I was given picotin.
You know what my thought was when I held my son?
“Hey, Jude. That’s exactly what I thought you’d look like.” And then I counted his fingers and toes and examined his squishy head and black eyes and puckery lips. I thought he looked like an alien, but he was MY alien, and that was that.
You’re also talking about births that happened 100 or so years ago.
Much of the benefits of 100 years improvement in safety in childbirth are ones that are normally only available in a hospital. Sterile c-sections, effective pain relief that allows a mother to labour longer without being exhausted, forceps/vacuum devices to assist in difficult deliveries, drugs to speed up labour if it has stalled, antibiotics to treat any infection to either mother or baby, stitching of vaginal tears. They all have downsides and most are best avoided if possible, but equally they can all be lifesaving.
I think for me personally it comes down to fixable problems. A traumatic labour or non-ideal bonding can be fixed later. A dead or permanently disabled baby or mother can’t.
It isn’t just the childbirth either - its the fast availability of neo natal specialists and an NICU that give babies delivered live, but struggling, a better chance.
Those are the odds I’d play, not the ones about “bonding” - but I’m the one who has all sorts of pear shaped birth stories in my circle of friends. A few “yeah, they could have done that at home” stories as well though. In some cases, there were “signs” that the delivery would go pear shape. But there were a number of cases of c-sections being done without the time to transport (intubation being done on the gurney on the way to the OR) of women I expected to have easy labors and who really wanted natural childbirth. And I’m also the one who has a bio kid and an adopted kid, so I think the biological bonding thing is a crock (as does the majority of post 1950s research on the topic). I really hope Philosphr and his wife have a safe and easy delivery that meets their expectations and our worry and warnings can be brushed off.
Yes, the role of oxytocin can be overstated. How about “I’m deciding to have a high-risk delivery, eschewing modern medicine, so I can have a 2 minute blast of oxytocin, which is far more important than making sure my baby is given the best chance of a safe delivery.”?
See? Overstated.
Thank you. I’ve been really biting my tongue in this thread, since my feelings on the subject led me to a mini-meltdown last time this came up (and thank you to those who PMed or emailed me after that, by the way. Yes, I was stressed and displacing a bit o’ rage there.)
But you said what I’d like to, more sanely. 
A CNM (an advanced practice nurse with a master’s degree who is given an additional certification to practice midwifery, distinguished from a lay midwife, who may have a lot of training, but is not an advanced practice nurse) can give pitocin to speed up labor, magnesium sulfate to slow down labor, as well as IV fluids and many other drugs (although not an epidural - those are the domain of an anesthesiologist). She can do an episiotomy and place stitches to repair an episiotomy or tearing. All of these can be done at home, legally, although in reality there’s going to be some variation in what an individual CNM is comfortable and willing to do in a homebirth environment, or what the boundaries of her group practice are in terms of protecting his or her malpractice/liability insurance.
I think a lot of people in this thread think that midwives are boiling water on the stove and applying leeches as needed. They’re not. They’re trained medical professionals who may practice their craft in people’s homes instead of or in addition to hospitals.
Well, I’m late to the party, but I might as well add my anecdote on home birth.
Backstory: After two successful (natural, no drugs) hospital births using a midwife, my wife wanted to have our third at home. I had a bit of consternation, of course, but given the history and the fact that the pregnancy was healthy and problem-free, I agreed. We had the advantage of living about a mile from a hospital in case something went wrong, and we trusted our midwife. Also, my wife was a doula at the time and taught Lamaze classes, so we weren’t exactly flying by the seat of our pants. The birth was completely successful, and a healthy baby girl was born at the house.
There’s nothing wrong with giving birth at home, given competent care, preparation and at least reasonable access to a hospital in case of emergency, IMHO.
I don’t. But they don’t cut and they don’t have fast access to an OR or an NICU. And I have a friend who has a severely disabled daughter because they didn’t cut fast enough at the hospital (a midwife in attendance) and simply the delay of deciding to call in the doctor and getting ready to cut was sufficient to cause severe brain and kidney (or liver, can’t remember now) damage. And another who had her baby handed to her husband instead of set on her chest while she was rolled off for four hours of surgery to save her life after delivery (she did pull off the vaginal, non-medicated delivery she wanted). Our phone call at the end of labor was her husband “We have a baby, he’s healthy…I think my wife is going to die.” My brother in law is a CRNA who sees a lot of “I’m called in at the last minute because something has gone WRONG” deliveries. So I get stories from that end as well.
There is an elevated risk to home birth, and no benefit. I can’t see why anyone would deprive themselves and their baby from access to the full range of medical professionals and equipment available to them in a hospital and exchange it for some midwife with a bucket of hot water and spellbook at home. How is that better for the baby?
Absolutely, you’re right. They won’t do a c-section at home. This is why I wouldn’t recommend homebirth to someone who was more than 20 minutes away from a hospital. In reality, even if you’re right there in the hospital, it takes that or a little longer to clear and prep an OR and transport the patient, anyhow. If you have a paramedic on standby and the hospital is called, they can ready the OR while you’re in transport.
True 5 minutes to death scenarios are really rare, and likely to result in death in the hospital, too.
I understand that “really rare” isn’t the same as “never happens”, and that risk is too great for some people. Those are people that should absolutely labor in a hospital.
Why be even 20 minutes away from a hospital if you don’t have to? What’s the advantage?
Many people have already pointed out several advantages in this thread. They may be escaping you because you don’t put as great a weight on them as other people, but they are real to them.
I haven’t seen any actual advantages pointed out, just a lot of deluded “spiritual” baloney.
Reduced exposure to hospital-borne pathogens is one advantage. I’m not assigning weight to this advantage, but it is certainly an advantage.
There are pathogens everywhere. Hospitals are cleaner than private homes. What are the real statistical chances a baby is going to contract some kind of serious illness from hospital “pathogens,” as compared to the chances that something could seriously go wrong during a home birth?
That basically sounds like one of those made-up, “alternative medicine” canards like how everything has “toxins” in it.
Pitocin is Oxytocin.
Is the theory that IV Pitocin, which doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier, causes a negative feedback, decreasing endogenous production of Oxytocin, therefore decreasing Oxytocin in the maternal brain?
Because that makes sense, but I’m not familiar with any research.
I wish the OP a quick and easy labour and delivery.
Hospitals don’t provide the level of personal attention that some find more appropriate, hospital-borne pathogens are on the rise, and quite frankly, hospitals are not a pleasant place to be. As long as proper attention is paid to medical concerns and there are no known problems with the pregnancy, it doesn’t really make that much sense to override thousands of years of human history in favor of maybe 70 years of human history. Within our lifetimes, they’ve been drugging up women and cutting the babies out with no more good reason than convenience, and we’re supposed to let that take precedence over a natural process? Puh-leeze! My late father was a Dr., and he was on borad with home birth, as long as proper care was taken.
Yes, but that “70 years of human history” that you’re dismissing is also the same “70 years of human history” which has seen a dramatic decrease (over the previous 10k years) of infant mortality rates.
Makes perfect sense to me: we found a better way through science, medicine, and specialization.
But mostly in washing our hands and feeding pregnant women better and giving them prenatal care, I daresay. All of which are irrelevant when determining location of birth.
ETA: the WHO, at least, looks at antenatal death statistics as signifiers of access to prenatal care and access to food and clean drinking water, not as signifiers of hospital birth.
Yeah, right. Hospitals have nothing to do with it.