You responded to a month-old post and that’s all you’ve got? Let’s give you another month–maybe you’ll be creative enough by then to call me a “rat bastard.”
You know, that would have been a great choice. I would have seriously considered doing a natural birth in the hospital with my twins only because of the increased risk to my OWN self. Due to the amount the uterus stretches during a multiple pregnancy means that mom has a much, much higher chance of bleeding out (hemorrhaging).
But, being that the doctor stated that the c-section/attempted labor ie. C-section was hospital policy, they wouldn’t “allow” me to go past 37 weeks. I even changed doctors…and got the same response. Now, I could have just stayed with them…but during my twin pregnancy, I did not want to spend my time defending myself, being called a bad parent and told at each visit how I was killing my babies (which is exactly what happened with my 1st child, who was born in a hospital…and was born naturally at 43 weeks…and my 2nd child was a home birth with a doctor and born naturally at 42.5 weeks and then there is my 3rd child who was born naturally at home with a midwife at 43 weeks). Look, women like me understand a lot about our bodies. Women who choose home births don’t do it for “comfort” or for that “spiritual connection”. They do it because they feel it is the best choice for their babies being born without unnecessary interventions.
I also know that a woman’s cycle has a LOT to do with when she goes into labor. Studies have shown that women who have shorter cycles tend to go into labor sooner than the 40 weeks average and women who have longer cycle tend to go into labor later. My cycle is longer (33 days). The fact that doctors keep trying to get my babies born based upon a cyclical time that is not applicable to me, was my first big turn-off. The fact that all of the sudden at 40 weeks, they state that “baby can die” if you don’t induce…even though they KNOW that when baby is ready, labor will start…is my next turn off. I really did not enjoy having each doctor in the practice with my first child parade into the room and admonish me for “killing the baby”. I went in for NST every other day from week 40 until she was born (43 weeks), and each visit, I was reminded what a horrible parent I was…although the fluid levels were good, placenta was working fine, NSTs were normal and very good…and yet, I was admonished for refusing to be induced at 40 weeks or scheduling a c-section to “evict” my “stubborn child” (exact quote from the doc was, “Sometimes, babies are just stubborn and you have to evict them at 40 weeks”). Just ridonculous. 
I wanted what was best for my twins. And I can guarantee you that a c-section at 37 weeks without going into spontaneous labor over a “fear” that the twins would get too big or that the cords would tangle were completely non-sensical. Me being stress free from the garbage that tends to get spewed over this from doctors was also in their best interest. I had enough on my plate with just carrying them to 40 weeks. I did not need someone trying to guilt trip me and tell me what a horrible person I was.
If I could have found a doctor that would have allowed a natural birth, in the hospital, without the constant threat of a c-section or constantly harping on me about what a bad mom I must be…well, I probably would have willingly delivered my twins in the hospital. Being that they were not willing to do that, I was not willing to chance it, either.
For what it’s worth, while generally I agree that the insistence of some (not all) doctors that you must induce at 40 weeks no matter what is ridiculous, there is evidence indicating that going past 42 weeks increases your risk quite significantly.
On a personal note, I find comments such as “look, women like me understand a lot about our bodies” to carry the implication that those of us who didn’t choose homebirth do not understand a lot about our bodies, which I can assure you is not always true in general, and is most definitely not true in my specific case.
But on another personal note, welcome to the Dope, Yeeeah. You seem literate and thoughtful and I hope you stick around. 
Heh. It’s not just the cyclical time. I had a perinatologist “adjust” my due date based on the size of the fetus at 14 weeks. Normally, this is because they assume that the time of ovulation was not exactly when they thought it was. But I pointed out to no avail that my egg was fertilized with a goddamn embryologist watching it in a goddamn microscope. There was no uncertainty about my dates, thank you very much. Didn’t matter, and it was absolute hell trying to get it changed back so they would not attempt to deliver me even earlier than they were already planning (I had placenta previa, so I did need a relatively early C-section with that baby).
And while this may be true, there is also plenty of evidence that as long as mama is being watched and baby is doing fine, allowing the body to go into labor spontaneously is better than trying to guess when baby will be born. If there is absolute medical reason to induce labor sooner, then fine. But to say that every baby should be born at 40 weeks is bunk. I would post links, but I’m on my iPad…
[QUOTE]
On a personal note, I find comments such as “look, women like me understand a lot about our bodies” to carry the implication that those of us who didn’t choose homebirth do not understand a lot about our bodies, which I can assure you is not always true in general, and is most definitely not true in my specific case.[\QUOTE]
No intentions to make it seem like women who did not choose home birth do not know about their bodies. But MOST women who choose home birth usually do so after a tremendous amount of research, etc. It’s not like they wake up one day and say, “Gee, I think I’ll home birth this one…” with no thought to risks, etc.
Thanks!
This drives me crazy. A due date is not a drop dead date. The placenta does not just stop working at 40 weeks on the dot. A due date is an estimation and is just supposed to give people an idea of when to expect baby. With the huge amount of advances in technology, I cannot believe that they do not have a due date calculator that can estimate based on the woman’s cycle.
Sorry to hear about the previa…that must have been scary. Glad baby is ok, though! C-Sections are definitely a good thing, but not as the answer to everything. Emergent situations, yes. As the be-all, end-all to every single birth complication…no.
Most pediatricians don’t seem to have a problem with the idea that ‘average’ means some will be sooner and some later. Why does it seem to be so hard for obstetricians?
In a situation like yours, Yeeeah, when you were being monitored regularly and things looked fine, I just don’t get why they still insisted that it was a problem. I mean, even looking at the numbers, the odds are still in favor of a healthy baby, even if they become somewhat less so as time goes on.
I’m not sure I can agree with you that MOST women who choose home birth do lots of research before deciding. From what I’ve seen, a good number of them make the choice and then their ‘research’ consists of finding things to support that decision. In this case, I happen to think Phlosphr falls into that category. (Well, except the ‘woman’ part) His emphasis on the ‘experience’ and ‘spirituality’ and various other hypothetical ideals gives me pause.
I do support home birth, but I wish there was a better middle choice for most people. Birth centers with medical interventions available in emergencies should be the norm in most cases, I think.
I’m just glad that my three stubborn babies were given a little leeway to decide for themselves. I still think the last one showed up under threat, since the doctor had said that if she didn’t arrive by the weekend I should be induced on Monday morning. But even that would have been ten days after her due date. I’m not sure what’s driving these recent changes. I’d like to believe it’s all due to safety concerns, but I have a feeling insurance and litigation has a lot to do with it.
My understanding is that it’s a pain in the ass and expensive to monitor the placenta for degradation (which does happen, though not on a terribly fixed timeline), so they prefer to induce rather than go through that and/or risk the baby’s health in the case of an undiagnosed degrading placenta.
Anecdote: I was really fucking glad to be in a hospital when my wife’s heart rate crashed just before she was to be induced. The kid was already 2 weeks late, and she was still only dilated to 2cm. Her heart rate cratered (probably from shock), then the baby’s heart rate followed suit.
Suddenly, all those well-trained medical personnel came out of the woodwork and had my son out and healthy, and my wife stabilized within 10 minutes.
It was a sight to behold. It was like watching a SEAL team. No screw-ups, no drama. Just super-fast, efficient action.
They actually shook hands over my wife when it was done, and congratulated each other on a fine job. I absolutely agree.
You guys obviously did things wrong. You should have had a home birth that way when your wife and son got into trouble you could have called 911, waited 5-10 minutes for them to show up and then during the ten minutes it would take to stablize your wife she and the child would have died.
Home births are totally the way to go.
Can you produce this evidence? I’m actually not quite sure what you’re trying to claim here. That there is no increased risk after 42 weeks of gestation in cases where “mama is being watched and baby is doing fine”? I am highly skeptical of this claim if so, but if you have evidence to the contrary I’d be happy to read it.
RE: Doctors wanting to induce early
I’ve read a lot of first person accounts of women fudging the dates a bit in the beginning in anticipation of that very thing. I can’t say I blame them. From all I’ve read and heard, induction before your body’s ready can be much rougher than waiting to go into labor on your own.
Despite any disagreements, I’ve enjoyed participating in this thread. It’s been educational for me, and hopefully that’s also true for others.
You’ve enjoyed this thread? You need to see a doctor immediately! I think some sort of surgery may be required.
Sorry for the late bump, but I thought this article might be of interest to all parties involved.
Wow. What really jumped out at me was this:
I know that the parents say their loss was caused not by home birth itself but by lack of adequate care from the midwife, but I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the distinction. They had both care from the midwife and limited prenatal care from a clinic, which it sounds like they ended at the point when the clinic doctor told her he couldn’t support a homebirth.
I dunno. I want people to be able to choose, but…I don’t like dead baby stories. 
They wanted a home birth because they couldn’t afford anything else.
Holloman was 41, had a previous C-section, was almost 2 weeks overdue, and didn’t begin labour until 3 days after her water broke. Yet she refuses to acknowledge that attempting a home birth under those conditions had anything to do with the death of her baby, instead she’s blaming (and suing) the midwife. I find it hard to take anything she says seriously and I noticed that she had her next child in the hospital.
That’s an interesting, and sad, story. It sounds like the midwife was negligent. From everything I’ve read, group b strep is a routine test whether you go to a midwife or an OB. And they usually moniter a woman pretty closely after her water breaks, if it’s been awhile. This article doesn’t make me feel any differently about home birth, but it reaffirms my belief that midwifes need to be a certified nurse midwife.
It’s always tragic when something like this happens, but babies and moms die in hospitals too. Humans are fallibe, unfortunately.
I agree.
Holloman is an idiot. Any rational person would have said to hell with it under those circumstances and just gone to the hospital to make sure she and the baby were safe. She’s very lucky she had another baby later on at her age.
I hate people who whine when they emerge from childbirth with a healthy baby and mother and then focus on the fact that it wasn’t all angels singing and rainbows floating from their rears. The whole point of birth is one thing and one thing only: healthy babies and moms. Anything else does not matter.
Bullshit.
9 months of Commonwealth Care would cost $1611, as opposed to over twice that for the home birth. And Commonwealth Care plans have a flat rate of $250 for a hospital birth cite, plus I know this from where I work. So it still would have come in cheaper to go to the hospital.
Not bullshit, I quoted directly from the article, did you read it? They paid nothing to the midwife, they bartered carpentry for her services.