Not only that, insurances won't cover doula services, who sometimes, can make a difference when giving birth naturally. When I told my dr I wanted to try a VBAC for my second birth she refused so I switched doctors, and while I ended up with another c-section I was able to walk and move freely during labor which made a huge difference with handling pain.

Guess this is what happens as the middle class sees its economics steadily decline and its medical costs steadily increase. Those people not getting public assistance will cut costs in any way that they can, and staying out of a hospital is a significant cost savings.

Paul,

Cost saving has NOTHING to do with this "Movement". This is the same upper-middle/upper income liberal sub-groups that are Anti-immunization, Anti-fluoridation, forced Vegetarian/Vegan and "Eat Local", and are following every "health" and "diet" fad that comes out of Hollywood. They are the same ones that introduced "water births", "family births", etc. It is all about them. The health and safety of the baby don't matter, their fantasy "birth experience" is the only thing that does. These are the same mothers that will scare these children for life with the mental abuse they will give, caused by their festering resentment of the pain and suffering they "endured" giving birthto them. Because their "birth experiance" didn't live up to its billing.

LuLu,

You should have known better. Less than 2% of women can have normal delivery after having a C-section, even with the improvement in the procedure. So at one end we have "Home Birthers" like you and at the other we have "Can't be bother-eds" that schedule the C-section during their first prenatal appointment.

htdjpf,

Cost savings had a lot to do with my choice to have a baby at home. If found a qualified Mid-wife with over 300 births under her belt, paid a total of $2500 for all of my pre-natal visits, the birth itself, and two post-partumn visits. I was a VBAC case (vaginal birth after cesarean) and to give birth in a hospital would have cost me well over $20,000.

The facts are that over 98 percent of women who do VBAC deliveries do so safely and the 2 percent that struggle have the same issues that the 2 percent who have never had a cesarean have.

Educating yourself has everything to do with the choice to home-birth and most of the women that I know who have chosen this path do so after hours and hours of research and discussion with their spouses. I'm not anti-immunization (my baby's first round of shots was given when he was 3 months old), there's floride in my toothpaste and while I do have a garden, I love a good steak.

Was the birth easy? Hell no! But it was a journey that my husband, baby and I took together. We all fought to bring him into this world and I feel no resentment. Only a bond with him that is unlike anything I anticipated.

Don't be harsh or judgemental for women who want to choose a different path in bringing their children into the world. In a society that says that it's okay to terminate the life of an unborn child, why do we feel we have the right to dictate how that same woman chooses to bring life to her child?

The United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any other nation. Most developed nations in Europe have midwives attending the births, and their infant mortality rates are much, much lower. Not only that, but a home birth, including pre- and post-natal care is about $4,000-5,000, while just a normal vaginal delivery in a hospital can easily run $13,000. Doctors want to drug you with an epidural, which slows down delivery, then they load you full of pitocin which causes the uterus to contract forcefully, often squeezing the baby and causing fetal distress, and then you end up with a C-section that is FAR more dangerous than any home birth, with higher risk of infection (MRSA, anyone?), a longer recover/hospital stay, and you don't get the moment right after birth to bond with the baby.

Obviously if it's a high-risk pregnancy or there are expected complications, it's best to be at a hospital or birthing center. But the vast majority of pregnancies and deliveries are normal, and would be normal, if the doctors would stop the vicious cycle of drugs and expecting a woman to give birth while lying in a bed.

Just google the statistics. The infant mortality rate is much higher for hospitals than it is for home births.

htdjpf

It is all about them. The health and safety of the baby don't matter, their fantasy "birth experience" is the only thing that does

Wow, what a bizarre theory. Actually most, if not all, home births are done to BENEFIT the baby as well as the mother. This isn't some "trend", it's a movement. Home births used to be nearly the only way women would give birth until the industrialized machine came in and made birth clinical rather than natural.

I blame our blind faith in doctors. We think if women give birth in hospitals, the doctor and staff have HER best intrests in mind, right? Well, they don't. Their first priority is their jobs, followed by $ for the hospital. This is why interventions are so common. They want to CONTROL every aspect of childbirth even if it's not necessary.

I suggest you watch The Business of Being Born. It's a great documentary that brings to light the corporate machine that childbirth has become.

Less than 2% of women can have normal delivery after having a C-section

The dangers of VBACs are a pretty common myth. There are statistics out there that show the increase of risk to the child is negligible. Doctors like to tout the "once a C always a C" because:

1. It provides more money to them and the hospitals.
2. Some doctors are required by law to remain nearby if a women chooses to do a VBAC, which costs them time wasted = $ lost.
3. It's something they can schedule and control. (The baby will be out on this date at this time so I can move on to the next one).

The vast majority of deliveries are reimbursed through the govt. medicaid, thus most ob depts lose money. Is it possible, even just a little, that all the training that the ob's get, all the studies they have performed and the experience they have all the textbooks they use, show that childbirth may have complications? Maybe even unforseen complications? Maybe complications which would require immediate intervention? So, maybe their recommendations are in their patients best interest and not their own personal financial interest?

I believe most complications nowadays result from obesity.

youknow-3500251

OBs would be out of business if they're losing money with every labor. I don't argue that labor can come with complications, and at those times medical intervention is invaluable.

However, what many people don't realize is that complications are often CAUSED by the hospitals and doctors in their attempts to CONTROL the birthing process. Most OBs don't like to sit around and wait for a 10-20 hour delivery. So out come the inductions, which commonly STALL labor even further. Then an epidural, then more pitocin which puts extra pressure on the baby. Now that the baby's stressed, they're pushing a C.

I refer to it as the intervention snowball effect. If they would have left well enough alone, the majority of births would happen naturally and problem free. However, they wouldn't make as much money that way. Once you schedule up a C-section, the hospital bill automatically increases 2 to 3 fold.

I guess if I hadn't personally know 5 "Home Birth" normal, health, babies that died during delivery I might be inclined to listen to you ignorant idiots. If my sister hadn't been been a Neonatal Intensive-care nurse for over 20 years and heard her stories of botched "home births" that came into her care. If my mom hadn't been an OB nurse for over 15 years and my other sister an ER doctor, I might believe you.

OhMY99, You prove my point exactly with your statements:

"industrialized machine came in and made birth clinical rather than natural".

"first priority is their jobs, followed by $ for the hospital",

"They want to CONTROL every aspect of childbirth even if it's not necessary".

Your populist, liberal, new-age, hippie, tree-hugger rhetoric flowith over.

Procedbynone,

Of course a C-section has more risks, longer recovery and all the things you list. It is MAJOR SURGERY. DUH!!! The reason doctors are so quick to "intervene" as you call it, is because if they don't and something does go wrong or happens to baby, it is people exactly like you that would sue them for malpractice. So with you they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So crawl back into your cave.

I was wondering about that...the cost. Do you have any data that supports what you said ?

I can follow the concept...it sounds "cheap" having a child at home, but certainly there is often doctors and other health care givers involved.

And you are saying doctors and hospitals render professional opinions based primarily on profit motives.

Is that your final answer...because the ramifications are great, and the wisdom pretty low...imo

marinmom,

I know plenty of slim women that have still had complications. It doesn't matter if you're skinny or fat, the cord can wrap around a baby's neck just as easily requiring emergency intervention. I'm sick and tired of everyone blaming everything on obesity. The fact is, all the women that I know who have had major complications were not overweight at all. Their bodies were too small to safely have a vaginal birth so they ended up with C-sections.

Give birth in a hospital is not a common practice in Europe.

htdjpf

I appreciate and respect your family's contribution to the medical industry, but those examples are purely anecdotal.

No matter how you slice it, the medical industry is a business and childbirth has become a business. This movement is to bring it back into the home where it belongs. I'm not advocating having unmanaged high-risk labor at home, but for the majority of us that are low risk, home births are a viable option and have been for thousands of years.

Please don't turn a blind eye to the selfishness of the medical business. To think that they are there for our benefit and ours only is spectacularly naive.

Longhair - can you comment on the training required of your midwives in Europe? In the US, someone with no high school diploma can take come correspondence courses and call themselves a midwife.

We of course have the highly educated CNMs, but then have all the others that call themselves midwives who have no formal education.

@MileHighCity, you beat me to it!

While I believe that obstetricians and gynecologists and hospitals care about the health and safety of the women and their babies, I think they care more about getting their bucks.

ohmy999999, most not all delivery units will lose money, there will always be a need so they will never go 'out of business'. The ones that lose money usually have a high portion of medicaid patients. They are reimbursed per delivery, they do not get more money the more they do. Most ob's will get a block of money to reimburse for the whole prenatal care and delivery process.

The reason doctors are so quick to "intervene" as you call it, is because if they don't and something does go wrong or happens to baby, it is people exactly like you that would sue them for malpractice.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! This is why c-section rates have skyrocketed. You can't watch a tv show without seeing dozens of commercials for lawyers who specialize in "birth injuries" because a c-section wasn't performed (because Mom was demanding a natural birth and putting her "birth experience" over the health of the baby) and the kid came out with injuries, so now the parents want to do the American thing and sue.

C-section rates will continue to go up as long as we continue to sue over everything we possibly can. Doctors are trained to recognize risks and dangers. Like it or not, laypersons are not. My heart stopped abruptly while my mother was in labor with me. Thank God she trusted the doctor and had a c-section. I wouldn't be alive today if she hadn't.

At least with home births, there's nobody to sue if something goes wrong.

Doctors are trained to recognize risks and dangers.

The risks and dangers of childbirth aren't any different than they were thousands of years ago. But I do agree with you that doctors do what they do to protect their asses from lawsuits, and I guess I can't totally blame them since we live in a litigious society.

However, due to that, they treat EVERY labor case as a high-risk case. It's like going to the doctor and sneezing. They'll start tossing pills at you. If a woman is in labor and the child sneezes, they'll start prepping her for the OR.

Seriously, our medical industry has gone intervention happy. The saddest part about it is that people don't see that and think if it wasn't for all those interventions, their babies wouldn't survive, when in fact in most cases it's the interventions that CAUSED the problems to begin with. Luckily there ARE many people do understand this and therefore appreciate home births as a safer less traumatic option.

OhMy - I guess my views are kinda biased because I've had the opposite experience with medical professionals. I've had to fight tooth and nail to get even marginal treatment for my various conditions. My doctors certainly don't throw pills at you or tell you to get unnecessary procedures (bloodwork and MRIs are a different story, though - they've drained enough blood from me to satisfy Dracula for a thousand years!). They're overly cautious, and I usually suffer for it. But I have rare conditions, so there aren't many other doctors I can go to because a lot of them haven't even heard of my conditions, let alone know how to treat them.

Sorry, I rambled a bit off-topic there. But everything would be so much simpler if people didn't think of lawsuits the second something goes awry (obviously, I have no issues with suing in the case of gross negligence, but that's pretty uncommon). Life comes with risks.

My daughter complained about the impersonal and clinical approach of the doctors she met when she was pregnant. They didn't seem to care what she wanted or provide her with the information she needed. After she went for her hospital tour and saw how impersonal and clinical that process was she was determined to find a midwife to have a home birth. I was nervous at first but after I met this woman and talked to her about her experience as a midwife, I had no worries. She gave my daughter so much practical and helpful advice that I had never heard before...I learned more about pregnancy and birthing than I had my entire life! The midwife prepared my daughter and her hubby so thoroughly that I was beyond impressed. I was there for the birth and felt that it gave me the chance to experience a real birth for the first time! I felt robbed of the experience by my doctor who was in a hurry to get to his golf game and told me I needed a C-section. I found out years later that the excuse he gave me was totally bogus but I was rather young and didn't realize I could question or challenge the authority of a doctor! I am totally convinced that the doctors complain about this because it is such a huge moneymaker for them, especially when they can charge for a C-section!!

htdjpf - you seem to be very angry about this topic and extremely close-minded and judgemental towards a certain stereotype of people that you've created in your mind. Although, I respect your family members experience, I question your lack of details and specifics. There are so many scenarios that could have created those exceptions to the collective healthy and positive experiences of home births. I know people who are not "hippy" types that are highly educated and actually did a lot of research on this subject before they made this final decision...my daughter and her hub for one...and the many other parents they met that did the same thing. In fact, her hub comes from a family of doctors. In addition, the World Health Organization has reprimanded the U.S. for its highest rate of C-sections in the world and has asked the medical field here to focus on bringing down those rates. C-sections actually create more health risks to Mom and child than regular births. And it is true that the hospital practices of trying to hurry up the birthing process with drugs, etc. is the major cause of complications in a birth. There are far more horror stories about what has happened in hospitals under a doctor's care than you realize!

HMM-360962,

The unfortunately reality is that if you go to a hospital, you will have a "clinical" birth. Doctors aren't there to provide a good birth experience. They're just there to make sure nothing goes wrong and (more often than not) push things along to see more patients (i.e. more $$$) or get to their golf games/vacations.

My wife and I researched everything we could about natural birth and explored all options. She wasn't comfortable with a total home birth since it was our first child, and the midwife clinic we preferred was already booked many months in advance, so we were stuck with the hospital "experience." We did have a doula with us however, which made a WORLD of difference. We experienced a lot of "pushing" from the hospital staff and her OB. The doula helped to "push" back in our defense. We came in with a birth plan that was incredibly simple and not presumptuous. It seemed to be ignored. We weren't the customers, we were just a number. That's how it felt.

When she needed a nurse, I had to hunt one down every time. When she wanted to use the tub on the floor, it took FOREVER for someone to get it ready for us (we weren't allowed to do it ourselves). The doctor pushed for an episiotomy because she had a surgery scheduled in 15 minutes.

We as a society have gone from natural childbirth to clinical childbirth because we have been TAUGHT that it is the BEST thing we can do for ourselves and our children. However, the rest of the industrialized world has not swayed from natural childbirth and they enjoy less infant mortality rates than we do in the US. Luckily there is a movement toward natural childbirth that is picking up speed as people are becoming more educated about the realities of clinical childbirth and how it often does more harm than good.

OhMy - I agree with you and I've since heard a lot of stories that are similar to yours. The doctors, nurses and hospitals completely ignore the parents' birth plans and often ignore the doulas, too. They usually have only one way to do a birth no matter what is happening and a C-section as the only alternative, that's it. The attitude that doctors, nurses and hospitals have towards home births and midwives is often so hostile that they will go out of their way to make it difficult for parents to pursue that option. My daughter's doctor REFUSED to be her back-up in case of an emergency, which all good midwives prepare for even though it's rarely necessary. There were so many other doctors that refused her, too, because even though they wanted to support her they said that the medical community would ostracize them for doing so.

HO HUM..

Every 20 years or so this "Back to Nature" crap surfaces.

Y'all sound like a bunch of Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Christian Scientists.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, humans have been delivering babies outside of hospitals safely and effectively for thousands of years, but many women have died from complications of childbirth. Babies are born breach, they've been oxygen-deprived, near death, et cetera. My mom would have died, and so would I if she hadn't gone to a hospital to have me and been able to receive immediate help when things went wrong.

Exactly. Not every baby/mother needs to survive in order to keep humans moving forward. Modern obstetrics has eliminated much heartbreak. Of course, there are some that say any intervention=heartbreak, but I define heartbreak as preventable death of baby.

It doesn't matter, if you have insurance your hospital delivery is covered (mandated coverage), if you don't have it, they can not refuse them and might get reimbursed a paltry amount by the state.

JD....you didn't think that one through....having strong biases does that sometimes.

And there is the root cause of the health care insurance problems - hospitals are not able to turn away any "emergencies".

There used to be a time when people went to a doctors office for the sniffles, now they go to the emergency room because it is cheaper for them.

Youknow:

No, the delivery is not covered by insurance. The only way my policy will cover it is if I have an emergency c-section.

Who goes to the hospital for a sprained finger? I'm assuming your friend had no insurance so ran to the ER with a sprained finger. Those of us WITH insurance don't go to the ER for something so trivial because of the co-payment our insurance makes us pay. Most of us wouldn't even go to the doctor for something like that unless it was still a problem a couple of weeks later. This is an example of over utilization of medical treatment which is definitely contributing to skyrocketing costs. If you think your finger is broken (unless it's disfigured looking) simply get a popsicle stick and some tape and make a home made splint! If you can't figure out how to do that go to the drug store and buy a finger splint. Really...what did she think the hospital was really going to do even if it was broken? She deserves the 8k bill!

If you think your finger is broken (unless it's disfigured looking) simply get a popsicle stick and some tape and make a home made splint! If you can't figure out how to do that go to the drug store and buy a finger splint.

That is actually one of the worst things you can do for a broken/sprained finger. It's actually a common mistake that even ER doc's make. According to the hand surgeon that lectured to us during musculoskeletal system said this was actually the cause of many of the surgeries he performs to correct non-functioning fingers. Doing this type of splinting can cause the finger to become in a locked position and become non-functional (it can also be painful depending on the extent of the injury).

That said, there are ways it can be splinted to avoid worsening damage and this can be done without a lot of expensive testing.

I believe your instructor was referring to finger fractures that have caused joint incongruity or deformed and unable to be reduced. A simple finger fracture or sprain will be splint and doesn't warrant ER care.

If a woman is unemployed and has no insurance and pregnant they will quailify for government sponsored medical insurance and could very well have a low cost hospital birth with all the interventions, nurses, doctors, meals, diapers, etc. I don't think home births are done out of cost analysis, it still costs money to have the tools needed, the midwife, etc. that would be provided at the hospital, its just the location that is different....well and the ability to be in control of the environment that you are giving birth in, which can create a much more relaxed experience for a woman that has embraced this mindset.

Duhhhhhh, its winter. The homeless go into subsidized housing in the winter...People are not just homeless because they lost their home or can't get work, there are more than you think that just want to live off the grid....no taxes, no responsibility, etc. Alcoholics, addicts. Easier to live on the street than play the game....

What is the goal of childbirth; a normal healthy baby and a normal healthy mother OR for a wonderful experience?

youknow-3500251

What is the goal of childbirth; a normal healthy baby and a normal healthy mother OR for a wonderful experience?

There doesn't need to be an "OR" in there. Hospital birth is full of interventions without medical merit. Take EFM, for instance. It hasn't lessened the effects of CP at all and has increased the C-section rate dramatically.

I do not understand, you think there should be an AND instead of an OR? You can not have it all. Doctors and hospitals are not in the hospitality industry, if you want experience go to a resort.

Cerebal Palsey rates and csections is an excellent point. Lets investigate further. Trial lawyers, the likes of John Edwards, established for the OB field that despite doing everything appropriate and despite the fact that ALL babies experience moments of hypoxia during normal healthy deliveries, an OB will be held accountable as malpractice for the resulting CP. So, the result is a field practicing CYA medicine ordering c sections at higher rates out of fear. Left to their own studies most OB's would see that these interventions are not helping and would be more likely to postpone c-sections, however facts must be damned. Now OB's are liable if they don't do enough EFM, or soon enough etc. failure to document EFM or to respond appropriately results in malpractice claims that they will lose. IF mid wives had to carry the same level of liability for at home deliveries as OB's, then no one would be able to find anyone to help with a home delivery.

So, a homebirth to potentially avoid being caught in a CYA medicine practice may have some validity BUT it does not mean that an at home delivery is equivalent in any way shape or form to delivery in a hospital. In a hospital there goal is healthy baby and healthy mom. At home the goal, as expressed by so many on these comments, is a wonderful experience and oh by the way my baby is fine.

In a hospital there goal is healthy baby and healthy mom. At home the goal, as expressed by so many on these comments, is a wonderful experience and oh by the way my baby is fine.

I would choose homebirth because of medical benefits of an intervention free birth, as expressed in many other comments. The fact that it is in a better setting and is a more peaceful experience is just a side benefit.

If more doctors practiced evidence based medicine, liability insurance wouldn't be so astronomical. Since that is what (most) midwives do, they don't get sued as often. Frankly, I don't care that a doctor wants to do XYZ because his legal department says that is the best way to minimize financial risk. If you can't PROVE to me there is a benefit, I don't want it.

youknow - I don't think you understand that much about the actual reality of the birthing process. The goal is to have a healthy baby and a wonderful experience. It's the doctors and hospitals that are profiting so much from this industry that want you to believe you can't have both. There are a lot of excellent statistics out there that support the long term health and emotional benefits to children that are home birthed. My daughter and her hub researched this in length before they made their decision. And I saw the difference in my granddaughter when compared to children that had started life filled with drugs that were given to the Mom to have a "safer birth". My granddaughter was much more aware, healthy and developmentally advanced than the children born otherwise. I thought it was a fluke until I saw the comparison over and over again! What a huge difference the natural birth made in the health of the child not to mention the incredible connection it created between Mom, Dad and child!!

HMM - I don't think you have any idea how well I understand the birthing process, but that does not matter. A healthy baby and healthy mother AND a happy experience would be the goals if you paid the doctor yourself. That would bring real market forces into play. If you had a 'bad' experience you would not return and doctors who repeatedly failed to deliver 'good' experinces would not be very busy. The system we have now means that healthy outcomes first and experience second. Your appeal to your personal observations as evidence sufficient to prove your point is pointless.

Jen - to suggest that doctors do not practice evidence based medicine is insulting to every single medical professional. If they are not practicing evidence based medicine then what are they doing? You would imply that they are shooting from the hip? basing their decisions on personal feelings or past experiences alone? where does there decision process come from? The problem is that not all evidence based research is created equal. All OB's will have to justify their decisions based on the evidence. No c-section is ever ordered without some evidence to back it. Most commonly it is for failure to progress. The jump to c-section is made by evidence that failure to progress MAY result in dire consequences and a hostile environment where all complications and failures are the OB's responsibility but success is just 'natural'. The Ob can NEVER justify failure to perform a c-section because the patient wants a more natural experience. The patient may refuse c-section but if something happens they can still blame the OB, they can claim uninformed consent even if they sign something stating they understand the risks. AND in most states OB's may be sued until the kid is up to 18years of age. Most OB's would rather do a c-section they can control and safely deliver a healthy baby then wait to long for Mom to experience the birthing process.

AND fyi your midwife can not be sued like your OB can. Most midwives practice under the umbrella protection of some larger facility (probably where they will take you when things go wrong), some not, but most have the buck stopping much higher then them. If they have an OB behind them then in most cases it is the OB who is liable even when the midwife blows it. Do you really want someone who in not responsible for their actions to deliver your baby?

youknow-3500251

Jen - to suggest that doctors do not practice evidence based medicine is insulting to every single medical professional.

I'm strangely unconcerned with insulting anyone with the truth.

If they are not practicing evidence based medicine then what are they doing?

They are practicing "standard of care", which is the legal litmus test in litigation. This means "Did they do what is normally done in this situation?" EFM is a perfect example. No evidence that it works, but if you don't do it, you'll get your ass sued, and there is no consideration of the detrimental effects of EFM of restricting a laboring woman's movement and keeping her out of water, which greatly aids dealing with labor pains.

...The problem is that not all evidence based research is created equal. All OB's will have to justify their decisions based on the evidence. No c-section is ever ordered without some evidence to back it. Most commonly it is for failure to progress.

Let's stop and examine that one. Failure to Progress is based off the Friedman curve. Modern re-examination of the data collected for the Friedman curve indicates an error in his calculations. Yet decisions are still made off of it, without revision, because it is now the standard of care.

Another common C-section reason is suspected macrosomia. Ultrasounds can be off by 2 pounds, yet this is what is used to make that determination. It is not supported by the evidence. How do you make a decision off of a test with a 20% margin of error?

Want another one? Inducing before 42 weeks. This one is even against ACOGs policy statement. Yet it happens all the time, without evidence indicating a benefit to letting labor take its natural course.

Obstetrics is FULL of non-evidenced based practices.

My wife's home birth cost more out of pocket than a hospital birth. Insurance does not cover the midwife's costs well. Believe it or not, there are women who prefer home births to hospital births.

I for one believe that a hospital causes a woman to naturally delay birth. The stress and unfamilar surroundings trigger a natural process to postpone birth until back in a safe environement. Once that happens, out come the interventions.

Not to mention it is like grand central station with all the staff popping in and out like it is no big deal while your private parts are open for the world to see. I only had one kid and that was 21 yrs ago I honestly don't know how women do these days.

I'm sorry, Munk but you are not correct. I had a home birth because I wanted a natural childbirth experience and it had nothing to do with the cost (it would have been the same cost out of pocket had I delivered in a hospital). It is a woman's choice and I believe that with a LOW RISK pregnancy, a home-birth (or a midwife attended birth center) is the safest and most natural place for a birth. All developed European countries have a much higher home-birth rate and a much lower infant mortality rate. I believe that for HIGH RISK pregnancies a hospital is the safest route to go. But no, for most home-birthers, cost is not the driving factor. :)

see, that thought of the hospital enviro slowing things down doesn't hold for me, I felt more comfortable being thre, knowing that if something went wrong, all the right people are there to help fix it. SO no HB's for me, thanks!

I am ok with others doing it, just not my choice personally.

Tiffany,

So you are confirming my statement that the "Home Birth" movement is a narcissistic one that is all about what YOU WANT, and not what is best medically. You are also incorrect in your statement that European countries have lower infant mortality rates. That is Home Birth-er propaganda and is cause in the differing ways those countries tabulate "infant mortality".

Further, the reason those European countries with their socialized, government run, Health-care systems, is they either there isn't and hospital bed space for them, they will have to give birth in an OPEN Ward with 100 other patients with who know what conditions, can't get to the nearest hospital with could be hundreds of miles, etc. Having personal experience with those heath-care systems, you could pay me to go back.

Wait...so you're choosing to see statistics as "propaganda"? "Infant mortality" is not a theoretical concept, it IS actually higher in the United States.

I don't know where YOU were that had open ward hospital beds, but that was not the case with anywhere I was in Europe or with anyone I know who has given birth there. I have a friend who is French. She had her first child at home and France without any problem. Her second child was a normal pregnancy, only complicated with the intervention of the doctors and their drug cocktails. She ended up having an unnecessary c-section.

Again, if it's a high-risk pregnancy, then yeah, get me to a hospital please. But the majority of pregnancies aren't.

But that's OK htdjpf, you can ignore the facts and keep drinking the insurance company Kool-Aid.

Wait...so you're choosing to see statistics as "propaganda"? "Infant mortality" is not a theoretical concept, it IS actually higher in the United States.

I don't know where YOU were that had open ward hospital beds, but that was not the case with anywhere I was in Europe or with anyone I know who has given birth there. I have a friend who is French. She had her first child at home and France without any problem. Her second child was a normal pregnancy, only complicated with the intervention of the doctors and their drug cocktails. She ended up having an unnecessary c-section.

Again, if it's a high-risk pregnancy, then yeah, get me to a hospital please. But the majority of pregnancies aren't.

But that's OK htdjpf, you can ignore the facts and keep drinking the insurance company Kool-Aid.

Wait...so you're choosing to see statistics as "propaganda"? "Infant mortality" is not a theoretical concept, it IS actually higher in the United States.

I don't know where YOU were that had open ward hospital beds, but that was not the case with anywhere I was in Europe or with anyone I know who has given birth there. I have a friend who is French. She had her first child at home and France without any problem. Her second child was a normal pregnancy, only complicated with the intervention of the doctors and their drug cocktails. She ended up having an unnecessary c-section.

Again, if it's a high-risk pregnancy, then yeah, get me to a hospital please. But the majority of pregnancies aren't.

But that's OK htdjpf, you can ignore the facts and keep drinking the insurance company Kool-Aid.

ByNone,

As a mathematician, I know you can make "Statistics" say whatever you like. It's all in how you take your sample, ask the question, and interpret the data. So yes, the "statistics" used are propaganda.

And I think it is you who are drinking the Kool-aid. I have been in England, Spain, France, Norway, and Italy for starters. Is that enough of a sample of European socialized health-care systems for you?

You are assuming birth centers exist everywhere. They don't. In the St. Louis, Missouri area, there are none. One has been trying to open for well over a year and cannot because of a law that requires a a collaborative agreement with a physician. However, Dr. George Macones (cited in this article) is based in St. Louis so perhaps he is up to the task?

Some women don't have that option.

@htdjpf:

Who says: "As a mathematician, I know you can make "Statistics" say whatever you like. It's all in how you take your sample, ask the question, and interpret the data. So yes, the "statistics" used are propaganda."

So statistics, gathered by reputable institutions and government agencies are meaningless but your bald assertions and clearly biased opinions are hard facts that we must all instantly accept or we are "idiots"?

I find your arguments specious and your attitude conceited and arrogant.

Women have been giving birth to children since the dawn of time without the assistance of physicians and somehow the human race has survived to the extent that the planet is overpopulated. I am sure that healthy women who has had good prenatal care and anticipate no problems with birthing will manage until the end of time without the assistance of physicians as well.

For the small percentage of women who anticipate problems with their birthing base on prenatal examinations, I am sure giving birth in a hospital is advisable. Otherwise, a competent and well trained midwife can assist in what is a natural process quite well.

A woman is not a narcissist for wanting to have a natural/home birth, it's biological instinct. And not everyone has it, just like some lack the mothering instinct.

I am sure that healthy women who has had good prenatal care and anticipate no problems with birthing will manage until the end of time without the assistance of physicians as well.

The problem is that you can go from being totally healthy and low-risk to life-threatening in no time flat. My mother was a completely normal, healthy, and low-risk woman, but for no reason, my heart suddenly stopped. She needed an emergency c-section in order to save my life. You never know what can happen in the blink of an eye.

I think that the best option would be to just allow a natural birth if a woman wants one, but it should be in a hospital (maybe a "natural birth ward" or something of the sort?) so that a physician is on hand in case something goes terribly wrong. Having a kid at home with no doctor around for miles is far too risky, in my view.

Jherek,

I didn't say the data wasn't valid, only the interpretation of it biased, or that you could collect your data to support a conclusion you have already made. 911 "truth-er" conspiracy theoristsare a good example. Ignore any facts that disprove their view, and grab a select pieces that do. And I stand by what I said about those of the "Home Birth-ers".

As example, In U.S. if an extremely premature fetus is delivered alive in a hospital, it goes to NICUand if it survives even only a few minutes, it is counted as an "infant mortality" the same as if a full term baby that died after/during delivery.

In most European countries, because of socialized health-care, that same premature fetus is not even tried to be kept alive (it cost too much for treatment, thus it isn't given), and is counted as a "Miscarriage", and NOT part of their "infant mortality" rate. STARTING TO GET THE PICTURE!!

Bumpity,

She is narcissistic when she puts HER "Birth Experience" above the health of her unborn child. Every post of a "Home Birth-er" I have read on here supports that. They all talk and focus on THEIR "Birth Experience" and how good or bad it was. The chance of complications, medical problems, etc. are all SECONDARY.

htdpf - I don't agree that the homebirthing trend stems from narcissism. Again, I think you are generalizing and stereotyping. It doesn't sound like you understand that much about the actual reality of the birthing process. The goal of a birth is to have a healthy baby and a wonderful experience. It's the doctors and hospitals that are profiting so much from this industry that want you to believe you can't have both. There are a lot of excellent statistics that support the long term health and emotional benefits to children that are born naturally. My daughter and her hub researched this in length before they made their decision (he comes from a family of doctors). And I saw the difference in my granddaughter myself when compared to children that started life filled with drugs that were given to the Mom to have a "safer birth" and had a much more stressful entrance into the world. My granddaughter was much more aware, healthy and developmentally advanced than the children born otherwise (including my own children after my C-sections). I thought it was just a fluke until I saw the comparison over and over again with other infants! What a huge difference the home birth made in the health and development of the child not to mention the incredible connection it created between Mom, Dad and child!!

Why can't you get it through your head that a positive birth experience IS one with no complications, interventions, or medical problems?

The majority of complications in childbirth are caused by artificial induction of labor before the woman's body is actually ready to give birth. This is what leads to hemmoraghing, distress to the baby, tearing or episiotomy, and c-section. Complications that are NOT caused by barbaric interventions, such as breach or posterior presentation, or the cord wrapped around the baby's neck, are precisely what midwives are trained for.

Families choose a home birth because they want to AVOID putting their baby into the unecessary danger that they will be faced with if they give birth in a hospital.

You insulting opinion that mothers choose home birth for "selfish" reasons are not backed up by the data that clearly shows home birth is safer for the baby and that if anyone is at higher risk due to complications that need to be treated in a hospital, it's the mother.

Megidolaon,

You say your heart abruptly stopped while your mother was in labor with you. I wonder, was your mother induced, on pain meds, or given an epidural?

Bumpity,

She is narcissistic when she puts HER "Birth Experience" above the health of her unborn child. Every post of a "Home Birth-er" I have read on here supports that. They all talk and focus on THEIR "Birth Experience" and how good or bad it was. The chance of complications, medical problems, etc. are all SECONDARY.

I understand what you are saying, but a woman's birth experience and how she adapts as a mother to that specific baby are intrinsically linked. You can see the same thing with animals, some heifers reject their calves and other's embrace them. If a mother or baby is so drugged up from the pitocin/epidural, how do you expect them to bond appropriately or even be successful in breastfeeding? Don't forget that a woman's frame of mind during pregnancy and birth determines the outcome of who she is as a mother. The best thing for a woman is to let her be in control of her experience. Babies respond to and thrive with healthy mothers.

Those women who have natural births all say that through their chosen birth plan, they had such an empowering and wonderful experience. Can the women who have been drugged up/cut open really say the same thing?

During my last birth I was ready to punch the doctor on call for "breaking my water" without telling me. It was a frustrating experience. I labored for hours, (unmedicated b/c I refused an epi) with no problem at all. But it was a saturday and it was getting late (8pm) I'm sure the doctor had other plans besides waiting for my baby to show up at his pace.

What kind of hospital horror stories? Are babies dying at high rates in hospitals? I thought that the goal was a healthy baby in the end?

I have however been hearing lately about low-risk pregnancies resulting in the death of a baby at home - due to midwife incompetence. Such as Karen Carr who took on a high risk situation and the baby tragically died because the head got stuck (breech). And it's not her first death of an otherwise healthy baby in a deliver that she's presided over.

An otherwise healthy baby dying under OB or CNM care is a very very rare occurrence. Otherwise healthy babies die under the watch of your DEMs and CPMs (someone with no HS diploma can do some online correspondence training and become a midwife) at a higher rate.

Yes OBs overall have a slightly higher rate of baby loss attributed to them, but that is because they care for high risk women and their babies and some babies are born very very sick. My comments above are for otherwise healthy babies.

Perhaps nam m you should follow an OB around on the floor for a day or two and see how long it takes to find some horror story that wasn't because of their intervention.

I had the same experience with the hospital pushing the epidural. The nurse was really testy with me, and said that my window for an epidural would be closing, and that I'd be sorry. It would be painful (really? duh) and I'd regret it. I said NO, no drugs. She stalked off but was back to pestering me about 10 minutes later. I did not cave, but I can see where people might, at their most vulnerable, against some pretty relentless verbal tactics. Luckily, once the shift changed and I had labored a bit more, a kind & lovely nurse came on duty and readily accepted the idea that I wanted to avoid the epidural and perineal cutting if I could. After 12 hours of labor, with attentive care and helpful suggestions (like perineal massage), I gave birth to my nearly 10 pound boy with no interventions. It was the best feeling of my life (a very unique high that cannot be duplicated) and something to be proud of, I think.

I'm confused by how often and how hard they encourage the drugs in the hospital though. If a mom can't feel to push, isn't that stalling out labor? It's safer for the baby to get out faster. I can't understand why critics here say going with your birth plan and NOT taking drugs is a "me, me, me" thing (other than the fact that they're probably trolls.) Because really, I'm sacrificing MY comfort for the ability to be more in tune with the baby on his or her way out. No epidural means obvious pain for me, but I can be more responsive. Perhaps if the pain makes a woman frantic though, or she's utterly beside herself, the staff would want to calm her. For instance, the woman laboring in the room next to me screamed the F word at the top of her lungs practically nonstop for an hour (at everyone, including the baby on the way!) and it affected the whole ward. I'd say, yeah, get that woman some drugs. But those of us that want to labor in quiet, and really sink into this rare experience in life, please leave us alone to do so. It's not like I'm refusing a C-section or something. It's optional drugs for my own comfort, and taking advantage of a woman's resolve at such a vulnerable time is not fair. I think it really depends on your nurse, and how "old school" she is, but for a hospital, this extra income is nice, and maybe that's the bottom line.

And for the record, even though I am all for listening to the mother in wanting to follow her birth plan for interventions, I would never condone home birth for anyone (even the healthiest moms) after my second birth experience. Following a healthy and by-the-book pregnancy, I was induced at the hospital after my child overstayed her due date by a week. (The first baby baked an extra TEN days, hence the nearly 9lb 14oz pound boy.) This labor was quick, just a couple hours, I was mobile until dialated, and the baby was out in a scant half an hour. (She came so quickly, the nurses were like, "Wait, don't push yet!" The doctor had run home since he knew my prior marathon labor afforded him a few hours with his kids. But according to my baby, he didn't have such a luxury!) She was beautiful and healthy, I was feeling wonderful, just like after my first, and the world was perfect. For two hours. And then it all went to pieces.

It took the attending nurse's intuition and training to realize that I was hemorraging. She recognized this because I was NOT feeling pain (which would be the placenta constricting to its normal size.) I was losing a lot of blood, but it was all pooling internally in my uterus, competely NOT evident. At home we would have had no clue! I was feeling great, until suddenly I wasn't. Two hours after a healthy birth, who knows where my mid-wife would have been. My blood pressure plummeted sharply, I got super dizzy and suddenly I had trouble hearing and seeing. Without the benefit of half a dozen staff springing into action and stabilizing me, I would have spiraled too abruptly. There was no time to waste. If we were at home, even though everything had been totally ideal and low risk, I would not be here today.

So, please ladies, find yourselves a good hosptial. Pick a nice and comfy hospital (it does sound like an oxymoron, I know, but doesn't have to be) with an empathetic staff staff that says they really want to fulfill your needs and wishes for the birth. A good sign is they are proud of their whirlpool, and encourage mommies to use it!
.

It took the attending nurse's intuition and training to realize that I was hemorraging.

Are you saying a midwife has no training nor intuition? Our midwife stayed for four hours after the birth. They usually are trained as nurses first as well. I know ours was.

You should also consider the fact that 7 days overdue is not unusual. Forcing the birth with drugs may have led to the very problem you say the nurse saved you from. Petocin (sp?) is a powerful drug and could lead to other complications due to the force of the contractions.

I am sorry for your experience, but I do not think your one case make home birth terrible. The stats say that home birth is no more dangerous than a hospital birth.

Courser,
No, I'm not saying a midwife has no intuition or training. I believe they are not only technically capable but in the right place emotionally to support a laboring mother. What I'm saying is that maybe one person isn't enough. I was grateful for my nurse's intuition (and again, not because she was a nurse, but because she was in tune with what what happening) but the fact that I was in a hospital bed with someone checking on me every fifteen minutes saved me.

Once the baby is born, a midwife has both baby and mother to tend to. And if either one is visibly ailing, that naturally detracts from the other. In the hospital, both mother and child receive simultaneous care. And despite the whole floor full of fully trained hospital personnal just right there, I was still minutes from catastrophe. The doctor relieved the grapefrute sized clot in my uterus via an emergency surgical procedure, and it took powerful drugs to shrink the uterus down before more bleeding occurred. If I had been at home, I would have been toast.

I definitely agree with you that pitocin is a powerful drug, and believe me, I did not take that decision lightly. A ten pound baby is just too big though, and my second was on track to be just as large. It was definitely not a decision borne of convenience.

I learned after being discharged from the maternity ward, and having to check into the regular floor days later for continued bleeding that the treatment you receive after birth is really very special compared to your run of the mill, overcrowded hospital floor, which in this case was a nightmare (one nurse kept forgetting to give me a timely medication, I had to remind her, and there were times no one answered my buzzer despite my attempts to call for help.) The lesson here is don't let anyone pressure you into being discharged from the maternity ward if you do not feel you are ready to go home yet. Because they will pressure you-- they want the bed back.

Should something happen at a home birth, minutes do count. Waiting to be transferred by ambulance to a hospital takes precious time. If you can find a home-like environment at a hosptial nowadays, and with people claiming that home births cost just as much as hosptial deliveries, why would you want to take the risk?

We tend to overlook the human body in today's medical environment. Studies now point to abstract concepts like happiness and a good attitude as factors that influence our health. Being at home with your family and a midwife you have used for months brings a level of comfort to childbirth. I think that is overlooked as a potential benefit of home birth. We tend to think the safest environment is the one that is most likely to keep us alive should something go wrong. I would like to believe that a comfortable home birth can prevent some of the problems that may arise from a hospital birth.

Worry and stress are common in hospital births. People come and go from the room. Doctors will rush to get the births done quickly. Women are cut, injected, and babies vacuumed out. These commonplace interventions should be used as a last resort and too often are not.

Our home births were so intimate. My wife delivered and the first place the baby went was in my arms. She had pushed for 5 hours, so she needed the attention. Me and the little one just stared at each other for an hour. I think there is a great benefit in the closeness and comfort to which we are brought into the world. It was not the safest place to be should a complication arise, but I do believe there is a lower chance of a complication when stress is removed.

I think the decision should rest on individual women. Some will be more comfortable in a hospital. Other are more comfortable at home. Rather than have a universal plan for delivering in a hospital, we should allow the diverse methods of childbirth and educate pregnant women. Our OBGYNs never explained anything to us and that is why we left. They knew the exact plan for a birth and that is a poor way to look at it. Every birth is unique and a hospital is not able to deal with that. There are guidelines to follow and if you fall outside of those, they intervene.

I am happy there is a debate about this. I remember telling my wife that this is our child and I will not let her risk its health for a home birth. After much research, I have found the exact opposite. She did what was best for our kids by having them at home. I am ashamed that I let the status quo become fact in my head without looking into it. It is why I am compelled to respond to this article. I can only hope our responses get people to think about what is best for them. I also hope my kids have the same options we had.

Paula,

My wife had a very similar experience to your second birth with her third - She was a c-section for our first child, a home birth VBAC with no complications whatsoever for the second, and a mostly un-complicated home birth that ended up with a hemorrhage for our third. Your description of the symptos you had bring up some scary memories, as this is exactly what she experienced as well. Our midwives hadn't "taken off" like you seem to be asserting that they would have done, and they recognized the problem, jumped into action immediately, got her on iv fluids and administered pitocin as well as uterine massage and promptly relieved the clot. Grapefruit sized is a bit smaller than I would describe this one to be - this was at least the size of a second placenta. While it took about four weeks and lots of iron and blood building supplements for her to recover, this was still far superior to the 9 weeks of recovery and resulting stress and damage to our daughter that the mandatory c-section she would have been court-ordered to undergo from the hospital would have been. On the incredibly improbable chance that she would have not been forced into a c-section, The hospital would have induced her since all of our children have tended to be at least 14 days past their scheduled "due date". Had she been induced, I have no doubt whatsoever that the hemmorhage would have been catastrophically worse.

Ness,
The thing about hemorraging is that it's very life and death; maternal blood loss is a very serious thing. I'm surprised the midwives took on the risk of trying to extract the clot at home. It's a D&C and technically a surgical procedure. Since my doctor didn't have time to administer any pain meds, and I didn't already have an epidural block, they just went for it, and it was excrutiatingly painful.

I'm glad in your wife's case that there was more than one person, and they certainly sounded knowledgable and proactive. All parties obviously went in knowing this was a VBAC scenario, which, in hospitals, more often than not end up as C-sections because of the risk of rupture. I'm not certain how midwives' medical malpractice insurance works, but the fact that they would take that on in a home setting leads me to believe that there is more success with VBAC than hospitals lead us to believe.

As for recovery, it took me two months to rebuild my blood supply and to feel as if the lead weights were released from my legs, but you are right, it was much preferred to C-section recovery because there was no open, oozing wound or risk of infection.

Courser, I see your point on stress. For me, the security of knowing I was in the hands of people I liked and trusted, and the hospital represented safety to me. For your wife, that place was home. Hospitals are scary places, and they do harbor germs and infections so they are not without risk, yes, but I have utmost respect for my OB-gyn. He is the most awesome doctor, with the best beside manner. He totally respects birth plans, even encourages them, and follows to the best of his ability. The others in his practice were great, too, but mine was a very rare breed of doctor. As for the hospital where this practice delivers, they only have 6 rooms, and birth and recovery are all in one, homey room, where the spouse and baby are welcome to stay. This made all the difference in our hospital experience.

It was not a D & Csurgical procedure that they used(I looked that up and yes it appears to be a very complex and invasive procedure - our midwives would not have done that and no doctor would outside of a sterile environment. I do not remember the term for it, but it's sometimes called uterine massage. They locate the uterus externally from the abdomen and compress and release, similar to chest compressions in CPR

Midwives, while I'm sure have some kind of insurance, it is not malpractice insurance as they are not practicing medicine. They are facilitators of a natural process. There is actually a lawsuit that has been filed recently (not from the patient but by the hospital) where a midwife delivered a baby who was coming out en route to the hospital, and now her practice has been shut down and she faces further litigation for "practicing medicine without a license"

I agree with your statement on C-sections. Way to many people going this route for all the wrong reasons - setting a date, that's when family will be in, got to be ready for x by x time, ect. C-sections, like the use of antibiotics, medications, and some other overly done medical procedures need to be limited and more closely monitored. C-sections are an emergency procedure for when complications arise not because you want to meet a certain date and should not be given as an option without a good medical reason. Unfortunately to many doctors have forgotten natural ways, similar to formula and breastfeeding in this case (formula is fine but breastfeeding needs to be promoted more - at least first 2 weeks - but at same time don't look down on those who do use formula - we had to use formula because my wife was unable to produce enough milk so I know both sides here). Our biggest problem is we are too quick to abandon nature and do our thing instead of working with it more and intervening only when needed. (kinda like the excessive number of leeves and the mississippi river, see what happens when you try to control nature) Birth isn't fun, you don't want to deal with it don't have kids. If you want to have home birth fine with me, your choice, just be sure you understand the risks - don't forget there is a reason why we do have hospitals. I would also agree costs are probably part of this. I too wonder about the ratio of insured to uninsured in those calculations (and no offense but in the ratios listed how many might be due to illegal population?) It is time for us to look back to nature and find better ways to work in tandem with nature and not against it. Nature was doing its thing long before we got here and got all of our fancy equipment and got along just fine, we can find a way to work together with the right balance, and should be.

Why any woman wouldn't want a pain free birth is beyond me. Ignorance is what I call it. C-section for me baby, any day. We don't live in the dark ages!

You must be a rich chick.

brandir-2606082

Why any woman wouldn't want a pain free birth is beyond me. Ignorance is what I call it. C-section for me baby, any day. We don't live in the dark ages!

Because every intervention comes with risks. A C-section is a MAJOR surgery. It's ludicrous to "elect" to have a major surgery if it's unnecessary unless you are completely oblivious to the possible risks involved.

You don't think women recovering from a C-section go through any pain?

If you believe that having a natural childbirth without clinical intervention is somehow "living in the dark ages", you certainly have a warped sense of reality.

By choosing a c-section, you're increasing your risk of complications and increasing the chances of infant mortality (rate is higher for elective c-section babies). There's a reason for natural birth, the child benefits from travelling the birth-canal. Also, epidurals cut off a crucial hormone to the baby. My mom had 4 children with no epidurals, she always said the pain wasn't that bad...she also used to say she thought it was funny that all the people she knew who talked about the pain of natural birth had never actually experienced a natural birth. Women can handle the discomfort...they were built to way before the invention of pain meds.

I had a c section a few months ago, not by choice but because of a breech baby and let me tell you the pain from a c-section was minimal. The recovery was not hard at all. The back pain prior to the c-section (which was not scheduled) was unbelievable. I will never ever forget it and I am not a better person for having had it. I wanted to die. I cared about nothing but dying.

And no, I am not rich.

Most women aren't given a choice unless they are rich.

Hey don't criticize C sections...I'm not sure how long she said, but my mother stuggled for sooo long with my brother and me, but due to narrow hips, she just couldn't push us out, and was eventually exhausted. So they did C sections.

brandir-2606082

Why any woman wouldn't want a pain free birth is beyond me. Ignorance is what I call it. C-section for me baby, any day. We don't live in the dark ages!

Perhaps it is the four-fold increased risk of maternal death that comes with a C-section has some women seeking intervention free births. Or perhaps it is the fact the risks increase with each subsequent C-section, such as adhesions, uterine rupture or placenta accreta.

Might it be the in increased risk of vaginal tears that comes from pushing under anesthesia? Or the lingering effects of the anesthesia on the infant?

Maybe you should pull YOURSELF out of the dark ages and educate yourself on the risks.

It is misleading to directly compare the mortality rates of vaginal and Caesarean deliveries, as women with severe medical conditions and other higher-risk situations very often require a c/s which can distort the mortality figures. We are talking really sick mothers here. What we need to compare are mortality rates for low risk c/s versus mortality rate for low risk vaginal delivery.

Heather-567681

It is misleading to directly compare the mortality rates of vaginal and Caesarean deliveries, as women with severe medical conditions and other higher-risk situations very often require a c/s which can distort the mortality figures. We are talking really sick mothers here. What we need to compare are mortality rates for low risk c/s versus mortality rate for low risk vaginal delivery.

Most women who die from C-sections die not from the conditions that may have necessitated their surgery, but from complications directly attributable to their surgery. It is appropriate to compare them as-is.

Co morbid conditions caused by the pregnancy may be what the woman dies of, but the c/s saves the baby. HELLP syndrome, etc.

You cannot lump all c/s for all reasons and compare to low risk vaginal deliveries.

That is totally inaccurate! After extensive research on the subject prior to my own c-section a more accurate statement would be: MORE women WOULD HAVE died with a life threatening condition that necessitated a c-section had they not had a c-section to correct the problem.

Hi Brandir,

I think we're basically in agreement. I am just arguing against the statement made that there is a 4 fold increase in maternal death because of c/s. Generally if a woman dies during/after a c/s, there were other factors behind that which is why you cannot outright compare death rates between vaginal delivery and c/s.

Absolutely c/s have saved countless mothers and babies who would have otherwise died during delivery.

Yes women have been giving birth at home or in a field somewhere and even caves if you go back that far.

What is important to remember is that the mortality rate was much higher then, than it is today. Interventions such as c sections have saved the lives of babies who would otherwise not be earthside. If you couldn't get the baby out and it died, the mother would die too, potentially leaving other children motherless.

Mother Nature is a horrible obstetrician.

I realize this, and I didn't say that there is anything wrong with modern medicine. On the other hand, Mother Nature used to be able to control explosive world populations.

The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate of any western country, higher than even Cuba's. We haven't come that far.

Heather this does not explain why our infant mortality is higher than other countries. I think it has to do with diet and drug use.

Emily, to make our infant mortality rate more in line with Cuba's, we should stop offering fertility services to older women. Do you really want to do that?

We should not allow obese women to get pregnant. Do you really want to do that?

We should sterilize drug using women. Do you really want to do that?

There are many reasons why the infant mortality rate is higher in the US. A lot of it is because of social reasons causing higher risk to a growing baby.

I'd say it has more to do with complications caused by c-sections, which are often caused by epidurals. Also, lack of breastfeeding isn't helping. We have the lowest breastfeeding rate in the western world and the highest infant mortality rate...I doubt that's a coincidence.

Emily, c/s complications in otherwise healthy women are quite rare. There is always the risk of infection or excessive bleeding, and very rarely, injury to the internal organs/vessels during surgery.

Fortunately c/s are only done by qualified providers so you do not see much gross malpractice (such as knicking the abdominal aorta).

Well designed after well designed study do not show that epidurals increase the c/s rate. One even shows the potential for the converse, if you let the mother rest and be without pain.

As for lack of breastfeeding, it is absolutely beneficial for preemies, to prevent serious gut infections. Fortunately most babies are full term and for full term babies, it is not quite the magical juice that some make it out to be.

Sterilizing drug-abusing women doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

At 22 months your child has never been to the doctor. You must be proud.

Really smart.

Why should I and my child sit in a germ filled waiting room for 2 hours to have doctor poke and prod and say 'you're healthy, $95 please'? I used to do that. 6 years ago, during an examination of one my children, in an attempt to determine IF A PROBELM EXISTED, a fat fingered Dr. gave my child an anal fissure(read up on them- they HURT). My child suffered for the next 6 MONTHS. Oh yeah and nothing was wrong. $2855, please.

2000 years ago a wise man said 'They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick'. I know that the human race does not learn from history, but I keep hoping....

Perhaps the doctor knows a few things about labor and delivery, hence the word "Doctor" and the many many years of schooling. But, hey, what would he know.

You are not the client, you do not pay the bill, the insurance company is the client, they are the ones who must be catered to. If you paid the bill they would have to be concerned with your satisfaction, since you do not they must only concern themselves with whether the insurance company will reimburse them.

So Indi,

Let me get this straight. There were COMPLICATIONS with the births of your first 3 children and thus your wife had very bad experiences in the hospital births, so for the 4th you decided to "Shoot Craps" and have a home birth, after "Crapping out" on first 3 rolls. Gamble much?? I think I want to play poker with you.

Secondly, you say 4th child hasn't been to doctor in 22 months. So that means they haven't had any of their immunizations. What do you intend to do when get ready to enter school? Play catch-up for 5 years, or are you a "Home School-er"? so your kids don't need them. They can just endanger everyone they come in contact with for preventable diseases.

I believe in immunizations but everything else independence said made sense. This doctor forced these procedures (episiotomy,etc) in order to pad his bill. This is the kind of sh** that has women wanting home births.

NO MEN IN OB/GYN!!! They are too agressive and money minded. They do not care about women or babies.

Marinmom, sexist comments aside, don't you think that it might be a problem with the system and not with a gender?

htj, it appears that there were complications due to interventions that the hospital did. He chose NOT to gamble on the fourth by placing her into the same situation that caused complications in the past.

Independence, When you say for our fourth, was that an unassisted home birth, or a midwife attended? My children are only vaccinated on an as-needed basis (such as sports or programs that thy cannot join when not vaccinated) due to my first child being permanently disabled by his round of vaccines, but I do take the kids for checkups.

this is to all the people who do not like episiotomies. Be glad you got one.The peole who are complaining about it, won't be complaining after menopause.

you people don't realize that you bladder can drop when you age this happens to women, .The episiotomy can help prevent that, especially if you have one or more kid.i'm glad i had done it saved me alot of grief.

it depends on the doctor and who does it. it depends on what kind of a job they do.this should be discussed before you go into a hospital.if your not satisfied with what you're hearing, then it's time to change doctors. the birth plan should also be discussed ahead of time and not we'll see and blah blah from the doctor. you're paying them, you demand service. if you get flak from the doctor. then change doctors.

Ness, the complications were not all caused by intervention. Independence said the first child was delivered by c-section due to preeclampsia. That is a maternal condition, not an iatrogenic complication. The c-section may have saved mom's life.

Maternal/infant mortality rates in the US are the highest of any first world nation. Your alarmist argument holds no water. See the WHO study on maternal/infant mortality rates and educate yourself.

Mortality rates are higher than some other 1st world countries, but not because of crappy OB care. Part of the increase is due to fertility treatments in older mommas and/or higher order births. Not because OBs are killing women with interventions.

Infant mortality statistics as compiled for the OECD numbers that are often quoted to smear our healthcare system are, what for it, bogus. Why? Even the agency that collects the stats warns in their reports that they are NOT valid for comparison between countries BECAUSE the determination of live birth vs. not is determined by different criterea for chosen by each country. The US has the most liberal standards recording virtually every birth as 'live' even though it may not be viable. While some countries can have a baby born, breath, have heart beat and for reasons such as decreased fetal weight, choose to qualify it as not live. So it will never be reported as infant mortality but fetal demise.

An online friend who worked in military hospitals overseas discussed this with local physicians at one of the bases he was stationed on. He was surprised to learn that in that country (somewhere in Southeast Asia, I think), if a baby dies within the first 24 hours of life, its birth is never recorded as having occurred. If you throw out your worst results, your average results look a lot better than reality.

I'm glad YOU had a good experience. Why did you have problems? Do you have other health problems or are you an older mother?

Well for a start you lost more babies back in the day. Not every baby needs to survive in order to keep the human race growing. Are you advocating we return to those 'simpler' times? Look at 3rd world countries and their infant death rates. Should we strive to be just like that?

And the mortality rate for childbirth was a lot higher during those "thousands of years".

That is a no-brainer.

Well, we here in the U.S. have one of the highest infant mortality rates of developed countries, so I'd say the hospitals aren't doing their jobs.

We're having babies at older ages, we are having higher order multiples, obese ladies are having babies, women hooked on crack are having babies...all of these increase the risk to the baby, through means such as increased rates of prematurity and other precarious situations.

Some of these reasons are issues more in the US than other first world country. Not because OBs are killing babies with interventions.

I think it is mostly dietary.

It's like the vaccination rate. People forget that our babies and children used to die at appalling rates, because they do not, now. There's a reason why most educated people with access to health care only have one to three children. They don't HAVE to have more, because their babies will live!

I urge people to have a good crawl through their family history. If you go back a few generations, you'll start to notice something: Women were having six, eight, a dozen children. Half of them may have made it to adulthood! What do people think happened to the other half?

Much of the time, stillbirths (baby's heart stopped during labor), were unnamed. In some cultures, it was common for several children to have the same first name. That way, one of them might make it. Also in some cultures, babies weren't officially named for a year or two...

I agree . . . I think we take child and even adult survival rates for granted. Those survival rates have increased due to modern medicine. I for one chose not to reject those advancements. I will do everything I can, including vaccinate for the health and wellbeing of my child.

I went through my family tree for several hundred years. Several babies passed away due to unnamed cause(s)(inadequate care? unsanitary conditions? it was not noted) Hundreds of home births. Dozens and dozens of hospital births. (a 30 year period where Doctors forbade breastfeeding- it is bad- use formula 1945-75). Very few vaccinations of record. Zero Autism.

Agree with this. My pregnancy was normal, and since I am a diabetic, my doctor and I chose to induce labor because the baby was a bit big. I also chose to have an epidural...and I am so thankful.

Everything was fine until I stopped dilating and actually went backward. My son's head and neck were stuck on my pelvic bone and there was no way in hell he was coming out vaginally. I had an emergency section as his heart rate began to drop.

It was the most painful experience...every contraction felt like my pelvis was going to shatter. I was exhausted and terrified that my son wouldn't make it, so I had to be sedated. My poor little baby didn't even cry when he was finally out, and his apgar was a two. Luckily, there was a very skilled team that took care of him, and he's now a very energetic 18-month old.

If a woman wants a home birth, that's fine and dandy, but don't wag the finger at me and tell me my choice is horrible. If not for my OB and the hospital, my son and I would both be dead.

Right, MichelleUT? The NCB crowd is all about women's choices...unless your choice is different. Then you're just sheeple.

The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate of of any western country, including Cuba. Childbirth in this country is designed around doctors, many of whom are men, and most of whom go against what nature dictates for childbirth. If nature intends it, there's usually a reason. "The Business of Being Born" is a great movie about this.

I'm not wagging my finger at you Michelle. You ARE a person who should deliver at a hospital. If your diabetes is due to dietary problems, you need to work on that, especially if you are considering having another. Keep in mind, the second one is usually much easier.

I'm not wagging my finger at you Michelle. You ARE a person who should deliver at a hospital. If your diabetes is due to dietary problems, you need to work on that, especially if you are considering having another. Keep in mind, the second one is usually much easier.

Seems like a lot of finger wagging to me, though, I didn't accuse you of it to begin with. For the record, my diabetes isn't a matter of diet, and I'm a little offended you'd be so bold as to give me diet advice without knowing anything about me.

There will be no more children for me as I don't care to have more than one. But if I did? Not a chance that it'd be at home.

I don't have to go back several generations - just one. My maternal grandmother gave birth to 13 children. 8 survived to adulthood. 1 drowned when he was 17. 4 were stillborn or died shortly after birth. All were born at home.

Emily, you are one of the suckers that PT Barnum claimed was born every minute.

I think I needed the painkillers because the medical staff made me nervous. I could have gotten through it better if there were no perverts popping their heads in the door trying to get a free look at some beaver. These were the days before internet porn so I guess the L&D room was the next best thing. Reminds me of a post I read written by a man who witnessed four EMT's come over to have a look at his wife's exposed crotch. When the fifth one was on his way over to have a look he told his wife to close her legs. The EMT turned about face and went the other direction. We all think these people are so professional when alot are actually pervs!

NO MEN IN OB/GYN!!!

NO MEN IN OB/GYN!!!

This is one of the most sexist comments I have read. Why can't men be in OB/GYN? Do you feel the same way about women dr.'s dealing with men's sexual issues? Do you feel that there should be NO FEMALES in male urology?

I volunteer as an EMT, and my fellow volunteers are mostly male. They HATE OB calls, no prurient interest at all. They will argue over who gets to drive the ambulance, avoiding being in the back with the patient, and it is made clear to female EMT's that they will be the ones giving patient care for OB calls, when they are available. I can't imagine any of them ogling a patient in labor.