Log In Sign Up

Homebirth controversy


Forum: September 2013 Playroom

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Like Tree55Likes

Closed Topic Post New Topic
  Subscribe To September 2013 Playroom LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #21  
March 26th, 2013, 06:05 PM
Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMorgan View Post
Here is the link to the Oregon study that I referred to. In Oregon, planned homebirth with a direct-entry midwife is not illegal, and the state specifically collected information about birth outcomes and planned-site-of-birth in order to properly address the question of out-of-hospital safety.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...gDocument/8585
Can you find me the link to the actual study? The link you provided is a word document that anyone could have written. To my knowledge there has been no major home birth study in Oregon. I dont know if this information is accurate just so you are aware.

ETA: Ok. so it wasnt a study.. it was just information given by Oregon on their homebirth statistics. This article explains why the deaths had nothing to do with the place of birth. http://news.health.com/2012/05/08/ho...nancies-study/
__________________

*Thanks so much Jaidynsmum for my awesome siggy!*
06/12 11/12

Make a pregnancy ticker

Last edited by Steph604; March 26th, 2013 at 06:11 PM.
  #22  
March 26th, 2013, 06:07 PM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
The study that Steph shared is relevant to British Columbia, in Canada, looking at registered midwives, who are the equivilant of certified nurse-midwives in the USA. Yes, they have fantastic outcomes, and I wish we had a similar system in the United States. But we don't.
  #23  
March 26th, 2013, 06:10 PM
Keakie's Avatar Learning to walk in faith
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near the land of cream cheese
Posts: 5,586
Thanks for figuring that out, Steph. I was wondering about the weird layout and phrasing.
Steph604 likes this.
__________________


*Cautiously and excitedly expecting number two - shhh, if we're friends on Facebook. *



Thank you to Babydoll213 for my fabulous siggie!
  #24  
March 26th, 2013, 08:04 PM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Steph wrote:

Quote:
ETA: Ok. so it wasnt a study.. it was just information given by Oregon on their homebirth statistics. This article explains why the deaths had nothing to do with the place of birth. http://news.health.com/2012/05/08/ho...nancies-study/
You're partly correct, Steph...it wasn't a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was indeed preliminary data published by the state of Oregon.

You're partly incorrect in stating that the article you posted (dated May, 2012) was intended to dispute the preliminary data (made available March, 2013).

The preliminary data was published as “ Preliminary Data on Oregon Birth Outcomes, by Planned Birth Place and Attendant Pursuant to: HB 2380 (2011)” (HB 2380 was the one that mandated that planned birth place be recorded on birth certificates). The link I posted above is the testimony that Judith Rooks (who describes herself as "certified nurse-midwife, a past-president of the American College of Nurse-Midwives, and a CDC-trained epidemiologist") gave before the Oregon State legislature, regarding her analysis of the preliminary data.

Additional discussion of this preliminary report can be found at this link on the Oregon Midwifery council's website http://oregonmidwiferycouncil.org/wp/?p=1052
and additional discussion specific to Ms. Rooks testimony can be found at http://www.thelundreport.org/resourc...nsed_in_oregon. The article in the second link is followed up by a discussion by an independant analysis of the same report. Both of these sources describe the in-hospital perinatal death rate as around 2.1 per thousand, which is higher than described in Ms. Rooks testimony, but neither dispute the death rates she states for out-of-hospital births. So basically, best case scenario is that out-of-hospital death rates are twice as high as in-hospital death rates, worse case scenario they are 6-8 times higher.

I intend to request a copy of the "Preliminary Data on Oregon Birth Outcomes, by Planned Birth Place and Attendant Pursuant to: HB 2380 (2011)” and crunch the numbers myself; I'll share it with anyone that wants to see it if I can get my hands on it.
  #25  
March 26th, 2013, 08:19 PM
MyFantasticFour's Avatar Mommy of 4
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keakie View Post
I'd have to do some digging as I stopped most of the research I had been doing once we realized we'd be moving to a place where I would have access to a midwife-operated birth center (which, for the record, I have chosen as opposed to a home birth primarily because this is my first baby - the vast majority of home birth to hospital transfers are first time mothers who panic, and I'm admittedly a slight hypochondria - and so a birth center was a happy medium for me). That said, Shelley, I would happy to send you whatever links I still have laying around. Were you looking for any specific type of information?

ETA: LM - you realize that most statistics from the CDC or AMA are going to be deliberately slanted against home births, right? That these groups have a vested financial interest in keeping birth in the hospital? That the information you've provided is very limited and no extrapolations on the circumstances have been given for any of these situations, and that non-fatal but life-threatening or otherwise significant complications as a result of unnecessary interventions were not included? In addition, one year in one state is a fraction of a sample for home births overall in the developed world.

You also realize that there are plenty of doctors who get all of the right education and training who are still terrible care providers because they treat their patients like cattle, ignore their wishes, make medical decisions based on what's more convenient for their schedules even if it's not ideal for the mother or the baby? I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be unfair to claim that because there are doctors like this who exist, ALL doctors must be like that or ALL hospital births must be traumatic. Midwifery and home birth is no different.

Do you realize that the US is the only western country that does not universally support and encourage home birth? That in Canada, the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, etc. home birth is considered a viable birthing option and is encouraged for low-risk mothers by official medical organizations?

Do you also realize that the nightmarish circumstances that can be fatal during birth (cord prolapse, placental abruption, nuchal cord) are no less of a risk at a hospital than they are at home?
When are we hanging out?? You are amazing!! I <3 you already!! LOL
beckiethedoula and Keakie like this.
__________________




  #26  
March 26th, 2013, 08:22 PM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Keakie wrote

Quote:
In none of your posts did you state that there are organizations that give out certifications for "only a high school diploma as far as formal education goes (plus apprenticeship-style experience, assessments and exams)". You stated that they gave out certifications for "only a high school diploma". I believe that your statement is false, and deliberately misleading.
My two statements that you could be possibly referring to are these:

"I've heard that some women with only a highschool education are passing themselves off as midwives, when they don't have any ability to deal with complications. "

and

"However, there is a certification out there for mid-wives that have only a high-school education, and I was alarmed when I learned about that."

Perhaps this is an example of how things can be misunderstood on the internet. By saying someone has "only a highschool education", I thought it was obvious that I was referring to someone who does not have any advanced degrees, not even an associates degree (which typically requires two years at an accredited university in the USA) or a bachelors degree (which typically requires four years). Clearly you misunderstood what I meant. I was not being deliberately misleading, and my information was not false...the link to the NARM website confirms that the only formal education requirement for a CPM is a high school diploma or its equivalent.
  #27  
March 26th, 2013, 08:26 PM
Keakie's Avatar Learning to walk in faith
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near the land of cream cheese
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyFantasticFour View Post
When are we hanging out?? You are amazing!! I <3 you already!! LOL
Soon, I hope! You're pretty fantastic yourself!
__________________


*Cautiously and excitedly expecting number two - shhh, if we're friends on Facebook. *



Thank you to Babydoll213 for my fabulous siggie!
  #28  
March 26th, 2013, 08:42 PM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Quote:
you realize that most statistics from the CDC or AMA are going to be deliberately slanted against home births, right?
I could maybe see why the AMA would put a tilt on statistics due to a vested financial interest, but not the CDC - it is a government agency that gets funded to collect and distribute accurate information with no interest other than the public health.

Quote:
I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be unfair to claim that because there are doctors like this who exist, ALL doctors must be like that or ALL hospital births must be traumatic. Midwifery and home birth is no different.
I do agree that there are both good doctors and bad doctors, and there are good midwives and bad midwives. In fact, I believe most midwives are wonderful, and the ones that are properly trained are fantastic.

Quote:
Do you realize that the US is the only western country that does not universally support and encourage home birth? That in Canada, the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, etc. home birth is considered a viable birthing option and is encouraged for low-risk mothers by official medical organizations?
Those countries have a system where highly trained nurse-midwives attend homebirths, and they rigourously exclude high-risk mothers from home births. I wish we had a system like that in the USA.

Quote:
Do you also realize that the nightmarish circumstances that can be fatal during birth (cord prolapse, placental abruption, nuchal cord) are no less of a risk at a hospital than they are at home?
This is where I disagree with you. These rare and horrible events may occur just as frequently in a hospital as they do at home, but in a hospital they result in emergency c-sections and the baby is much more likely to survive.

Last edited by LadyMorgan; March 26th, 2013 at 08:44 PM. Reason: mispelling
  #29  
March 26th, 2013, 08:43 PM
MyFantasticFour's Avatar Mommy of 4
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,302
It seems as though plenty of links and information have been posted (let me add https://www.facebook.com/BringBirthHome?ref=ts&fref=ts too because I love them) so I'll just put my personal experience up...

This will be my first homebirth. There were oodles of interventions with my oldest and I almost ended up with a c-section, despite being a perfectly healthy mom and baby with a perfectly normal pregnancy. Epidural led to inability to push which lead to forceps.

My midwife is a CPM. She attended a three year program at a midwifery school. She is certified through NARM. She has been attending births for 11 years and I am in a FB group with 167 other "customers" of hers who have been thrilled with their births. A few have ended with c-sections but all are very happy. I am so, SO confident in her intuition and abilities at a midwife. We actually just got through discussing congenital heart defects and she explained that she has known within moments if babies have had it, even though only 4 of her babies have. She is very in-tune with moms and their babies and I have never been more confident in a medical provider in my life. I know that if she senses or sees any problems at all that put my baby or I at risk, she will absolutely positively not hesitate to send us where further care may be needed. I am excited for the birth of my baby and I am confident that we will be in great hands, no matter what!!
beckiethedoula and Keakie like this.
__________________





Last edited by MyFantasticFour; March 26th, 2013 at 10:50 PM.
  #30  
March 26th, 2013, 09:08 PM
Keakie's Avatar Learning to walk in faith
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near the land of cream cheese
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMorgan View Post
Those countries have a system where highly trained nurse-midwives attend homebirths, and they rigourously exclude high-risk mothers from home births. I wish we had a system like that in the USA.

This is where I disagree with you. These rare and horrible events may occur just as frequently in a hospital as they do at home, but in a hospital they result in emergency c-sections and the baby is much more likely to survive.
To the first point - there are LOTS of CPMs and lay midwives who refuse to attend high-risk home births too. It's an enormously huge generalization to suggest otherwise. Many of them follow the exact same criteria that CNMs and midwives in other western countries do.

To the second point - I'm not sure if you simply didn't read any of the links I've already provided or if you're pretending not to have, but the fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of those situations, there is ample warning ahead of time or present risk factors that would detectable by a good midwife. If they were to occur unexpectedly in the last 10 minutes or labor, it would be extremely difficult to prepare a patient for and perform a c-section in time even at the hospital. Midwives are generally equipped with just as effective resuscitation equipment as would be available at the hospital. Furthermore, there are many situations in which an emergency c-section is performed either a) as a result of unnecessary medical interventions or b) when there isn't really an "emergency" at hand. There are absolutely situations in which a c-section is mandatory and in those situations I am SO thankful that we have the medical technology to accomplish them; there are far more c-sections that were either not medically necessary in the first place or that wouldn't have been if the hospital didn't perform unnecessary interventions and jack up the mother's natural labor process.

I realize that everyone wants to believe that they can make their birth risk-free, but that's really not possible. We can minimize risks and be prepared for known risk factors, but the fact of the matter is that there's ALWAYS going to be a risk involved. It's not something I like to think about, but it's the truth. You don't have to agree with me about which path holds the least risk (which, IMO, won't be the same path for every mama and every baby) but I will ask again that you stop disparaging and criticizing mothers who make the choice to birth at home.
Heidijens1 likes this.
__________________


*Cautiously and excitedly expecting number two - shhh, if we're friends on Facebook. *



Thank you to Babydoll213 for my fabulous siggie!
  #31  
March 26th, 2013, 09:25 PM
Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 533
My midwife delivers in a birth center and also refuses high risk pregnancies for good reason!
__________________


  #32  
March 26th, 2013, 11:08 PM
Happy Song's Avatar Nicole
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyFantasticFour View Post
It seems as though plenty of links and information have been posted (let me add https://www.facebook.com/BringBirthHome?ref=ts&fref=ts too because I love them) so I'll just put my personal experience up...

This will be my first homebirth. There were oodles of interventions with my oldest and I almost ended up with a c-section, despite being a perfectly healthy mom and baby with a perfectly normal pregnancy. Epidural lead to inability to push which lead to forceps.

My midwife is a CPM. She attended a three year program at a midwifery school. She is certified through NARM. She has been attending births for 11 years and I am in a FB group with 167 other "customers" of hers who have been thrilled with their births. A few have ended with c-sections but all are very happy. I am so, SO confident in her intuition and abilities at a midwife. We actually just got through discussing congenital heart defects and she explained that she has known within moments if babies have had it, even though only 4 of her babies have. She is very in-tune with moms and their babies and I have never been more confident in a medical provider in my life. I know that if she senses or sees any problems at all that put my baby or I at risk, she will absolutely positively not hesitate to send us where further care may be needed. I am excited for the birth of my baby and I am confident that we will be in great hands, no matter what!!

I think that it sucks that midwives do a higher quality of care but are very exclusionary. I would opt for a home birth except I have high blood pressure controlled by medication. It has not figured into my births, except my doctor tells me at delivery,ok no more medication and I still need the medication. Next time I am smuggling in my pills.
__________________
  #33  
March 27th, 2013, 05:45 AM
ValyntineG's Avatar Based on a True Story
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Texas and stuff
Posts: 6,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMorgan View Post
Here is the link to the Oregon study that I referred to. In Oregon, planned homebirth with a direct-entry midwife is not illegal, and the state specifically collected information about birth outcomes and planned-site-of-birth in order to properly address the question of out-of-hospital safety.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...gDocument/8585
Here are my issues with this information:

1. As someone else pointed out, this is not a "study." These are statistics. Two very different things.

2. These statistics cover roughly 40,000 (ish) births in the state of Oregon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly positive that there are 49 more states in this country. I'm not sure how anyone can be expected to make an informed decision based on data that is so painfully incomplete.

3. Where is the information detailing the cause of death in any of these scenarios? If 25 hospital births resulted in death, then we can conclude that deaths DO occur in hospitals during or shortly after labor. We can also conclude from the data that deaths occur during home births as well. However, because deaths occurred in both locations, we CANNOT conclude that the OOH deaths occurred due to the result of a lack of medical interference. We can assume all we want, but that doesn't make it true.

4. The number of IP deaths were not included in the in-hospital statistics. The statistics given explain this by saying that the number is extremely low and then goes on to give an estimated rate based on studies in two completely different countries. These studies are not cited.

5. The number of in-hospital deaths that were caused by congenital abnormalities is not given.

6. These are the statistics for 2012. Where are all the other years? One year is incomplete data.

I also found this quote in another article commenting on Judith Rooks' findings:

"The article quotes Ms. Judith Rooks as stating that in “Oregon hospitals,.. there were 25 neonatal deaths out of 40,000” births. This statement should be explained. Ms Rooks is referring to the loss of a baby during the time of birth. The hospital neonatal mortality rate for term babies was stated as being 2.1 per thousand for that year (an unusually low number). I wish it could be accurately stated that only 25 term babies died out of 40,000 births, but sadly this is not true; there were actually 84. The mortality rate in the US may be close to the achievable minimum in preventable deaths, but we do want to continue to work to lower it!"

Also:

"'The article says that Ms. Rooks “cited statistics showing last year in Oregon, direct-entry midwives attended 7 infant deaths out of 1,200 births — a rate 8 times higher than in Oregon hospitals” .

I have the report which Ms Rooks was reading from and there are some errors in this article. The report is “ Preliminary Data on Oregon Birth Outcomes, by Planned Birth Place and Attendant Pursuant to: HB 2380 (2011)” No authors are listed, but it is from the Public Health Division Directors Office .
There is no quotation in this report of a death rate 8 times higher than hospital, and there were not 7 “infant” deaths. Three of these losses occurred in the days or weeks before labor ever began; just four babies were lost after birth. The report lists the term mortality rate of hospital born babies as being 2.1 per thousand, and the out-of-hospital rate as 4 per thousand. At no point does the report ever state that the homebirth loss rate was 8 times higher than the hospital loss rate.


That report states there were 1,995 planned out of hospital births (home or birth center): that midwives attended 1235 of them (at least a third of these would have been in a Birth Centers. The term Out-of-hospital may mean Birth Center, Clinic, or home.) Licensed midwives attended 1040 births, and nonlicensed midwives attended 195. The rate of lost babies was statistically identical for both LDEMs and nonlicensed midwives. Based upon this report from a single year or statistics, licensed midwives and non-licensed have the same birth outcome, and there would be nothing gained from mandatory licensure.


Statistics are difficult things. They can be used to demonstrate trends and facts, but often can cloud an issue. A different way of looking at this data collection would be to include only the four losses which occurred during labor or birth, because this the midwife's role. This intrapartum loss would calculate out to 3.3 per thousand, which is closer to the hospital statistics of 2.1 per thousand.


It is difficult to compare rates when the number of events is very small: when the rates are close: and when there is only single year of statistics. When dealing with low numbers, even one event can skew the rates severely and result in inaccurate conclusions of the data. To avoid error, most studies of this size will gather years of data before publishing. The rate of hospital loss in this data collection was unusually low that year. Oregon rates are usually closer to 3 per thousand (For example, in 2009, the last year of available data, the rate of loss at term in Oregon hospitals was 3.2 per thousand.). The rate of loss in the homebirth group was also unusually high due to two losses at twin births (generally considered higher risk and seldom attempted at home). Subtracting just these two from the neonatal loss would bring the rate to 1.6 per thousand. If this had been a more typical year, the rates of home and hospital birth would likely be closer, and almost identical as they have been in most years"


My biggest problem with what you posted is that it tells an incomplete story. Most of the information I found on Judith Rooks came from a blog written by a doctor named Amy Tuteur who openly expresses her disdain for home births and accuses midwives of hiding statistics in order to commit insurance fraud. Is she right? Maybe. It's one opinion, in any case.

That said, I don't see many doctors keeping track of adverse event statistics to the mountains of medications they prescribe every year... but whatever.

You have also missed the POINT of these statistics. Judith Rooks thought it was important that midwives in Oregon meet higher requirements to practice, and I can't say that I don't agree. After she gave testimony to this information, a bill was passed in Oregon stating (among other things) that this was no longer an option for midwives and they must all now practice under license and be subject to investigation by the State Board of Direct Entry Midwifery.


As you can see... all of this is up for debate in Oregon just like it is on these boards. Whether by doctors or regular moms just like us. But for you to come here and say you found these numbers and therefore home births are not safe is honestly pretty ridiculous considering how incomplete your information is.

Find an actual study. Complete and unbiased. THEN come argue statistics. Because one year in Oregon isn't cutting it.
__________________

claire1979 is my siggy hero


www.etsy.com/shop/68cents
Go there. Buy stuff.


  #34  
March 27th, 2013, 06:49 AM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Oregon is the only state that has been keeping track of information about planned site of birth, and they have only been keeping track of it for one year. Yes, the information is incomplete...but it is the best we have at this time.

Regarding your specific points:


Quote:
1. As someone else pointed out, this is not a "study." These are statistics. Two very different things.
True.


Quote:
2. These statistics cover roughly 40,000 (ish) births in the state of Oregon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly positive that there are 49 more states in this country. I'm not sure how anyone can be expected to make an informed decision based on data that is so painfully incomplete.
Hopefully other states will start to collect information on this also.

Quote:
3. Where is the information detailing the cause of death in any of these scenarios? If 25 hospital births resulted in death, then we can conclude that deaths DO occur in hospitals during or shortly after labor. We can also conclude from the data that deaths occur during home births as well. However, because deaths occurred in both locations, we CANNOT conclude that the OOH deaths occurred due to the result of a lack of medical interference. We can assume all we want, but that doesn't make it true.
If the number of deaths per thousand attempted births differs between the two situations, it is likely that something is causing that difference. We can be fairly sure that if the out-of-hospital death rate is elevated, it is not due to that population being at a high-risk population, because only low-risk patients are considered candidates for out-of-hospital birth. There are plenty of things that have not been ruled out. The absence of anyone with formal medical training is one of them.

Quote:
4. The number of IP deaths were not included in the in-hospital statistics. The statistics given explain this by saying that the number is extremely low and then goes on to give an estimated rate based on studies in two completely different countries. These studies are not cited.
It will be interesting to see if these numbers are in the final report.

Quote:
5. The number of in-hospital deaths that were caused by congenital abnormalities is not given.
True. I suppose it is possible that a significant proportion of the in-hospital deaths were caused by congenital abnormailities, but if that were the case, surely Ms. Rooks would have separated them out also?

Quote:
6. These are the statistics for 2012. Where are all the other years? One year is incomplete data.
Oregon only started requiring that planned site-of-birth be recorded on birth certificates in 2011, so 2012 is the only full year of data available.
  #35  
March 27th, 2013, 06:49 AM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Oregon is the only state that has been keeping track of information about planned site of birth, and they have only been keeping track of it for one year. Yes, the information is incomplete...but it is the best we have at this time.

Regarding your specific points:


Quote:
1. As someone else pointed out, this is not a "study." These are statistics. Two very different things.
True.


Quote:
2. These statistics cover roughly 40,000 (ish) births in the state of Oregon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly positive that there are 49 more states in this country. I'm not sure how anyone can be expected to make an informed decision based on data that is so painfully incomplete.
Hopefully other states will start to collect information on this also.

Quote:
3. Where is the information detailing the cause of death in any of these scenarios? If 25 hospital births resulted in death, then we can conclude that deaths DO occur in hospitals during or shortly after labor. We can also conclude from the data that deaths occur during home births as well. However, because deaths occurred in both locations, we CANNOT conclude that the OOH deaths occurred due to the result of a lack of medical interference. We can assume all we want, but that doesn't make it true.
If the number of deaths per thousand attempted births differs between the two situations, it is likely that something is causing that difference. We can be fairly sure that if the out-of-hospital death rate is elevated, it is not due to that population being at a high-risk population, because only low-risk patients are considered candidates for out-of-hospital birth. There are plenty of things that have not been ruled out. The absence of anyone with formal medical training is one of them.

Quote:
4. The number of IP deaths were not included in the in-hospital statistics. The statistics given explain this by saying that the number is extremely low and then goes on to give an estimated rate based on studies in two completely different countries. These studies are not cited.
It will be interesting to see if these numbers are in the final report.

Quote:
5. The number of in-hospital deaths that were caused by congenital abnormalities is not given.
True. I suppose it is possible that a significant proportion of the in-hospital deaths were caused by congenital abnormailities, but if that were the case, surely Ms. Rooks would have separated them out also?

Quote:
6. These are the statistics for 2012. Where are all the other years? One year is incomplete data.
Oregon only started requiring that planned site-of-birth be recorded on birth certificates in 2011, so 2012 is the only full year of data available.
  #36  
March 27th, 2013, 07:04 AM
Regular
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 61
One last thing: I posted the link about these recent statistics from Oregon in direct response to someone's accusation that I was uneducated and my information was out of date. They are not the full story, and I never said they were. Personally, I find these statistics to be compelling, because they are gathered in a manner that adresses some very valid criticisms of previously gathered statistics (such as that it is difficult to draw conclusions based soley on place-of-birth, because that mixes in unplanned and precipitous out-of-hospital births). If I were considering home birth but had not made up my mind, I would be interested in knowing about this. I am not criticizing anyone's choices, and I fully understand that there is an ongoing debate about the subject.

Last edited by LadyMorgan; March 27th, 2013 at 07:09 AM.
  #37  
March 27th, 2013, 07:08 AM
Keakie's Avatar Learning to walk in faith
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near the land of cream cheese
Posts: 5,586
Thanks for all of that, Brie. Any researcher worth their salt notes the source and the purpose behind the study (or non-study, in this case) as well as how big of a picture it really covers and how much additional information is included.

I meant to add last night, too - as we have several Canadian mommies in the DDC (including myself although I have been living in the US for a couple of years now) the information shared regarding Canadian birthing practices is absolutely relevant.

And I do consider digging up one non-study full of partial information that half supports your position (I still wouldn't say it fully does because of the lack of information regarding the fatalities) and making an exaggerated, misleading claim about NARM and sharing the personal blog of one doula to be uneducated. You've ignored the rebuttals to your arguments almost entirely. The only reason I'm still responding is that I would hate for someone else to stumble across this thread and see all of those inaccuracies unchallenged and believe them to be true. This feels less like a debate and more like you're looking for a platform to disparage he birth choices of women you have never met (and yes, flatly saying "It's not as safe as hospital birth" without real evidence or exception or that all CPMs are uneducated nitwits who are a danger to babies absolutely IS criticizing the choices others are making or have made as well as those mothers' ability to determine whether or not they have done any research or spoken extensively with their midwife prior to agreeing to use their services) and I really don't like that.
__________________


*Cautiously and excitedly expecting number two - shhh, if we're friends on Facebook. *



Thank you to Babydoll213 for my fabulous siggie!

Last edited by Keakie; March 27th, 2013 at 07:17 AM.
  #38  
March 27th, 2013, 07:55 AM
ValyntineG's Avatar Based on a True Story
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Texas and stuff
Posts: 6,414
Whether the statistics are "compelling" to you or not, they're still almost laughably incomplete and therefore invalid entry into a debate. You have backed up your argument with no other reliable sources, so it seems a little hasty to say that home birth isn't as safe as hospital birth. That may be your opinion, but it's based on very little.

Let's play a game with statistics, shall we?

Of the women on my facebook friend's list:

152 women gave birth in the last 4 years.

15 of them participated in pre-planned home births. The rate of infant mortality in these instances was 0%

137 of the women were pre-planned hospital births. The rate of infant mortality in these instances was 1.45%

From these results, clearly the infant mortality rate was higher in the instance of hospital birth, deeming it therefore less safe than home birth.

See how that works?

Now, are my statistics scientific, complete or even remotely valid? You tell me! But my guess is "probably not" since I got this information off of facebook in the incredibly scientific manner of "remembering and messaging a few people."

My point is that stand alone statistics prove nothing without taking into account the manner of data collection, those in charge of data recording and a vast number of other variables. I'm surprised you would make such an "informed" decision based on some numbers in a Word document.

And frankly, I think it's unfair to the other women on this board who have truly researched this from every angle. I am admittedly not one of these people since home birth is not something I want to experience, however I take issue when people look down their noses at the choices of others without any factual evidence to back up their disdain.
__________________

claire1979 is my siggy hero


www.etsy.com/shop/68cents
Go there. Buy stuff.


  #39  
March 27th, 2013, 09:31 AM
MyFantasticFour's Avatar Mommy of 4
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Song View Post
I think that it sucks that midwives do a higher quality of care but are very exclusionary. I would opt for a home birth except I have high blood pressure controlled by medication. It has not figured into my births, except my doctor tells me at delivery,ok no more medication and I still need the medication. Next time I am smuggling in my pills.
I think it depends on the midwife though. I just switched from a CNM to a CPM. My CNM had way more rules. She wouldn't deliver breech, after 42 weeks, etc. whereas my CPM will do HBAC and all of the others depending upon that person's specific situation. I am not certain but I think that my CPM would take you after she evaluated you on her own.
__________________




  #40  
March 27th, 2013, 09:41 AM
MyFantasticFour's Avatar Mommy of 4
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,302
This is just a blog but I thought an interesting read: http://www.homebirth.net.au/2008/06/...cs-to-die.html
Keakie likes this.
__________________




Closed Topic

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0