Fair enough, but there is one instigating, but-for idiot at the start of it.
Sateryn76, there are perfectly sane, evidence-based reasons for wanting “the midwifery model” of care for a pregnancy. What I mean by that term is a model of care that begins with profound respect for the woman as the patient, who should be allowed input into her own care, as well as an expectation that most labors can proceed at their own pace and end with a healthy mother and baby, and any interference in the process should be justified by good risk analysis and balancing.
Now, it’s confusing because some OBs follow the “midwifery model” while some midwives follow the “medical model,” which favors many more routine interventions, and in some ways is based on good-feeling but unsupported techniques for controlling the situation, such as continuous EFM or routine IVs. Sadly it often also involves playing fast and loose with the patient’s right to informed consent.
You will, however, get no argument from me that there’s a certain contingent of loony granola mothers and midwives who eschew any science and make birthing choices based on demonstrable bullshit. It’s unfortunate that this band of creduloids winds up damaging the reputation and image of legitimate science-based midwifery and the parents who choose to use it.
(And yes, I had both my babies outside a hospital, with a midwife. But it was also in a licensed birthing center, the midwives were all licensed CNMs, and there was a plan for transferring to UNC hospital if needed. See, we’re not all chakra-loving woomeisters!)