delivery is not a unicorns and rainbows scenario, since I know a few people who lost babies either during or shortly after labor, and one who has a severely disabled kid as a result of non-timely intervention - and one girlfriend who almost died due to blood loss. My extended circle of friends seems to be the outlier in “bad birth experiences.” If my experience had been rainbows and unicorn childbirth experiences - but I knew a lot of kids in wheelchairs from skateboard accidents, I’d make different decisions.
Those numbers were from a study comparing similarly low-risk births for home vs. hospital, not overall births. I assumed someone without a low-risk birth wouldn’t be considering home birth in the first place, unless they were retarded.
It’s also a risk versus reward thing, which is the main reason I wouldn’t consider it. No matter how annoying or horrible the birthing experience is, it’s pretty much one or two days versus a lifetime with or without a healthy baby. For me, that’s enough to not want to risk it. It’s a blip compared to the big picture.
Just a clarification: we were late in hiring a midwife because we were looking and interviewing the right one for us. And the research we did was 100% without the midwife because it took us so long to find the right one…Watching videos, reading articles, meeting with new moms in our new moms club, meeting with new dads in the dads club I joined…the amount of research we have done in the last 6 months rivals that of my Master’s Thesis. Just wanted to clarify.
For some up-to-date stats see here: ThisArticle is specific to Safety in Child birth at home as compared to Hospitals.
I had a midwife-assisted homebirth with my second daughter. I had comprehensive prenatal care, and one (hospital) birth under my belt for comparison. The birth was a snap and I went from water breaking/birth pool/pushing/nursing contentedly in my own bed in under 3 hours. But my first birth was easy and quick, so I was (mostly) confident that the second birth would be similar.
You sound well-researched and comfortable with your decision. Your midwife sounds experienced and capable. I am excited for you and wish you well!
This is quite awful. Several people, including me, have cited studies showing conflicting data about home births, and most of them have concluded that for low-risk women, it’s pretty safe for the mom, at least. But what you linked there isn’t research; it’s propaganda. Half their links are to a midwife advocacy site. And comparing C-sections to uncomplicated home births, when no sane midwife would even allow a woman likely to get a c-section to give birth at home… well, “misleading” is the nicest thing I can say about it. I think that kind of statement is what’s giving me pause about your “research.”
Vihaga this is one article from a midwifery page and not the only source of our research. And seriously, after what I have said about where and how we have researched - where else could we possibly go? Our Doctors office, hiring the right midwife, hours of videos and articles expressing all sides??? We’ve done it all.
Hospital policies are known to speed up a woman’s birth experience, for good reason according to the hospital. We simply believe the process does not have to be fast and furious - that we can labor at home and give birth safely because in the end, safety is the first priority for the baby and mom.
Here is another article about the Meta-Analysis that was posted yesterday. This is the article that stated home birth is healthier for the mom than for the child, See here. The article explores the political interference from the Wax article who asserted the above stat.
Phlosphr, I would recommend that if you want people to take you seriously when you say that you researched this topic as much as you researched your master’s thesis, that you stop using propaganda-ish cites that have absolutely nothing to do with science or research. I mean, I think some of the anti-homebirth commentary in this thread has gone overboard, but you are really not helping your case here.
I agree, and it is a bit frustrating. However, the majority of the studies we read rarely take the middle road and just present facts; 1) because hard peer reviewed facts are not easy to come by, 2) most studies begin with an agenda.
We read the propaganda because it is out there and available, we’ve read peer reviewed articles and a plethora of books on the subject. We read anecdotes so we can see what home birth moms actually go through, we meet moms who have recently given birth at home *and *in the birthing center; plus we have joined our respective moms clubs and dads clubs.
I’ve been around here at the SDMB ten years, and I understand our basic run of the mill Doper craves peer reviewed information. However, the peer reviewed info for this particular topic is not easy to come by - there are plenty of university based hospital studies with measures and outcomes that are barely consistent with one another, and very very few peer reviewed home birth studies. I understand the latter is changing and some studies have been cited, but what we [my wife and I] have is discernment between the world of science and peer reviewed articles and experience from those who are choosing the same things as we are.
It’s heartening to know you’ve put so much effort into research but… and this is me… you’re trying to replace a water pump on your car with a little starter tool kit. I don’t work on my car in the middle of a field of flowers to enhance the experience, I do it at home with every tool that I could afford at my side.
Crap happens. The simplest thing snowballs and now the engine is getting pulled because a bolt snapped off and fell into an oil cavity. Both the pump and the engine are damaged.
The logical compromise is a birthing center with a midwife. That guarantee’s the best care available in the event something bad happens.
That was quite common practice. Women were actively discouraged from breast feeding, too. And were expected to stay in bed resting for a week. This actually, as we now know, can lead to more problems, not fewer.
My mom was quite the rebel, though. She insisted on breast feeding. At night when no one was watching she would get up and walk around. After 3 days she said this is ridiculous, I want to go home. They laughed and said she was too weak. At which point she hopped out of bed, walked around the room and repeated, “I want to go home now.” They did let her.
My problem is that you appear to be romanticizing home birth and glossing over the risks by saying stuff like, “the midwife has delivered 1,000s of babies” when she has not.
You are making the best decision for your wife. It has nothing to do with what the baby may need. Saying ‘Oh, there are equal amounts of home birth deaths to hospital deaths’ is ridiculous as hospitals take high risk patients, therefore suggesting that hospitals are better equipped to deal with all emergencies. You are raising your risk of infant mortality. It’s fucking absurd.
However, for the MOST part, the horror stories are in the past or regulated to other countries. If anything, the horror stories are now the other direction - women sent home after 24 hours before they or the baby are ready.
The hospital birth experience now is overwhelmingly homey. Lactation consultants on staff. Birthing rooms with rocking chairs and showers. Pregnant women walking the halls. Doctors encourage spending early labor at home and coming in when your contractions are closer - no need to spend 25 hours of labor in the hospital. Pre-birth classes focus on how to get through pain without needing medication (although needing it is fine as well).
Hospitals in bigger cities are competitive in terms of getting women to choose their hospital. And when women are choosing they aren’t looking for the best NICU unless they are a high risk birth - they are looking for “can my husband spend the night in the room with me” (the baby nowadays is almost a given unless you ASK for the baby to be in the nursery).
One of the things that bugs me about the antihosptial movement is the thought that those hospitals haven’t changed since your mother gave birth to you. They have - they’ve changed since I gave birth.
2.83: Deaths per 1,000 by CNM (all)
7: Deaths per 1,000 by MD (all)
But under ‘causes’, you can start to weed out high-risk cases, and again, what about infant mortality re: birth to 27 days, as opposed to within a 24 hour period?
You can play around with stats here. It’s based on birth certificates/vital records, I believe.
