E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJessica Wilcox thinks her in-laws still view her ideas about childbirth as kind of out there, but it’s hard to argue with success: In the last five years or so, Wilcox has given birth to two boys and two girls -- each weighing more than 10 pounds -- at her northern Virginia home. And she hopes to do it again one or two more times.
Wilcox is part of a small but growing trend. While home births are still rare in the United States, they've posted a surprising climb in recent years, according to a government report out Thursday.
Courtesy Julia Chemotti
Jessica Wilcox has given birth to her two sons and two daughters at their northern Virginia home.
After declining from 1990 to 2004, the percentage of U.S. births that occurred at home jumped 29 percent from 2004 to 2009, when it hit the highest level since researchers began collecting data 20 years earlier.
Non-Hispanic white women were most likely to give birth at home in 2009, with one in every 90 births, or about 1.1 percent, in that group taking place at home. That represents an increase of 36 percent over 2004.
Still, Wilcox’s children represent only a tiny minority. In 2009, 29,650 U.S. births, or .72 percent of total births, occurred at home. Compare that to, say, 1940, when 40 percent of births took place at home.
Home births today tend to be more common among women 35 and older and among women with several previous children, according to the new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. They're most common in states with renegade reputations, such as Montana, which had the highest percentage of home births, nearly 2.6 percent, followed by Oregon and Vermont, with nearly 2 percent each.
“It’s women who are consciously rejecting the system,” says coauthor Eugene Declercq, professor of community health sciences at Boston University.
Although she's not older, that would describe Wilcox. Now 30, she delivered a baby in a hospital when she was 17 and gave him up for adoption. “It was a great hospital, but it was not a positive birth experience,” Wilcox says.
She didn’t like getting an epidural or an IV. She didn’t like all the poking and prodding by the nurses. And she didn’t like the fact she never saw the same doctor twice for her prenatal care. “I really wanted that personalized care that a midwife provides,” Wilcox says.
Her husband, Jeremy, 34, needed some convincing that it was safe to give birth at home, she says. “He was raised the same way I was: You get pregnant, you go to the hospital to have the baby.”
But now her husband likes to point out that he’s in good company: The son of Super Bowl-bound Tom Brady, New England Patriots’ quarterback, and his wife Gisele Bunchen, was born at home in 2010.
While the risk of death for a baby in a planned home birth is low, the scientific literature suggests it is two or three times higher than that for a newborn in a planned hospital birth, notes an opinion paper published last year by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice.
Home births actually had a lower risk profile than hospital births in 2009, though, according to Declercq and his coauthors. Hospital births were twice as likely to be low birth weight or preterm babies as home births. And just under 1 percent of home births involved more than one baby, compared with 3.5 percent of hospital births. In addition, women who opt for home births are less likely to be teenagers or unmarried. This all suggests that midwives who attend home births select low-risk women as candidates, the authors write.
“Home birth isn’t for anybody who walks in the door,” says Marsha Jackson, the certified nurse midwife who attended Wilcox’s first home birth. For example, Jackson says, her practice rarely accepts women who want to have a vaginal birth after a C-section, or VBAC, at home because of their elevated risk of a uterine tear.
Jackson cofounded BirthCare, a certified nurse midwife practice, back in 1987. Today, Jackson says, the group’s six midwives attend 25 to 30 births a month. About 60 percent are home births, while the rest are in BirthCare’s freestanding birth center in Alexandria, Va.
“The babies that we caught are now having babies with us,” she says. “That is wonderful. When we opened our practice, we never imagined that.”
Do you think home births are dangerous? Would you do it? Share with us on Facebook
Leave a Comment:
These mothers are also rejecting sending their children to public schools to be brain washed by liberals and democrats. They are choosing to home school, keeping their children safe and well educated. So that they are prepared with life skills and ready to enter the working world and find a job after college.
Home schooling is not the cure because it keeps the child from learning how to interact sociably with other humans instead of being xenophobic and shunning all those except family....sounds hinky.
Larry, I doubt that. I seriously doubt that. My bet would be that most mothers who deliver at home lean more liberal. And having had to work at home school conventions with my company, I can tell you that many of those parents are incredibly weird ant-social people with questionable skills in educating their children.
It's really frightening when obvious trolls like you feed these ideas to people who are less mentally stable and able to understand intentional button pushing.
dwighthuth, I know several outstanding people who have been homeschooled, one an engineer, and not a single one of them has problems interacting sociably with others. Please don't perpetrate falsehoods just because you don't agree with something.
We had a home birth for our 3rd and it was MUCH better than our hospital birth experience. I too (husband) needed convincing and after much research I was on board. Our kids go to public school, we are well educated (MBA) and in the middle politically. There is no right answer, but ignorance is a much bigger problem.
It sounds like a redneck revolution....keeping everything from getting outta hand in a modern liberal world! Since when has keeping kids away from schools led to any other success other than a Nascar driver or a walmart lead clerk?
Actually, if you look at the data that most states make available, you will see that a majority of children homeschooled today are done so for religious reasons and often because there is a disdain for the teaching of evolution so no, these women are likely not liberals, though this subject is totally irrelevant to the discussion. In fact many women who choose home births today are highly educated and experienced at birth.
larry: that's absolutely an absurd assumption about the types of educated people who choose home birth as an option. It says nothing about their politics, let alone their choices for home schooling.
Mr. Steady: anecdotally 'knowing' a few people who've been home schooled with no ill effects doesn't prove much either way either. That's hardly a way to deal with "falsehoods".
Larry, if the parents went to these terrible liberal schools you speak of then how will they have the talent to give their children this superior education that you speak of ?
Larry-- That is silly at best. Home schooling lends itself to better life skills? Liberal brainwashing? YOU are the one who is brainwashed or frightened of the real world.
Oh please. I am guessing the well more than half of these women are liberals. Nice try though.
Dwight......Not true. You can home school a child and still get them involved socially ....sports, church groups, etc. My daughter plays sports, competes in rodeo, and is in the FFA. Plenty of social activity . Also a healthy type of activity. Not the extra curricular activity that goes on at the schoolyard after class.
yeah, Andrea Yates is fine example of that mind-set
I know homeschoolers who were extremely slow to adapt socially from inside my family, roommates at college, dates, clients. I'm not saying it's impossible to function well or integrate some after-home school social activities, but on whole, yes you don't develop socially as well with only your family to talk to.
Apparently you've never been to a hospital for a simple procedure and developed an infection because hospitals and staff cut corners, just as any repubican would when it comes to people. They are, after all, the party of misanthropes.
Apparently having knowledge to reject lies is considered liberal "brainwashing"
Hey Doc, Don't forget a NFL quarterback and about 9 out of 10 spelling bee champions- all homeschoolers- And I know of plenty of kids who are engaging in blossoming careers who are homeschooled...
My wife and I are planning to have a home birth in 5 months. I live in Georgia, where the perinatal mortality rate is higher than in some third world countires. The hospitals are terrible, and both mother and baby are more likely to die there. Look at the stats folks. Doctors are making a ton of money by scaring people into hospitals and then accidentally killing them.
I applaud these women, pregnancy and childbirth has become the new bread and butter of the healthcare system.......$10,000 to 15,000 for a normal birth.......this is ridiculas on its face. I rather reject most of todays healthcare as just being money driven out of greed. Pay $200.00 for an office visit and get a bottle of pills to shut you up that may or may not maim or kill you......these mothers are the wise ones. Trying to label it along political lines is stupid too......good grief.
Americansoutherner, I agree with you about the hospitals in GA, my daughter was almost killed by them. They let her appendix rupture and turn septic while they argued over what it was........took her months to recover and was lucky to do so.
Got any stats to back up that dumb claim, Larry? No? I didn't think so...
Our insurance company doubled our rates through my wife's "statistically most likely to become pregnant years."
That said, why does nobody mention that (if under or uninsured) you can either:
1. Rent-a-nurse for $500 and stay home.
2. Check into a hospital and proceed for $20K.
Not that this has anything to do with this article, but I was homeschooled my entire K-12 life and graduated from a prestigious university at 19. I have a great job and many wonderful friends. I am also liberal and Jewish. I grew up in a secular homeschooling community with people of all faiths (Evangelical to Wiccan to Atheist). The kids I grew up with now are paramedics, Navy Seals, up-and-coming chefs, stay-at-home mothers, animators, and so on, and all are happy, well adjusted, smart, talented people.
I am exhausted, after twenty years, by people saying homeschooling leads to antisocial behavior or stupidity. I know many, many people who are dumb and antisocial who went to public school. Sure there are antisocial people who were homeschooled, but public school would not have changed that.
To get back to the article, I am so happy to see that people are choosing the safer, healthier option of home birth. A majority of my friends when I was growing up were born at home. The bound between mother and child when hospitals are not involved seems to sprout are the more quickly. I look forward to home birth when the time comes to have children of my own.
It will never cease to amaze me that a simple article on home birthing can turn into a full discussion about liberals, republicans, and rednecks. So to comment on the ACTUAL article, I think it's a great thing that more women are turning to home birthing, especially when certified midwives will attend. I for one wish I would have had that experience rather than my hospital one, and plan on researching it for our next in the future. And no, I'm not liberal, nor a redneck, nor whatever you want to categorize. I'm an educated 26 year old women who simply wants to experience home birthing.
Friends shouldn't let friends get trolled.
Yes, homeschooling free from Bushies, and free from Texas school books with only "one type" of the "Gods"preachings about real science and getting a real eduction about fact on how we have evolved, and slow business making a fortune on those birth in the hospitals many paid by the government, by medicaid saving paying for those people at 10-20 K each baby in hospital.
Way to go, I was home born, and once again have to teach the brand new computer chip factory for IBM.--Hope they are turned the wright way!!--just saying!---10 pounders --all 4--and it will only get worse!
As a child who was born at home in the 1960's, I can tell you this is one of the stupidest things a person could do for their future children. A midwife can not begin to fully care for the complications that can, and often do take place without the benefit of a surgical team and a team of specialists in cardiac, thoraxic, neuroligical as well as neonatalogy, obstetrics and pediatrics. I survived only because I was rushed to the hospital within minutes of being born, yet I still have the scars and consequences. My parents did not want me to be born at home, it just happened.
Having a midwife available might help, but to intentionally put your child and your own life at risk is just stupid. People may have been having births at home for thousands of years, but during those thousands of years, women and children were dying as a result of what is, without a doubt, one of the most traumatic events that can happen to most peoples bodies in their lives.
Skylarin, it sounds like you were homeschooled by someone qualified to do the job right. I worked with a woman who's conservative mother was "homeschooling" her 3 young children - their "curriculum" was a frighening joke, and the kids only interaction with other children was at Sunday school and Wednesday prayer meetings. They were kept away from minority kids, taught creationist "science," - the mom was so caught up in her own drama and dependent on her mother for a roof over her head after her ugly divorce that she left all the decisions up to the grandmother.
Only someone with an agenda would connect home births to a political movement. Get a life please.
I bet the increase is mostly about the insanely high cost of hospital delivery... and the lousy care they provide. Money for nothing...
dwighthuth - Homeschooling does not keep children from learning how to socially interact with one another. I had a few friends in college who had been home schooled, and all were more mature and more well-grounded than their peers. They knew how to interact, because their parents involved them in sports and social groups outside of school. You can't blame home schooling for the few parents who don't take the initiative to ensure their children are well-rounded. Also, there are plenty of socially awkward children out there in public school. Looking at those few children, would you then blame public school?
Birth is not a tramatic experience to women's bodies. Most complications from home birth result from poorly concieved hospital and doctors orders. What can be more natural then birth? Get a clue dirp or at least research the subject before you leave inane ignorant comments. As a favor to you I have posted a link to an article about homebirth. PLEASE take the time to read the article and digest what is said. This is your oppurtunity to enhance your understanding of the most natural of all life events.
Good God - Four TEN Pound children?????!! i would think after the first one, the rest of them just fell out, making her home-births that much easier. lol
About the homeschooling debate that cropped up-I went to public school in early elementary school, but one of my teachers didn't understand that I was bright and needed more stimulation, so my mom took me out and homeschooled me through a local Christian school through the rest of my elementary years. I then went to a Christian school in junior high. I started my high school years at the same Christian school, but its math and science curricula weren't preparing me for college, so I transferred to another public high school and graduated from that high school. The end result is that I went to 4 different schools, none of which were in my hometown (my hometown schools are crappy-that's the word pretty much everybody in town uses to refer to them) with a 3.8 GPA and a healthy social life. As for the topic on hand, home births, I was born in a hospital and I'll probably go to a hospital if and when I decide to have kids, partly in case something goes wrong and partly because I'm a wimp about pain and I'll want an epidural.
Bingo Larry< you hit the nail on the head,
Giving birth in home is more likely to result in less complications because the woman is at home in her environment where the end result isn't a doctor receiving you into life like a catcher waiting for pitch and gives you a smack on the ass saying "Atta boy."
Both me and my two sons would be dead if I had tried childbirth at home. For someone else, it may be great.
As for the smack - you don't know much about childbirth, do you, Dwight?
The opposite was true for me. The hospital birth was scheduled to be a disaster based upon nothing but my doctors wrong opinion. It's a good thing I took responsibility for my successful delivery.
On the contrary: home birth is much MORE LIKELY to result in complications. Why? Simple: if something goes wrong, you don't have medical care around to assist you. In a hospital, you have a fetal heart monitor and a device that measures contractions. You can directly see how the process of birth is affecting the baby. If the baby starts to decline, you can know immediately and intervene. Sometimes emergency C-sections need to be done IMMEDIATELY if the baby's heart rate drops too low. You wouldn't know that at home without a fetal heart monitor, and the delay in can result in major infant defects or death. Even if you do know something is wrong, you need to drive all the way to the hospital to get treatment, and then it's often too late. If you are going to do home birth because you understand the risks and you like the "natural" idea of it, go ahead. But if you think it's SAFER, you are sorely mistaken.
Dwight: so on your planet, maternity care is limited to a doctor smacking a newborn's bottom? Wow...good thing we do not have to rely on reducing infant and women's mortality rates on "science" like that.
Just saying that a hospital birth is safer does not make it so. The 30%+ ceserian section rate at hospitals should be the first thing to tell you something is really wrong.
Considering caesarians only occur in hospitals, it skews your stats.
C-section is a form of birth that is either done as an emergency OR for safety. Many people opt to have a C-section because there are high chances of their being complications with the birth, and it's much safer for the baby. Again, being under the supervision of many trained medical professionals using evidence-based practice and accurate monitoring equipment is proven to be safer.
RN Mike- Your opinion of where a safer birth occurs is of no value. Please study the facts before making unsubstantiated statements. And don't compare hospital births of today with home births from the 1600s. Or homebirths here in the USA to homebirths in a third world country. And by the way, use an objective source, not the Homebirther's Association of America's funded study... or the OB-GYNs Against Homebirth's study...
My wife did a home birth, and it was such a liberating experience for the both us (our first son was delivered through the mass hospital system.) Anyway, upon discovering our newborn was a liberal, we immediately plugged him back in.
Close one.
Giving birth naturally away from a hospital environment is totally and completely natural. Know what else is totally and completely natural? A much higher maternal and infant mortality rate. I always advocate birth in a hospital setting. Just remember that you can refuse any medical intervention you wish. If your doctor performs an intervention without your permission it is assault.
Regarding c-section rates there is no skewing the data. A 30%+ hospital rate is outrageous!
Buffy watched that Ricky Lake documentary on Netflix I bet.
Home birth is great option, but midwives are very selective of their clientele and for a good reason, giving birth can be dangerous. If midwives didn't screen their clients and make sure that they were healthy enough to do a home birth there would be a much higher rate of complication. Even when a mother-to-be seems to be healthy enough complications can arise out of nowhere, and without medical intervention from a hospital the mother's and child's lives can be put in jeopardy. So as long as the mother-to-be consults an experienced midwife and lives close to a hospital, a home birth can be a very special.
Acutally quite a large percentage of these C-sections are a direct result of unnecessary interventions that hospitals make the patient think are necessary. Most mom's don't need pitocin- induction is many times recommended for convenience sake. Induction is also more likely to end with a C-section. It is much more lucrative to perform a C-section than a natural birth, it is also much easier for the physician-- can be scheduled during normal business hours. A C-section takes 20 minutes, a natural birth can take hours and hours... One third of the C-sections (or maybe more) are for convenience either electively scheduled by the patient or the physician, and a very small percentage are actual emergencies. We forget that birthing is not a disease, it is a normal process for many healthy women.
The idea that complications are more likely at home is just not true. You're probably most likely to have complication when someone cuts you open because they're too bungling to get the baby out naturally. Sure, sometimes C-sections have to happen, but they're more likely to happen when a doctor gets impatient because his shift is ending. And how do you think a young mother with an epidural repositions herself to fix a stuck shoulder? Or how she can do anything, really?
Let us see now how many million years did we have home birth, yes, they lost a few, but we still made it--and they also loose them in the hospital now, like mothers with anaesthesia and bad blood transfusion--and on and on.
I back RN Mike absolutely 100%. If it weren't for a fetal heart monitor and the quick actions of my doctor and nurse, and the other medical staff, my first child would have died and or been severely brain damaged. As soon as I arrived at the hospital while in labor (following an uneventful pregnancy with no hint of trouble), the medical staff was able to determine my baby was in distress. As my labor progressed, the monitors would go up and down, one minute being ok, the next going down. Her heart rate eventually dropped to the point where the alarms went off, upon examination they could barely hear her heart beat and believe it or not, she was delivered by c-section about 10-15 minutes later. They had me on my hands and knees to keep her from going any further into the birth canal as they rushed me into the delivery room. I was put under general anesthesia so wasn't awake for the birth. My husband was told to wait outside and he didn't know if he was losing me, the baby, or both of us. Come to find out, the umbilical cord had been wrapped around her neck at least two times and she was being strangled as my labor progressed (which I would have had several more hours of if not for the c-section). It was a very close call and it still (28 years later) brings tears to my eyes when I think about how close we came to losing her!
I cringe everytime I hear about someone saying they plan a home birth. For me, no way, no how! My experience might be the extreme, but you just never know. And all the odds in the world are cold comfort if yours just happens to be the one baby that has a problem such as mine!
blueberr: how many patients files confidentiality did you violate to come up with your statistics ? Did you get the HIPAA signed off on ? Did you really get physicians to say that they were doing the C-Sections because they are more lucrative and more convenient ?
Why do I not believe you ? Maybe because you made this stuff up.
I work in the NICU and I've seen a lot of babies from home births die because the midwife didn't recognize hypoxic events and could easily have been saved in a hospital. That being said I know a lot of great midwives and successful home births but I can't discredit having a good neonatologist down the hall if something goes wrong. I think if you're high risk, the responsible thing to do is to listen to your OB and give birth under monitoring if need be. Personally, I like the idea of the birthing centers that are becoming more popular. You can have the natural birth in a homelike environment with a midwife and have medical staff/technology available if something were to go wrong.
My husband is a medic and has delivered many babies who were supposed to be "home births". Midwives just cannot handle it when something goes wrong!
RN Mike doesn't seem to realize that it is the hospital's intervention in the process of childbirth that causes "emergencies" that "force" doctors to scare women that trust them into cutting them open in order to remove their child from their bodies. It is a process that a woman's body was made to be able to perform without intervention and most healthy women's bodies are perfectly capable of performing. Not only is a 1 in 3 chance of being cut open in a hospital outrageous, I found it more outrageous when I realized that c-section rates go up at 4pm and 10pm. The PhD's would rather take a few minutes to cut a woman open so they can get home for dinner with their family than to sit around for possibly hours attending a natural birth. Seems like the PhD's have also figured out that this plan is also much more lucrative for them being that the few minutes of cutting puts much more money in their pockets.
Truth is that doctors in America are not trained to attend natural births. They are trained to cure illnesses and fix problems. Natural childbearing is not an illness nor is it a problem. A doctor goes into this situation wanting to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed and in turn creates complications. A midwife that is worth anything would send a high risk case to the hospital where there are professionals trained to fix problems. There is a time and place for a doctor, and an uncomplicated birth is not one of them.
I think you meant MD instead of PhD. And yes childbirth is natural, but things can go very, very wrong. I see a lot of women who carry to full term with a healthy pregnancy and something happens during birth that cuts off oxygen to the brain and it can be devastating to the infant's brain...if they live. Minor things like getting a shoulder stuck, for example, seems like no big deal but can cause hypoxic injury and encephalopathy and that rarely has happy outcomes. Basically, it's hard to know when a birth is going to take a turn for the worse. I would think most midwives would know when to call an ambulance but I think it would at least be comforting to have MDs nearby to help your baby immediately. It's a natural process and all, but you don't realize how many babies would likely die at birth if not for a medical team nearby to resuscitate.
Having heard the horror story of my father being born breach at home and the doctor coming out and telling my grandfather (who had to listen to the whole thing after things reached crisis level and he was thrown out of the bedroom) that he would have been lucky if either had survived and it was a miracle that both did... and seeing the lasting psychological damage that the near-death experience giving birth did to my grandmother... I can see the value in giving birth in an environment where there are medical facilities and experts nearby ready to tackle any emergencies that might come up. I do not think having a "liberating" birthing experience or worrying about my personal sense of womanly fullfillment is worth risking my life or the life of my unborn child by denying us easy and immediate access to assistance if required. I'm not saying all hospital births are created equal or that some hospitals/doctors don't approach things in the wrong way in an institutional setting. But we have options! Find a doctor you can agree with when it comes to interventions -- not all jump to c-sections or induction. Find a hospital that has a birthing center, not just a maternity ward, if you want more of the touchy-feely experience. H#ll, find a midwife that practices in a birthing center if you really think they are better at delivering babies than all your OB options and go that route. It is not all-or-nothing, ladies (and gentlemen)!
And for Shipup Mom... 28 years ago I believe that your c-section was an emergency. When I hear c-section today, I always question it. I will give doctors this, they have to take the precautions that they do, they have to plan for the worst. They have to because people expect them to play the role of God. If anything goes wrong they more than likely will be sued. They have to pay so much for malpractice insurance these days that they don't have time to sit and attend a natural birth. They don't have time to sit for an hour with a patient at each prenatal visit. They have about 6 minutes for those visits because they have to be able to fit in as many patients as possible to pay for their malpractice insurance. If something goes wrong and they performed a c-section it shows that they did everything possible to save that baby. They have to do what they have to do to protect themselves also, it is pretty sad. People need to realize, home or hospital, there are no guarantees to the outcome. We are not God and we need to stop trying to be or expecting others to be just because they hold a certain degree.
Design, you know very little about the medical profession, I suspect, if that is what you think of all MDs (yes, MD, as in Medical Doctor - not PhD, as in Doctorate of Philosophy). My sister is an OBGYN and we have had many long talks about things like induction and c-sections. You know what -- some doctors are quite disturbed by the number of women who opt for c-sections -- yes, women who opt for them. Large numbers of women insist on them these days, thinking it is the "more modern" way of giving birth or something. The issue with c-sections is very complicated and the 1 in 3 statistic you trotted out does not mean what you think it means. My sister has missed countless dinners with her own children, by the way, waiting for other women to deliver theirs -- exactly because she sees induction as a tool of last resort. C-section is the tool of absolute last resort. Are there bad doctors out there? Sure. But certainly not all of them. And the doctors being trained today are the ones who are less likely to turn to induction and c-sections -- it is the MDs of the last generation you seem to be railing against and that attitude is well on its way out already. Expentant parents need to do their homework and choose a situation and, yes, maybe even a doctor that works for them.
Yes, childbirth is natural, but that does not mean it is not potentially very dangerous. There is a reason that the Aztec's likened childbirth to battle and believed that women who died in childbirth went to the same afterlife as warrior who died in battle. Mother-infant mortality rate before modern medicine was very, very high - no matter how "natural" it is.
Here's the thing about an "uncomplicated" birth -- you never know when something may go from "uncomplicated" to "complicated" in an instant.
Pragmatic - Try refusing medical treatment that could mean the life or health of that baby (In the doctor's opinion anyway) and see how fast they come in with a court order forcing you to have the treatment. Remember....we live in a nanny state and nanny knows best.
"these women"...who knows "these women"??? To make such statements that one knows how all women who give birth at home are is just plain rediculous! If you do know any of these women you would see how diverse they all are!
Saddened, I commend your sister for being one of the good doctors (yes, MD) out there. And I know that a lot of women plan c-sections for what I think are pretty ridiculous reasons. I have heard "more modern", I have also heard that they don't want to go through the pain of childbirth! Personally I would much rather do that than weeks of recovery from a MAJOR SURGERY. Although I am big fan of home birth for in the proper situation, I'll admit that I'm a little scared that it will catch on and become one of the "more modern" ways of giving birth. I think that some of the things that I have a problem with have become problems because too many people do not educate themselves. They go to a doctor and trust that he/she knows what's right and wrong and they don't question it. Then when something goes wrong they want to sue doctors and hospitals to make it "right". Home or hospital we need to educate ourselves and realize that the whole process is an extremely delicate one and sometimes even the tools of last resort may not save everyone.
Speaking as a medical professional. Birthing in the Hospital carries it's own risks as does birthing at home. Yes, things can go wrong at home. Things can also go horribly wrong in the hospital. C-Section rates are way too high, and no, most of the C-Sections I see are not emergencies. Many of the emergencies could likely have been avoided if the birth was natural. I.E. No Epidural, narcotics, or pitocin. It's part physician laziness but a big portion of the problem also lies with so many woman wanting a painless birthing process. I am not a woman so I'm not judging. I'm just saying that it's part of the reason that the C-Section rate is so high.
I love how a majority of the comments here, about where and under what circumstances a woman should give birth, are made by men. There are obviously a few women making their opinions known, but this seems like most other debates concerning a woman's body and what her "rights" to it are... Men, regardless of their status, don't have a part in the conversation unless they have the inside track on biology and can magically carry the baby for 9 months.
And women get accused of penis envy? Who envy's who?
I always planned a hospital birth, because to me it was worth it to have medical assistance immediately available. I was considered low risk, and my baby was born perfectly healthy and with no complications. However, I myself hemorrhaged after she was born and had to have emergency actions taken to stop the bleeding. I'm due to have another baby in just over 8 weeks, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be eligible for home birth because of my hemorraghing history. I also can say I had a fantastic hospital birth experience. No one pushed me to have an epidural and my doctor stuck around 'after hours' until my baby was delivered. I originally wanted to go without an epidural and my nurses were very encouraging that I was doing great without. When I ultimately decided to go ahead and get one after several hours of labor, my main nurse even asked me if I was sure. I also had a nasty tear, and my doctor stayed and stitched that up herself as well. I chose to delay my baby's first vaccine until her two month checkup - not one single person tried to talk me out of it. They let me hold my baby immediately and at my request, there was a lactation consultant there very quickly after birth, so I had a very nice first nursing experience as well. Given my experiences, I have no problem with going to the hospital.
However, I would not say I'm against home births either. I would encourage anyone considering one to weigh the pros/cons, fully check their midwife's qualifications and experience, and have a definite plan of action in case something happened. My hemorrhage wasn't immediately life threatening, so had I given birth at home, I could have gotten to the hospital in time for it to be dealt with safely. HOWEVER, it would have been very important that the person delivering the baby had the experience to recognize that the bleeding was excessive, since everyone bleeds after giving birth. I actually felt no symptoms of the blood loss until later when they tried to move me from the delivery bed to the wheelchair to move me to the post-birth suites. I then immediately started blacking out and feeling nauseous. The excess bleeding had been stopped a couple hours by that time. I was unable to get out of bed unassisted for nearly two days and was kept an extra day at the hospital. I refused blood transfusion because they did stop the blood loss before it became necessary, but it did mean a slow return to having any sort of energy.
Steve, dispute the c-section rate.
missrn - i would absolutely want my husband to have his opinion and feelings heard when it came to the birth of our child. If, I was thinking about a home birth, and the thought was just too scary for my husband to wrap his arms around, I would NEVER tell him he had no say in the matter. Would I try to convince him by showing him facts, talking with experienced people, etc, sure, it's very likely I would. But, I believe it is absolutely wrong to say that just because I am the carrier of the child, he has no right to an opinion when it comes to the safe delivery of that child.
Keepanopenmind-
I don't entirely disagree with what you said. My problem with conversations like this that the men come in with these very heavy handed decisions about how women should labor and birth. I say decisions, because most conclusions that have been drawn about pregnancy, labor and delivery options have been largely decided by men without much input from women. Since they are active bystandards at best, they get more questions about the process than decisions. Only I know my body and I'm not letting anyone tell me what level of intervention is necessary. Period, end of story.
That's also my problem with the hospital (You'll notice the "rn" at the end of my tag name ... it does in fact stand for Registered Nurse.) FAR TOO OFTEN decisions are made with an eye toward earning them a buck, covering their butts, and what you want (most often in that exact order). Hospitals would LOVE to take all of the low risk births from midwives, because they stand to make the most money from them. Low risk and insured are hospital favorites.
I am actually 5 months pregnant right now and while I did assess my husband's level of comfort with delivery with a midwife at a birth center, the decision is mine alone. Husband or not, he doesn't know my body or what's going on inside so it's impossible for him to be able to make an appropriate decison about the kind of care I needed beyond the fact that he's not qualified to do it. Fortunately he has been very supportive of MY choice for birth location because he understands that my comfort with the birthing location is almost as important as having a healthy pregancy prior to labor. It's just like the classes, I labor and he coaches.... just rememebering everyone's role in the process. I guess it just depends on how much of your power you're willing to give away to others.
I don't completely disagree with your point, especially if it came to men (or women) trying to make laws about whether or not I could give birth in a birthing center or in my home. But I still feel my husband should be involved in the decision as to where we give birth. Yes, it is my body, but it is both of our child. I suppose I could just say, to heck with what you think, this is what we are going to do, but I doubt it would lend to a happy and non-stressful childbirth experience. Again, I don't disagree with much of your post, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not dad has a right to an opinion. From a legal stance, I wouldn't support a law that says a wife has to go with what her husband says, so in that sense, we agree. But from the perspective of marriage being a partnership and maintaining a happy, healthy marriage, I just couldn't ignore my husband's thoughts on it.
Hay Missrn, Most of us men don't care if you give birth standing on your head, but let everyone make their own decision.
The csection rate is indeed in the 30% range, MSN did an article on it a few months ago when they discussed that Oregon has banned elective csections before 38 weeks. I wish more states are doing what Oregon is! Out of all the women who endure csections, those who CHOOSE a csection are by far in the minority. There is a reason why the stereotype "too posh to push" exists.
If you chose an out of hospital birth inform yourself about the risks. I delivered a stillborn due to placental abruption and almost died myself. If the whole ordeal would have taken place in my bedroom I don't think I could have every sleept their again. Normal pregnancy, great looking ultrasounds. An uncomplicated pregnancy can can end in death- which, by the way, is "perfectly natural". No matter what the numbers say about safe or unsafe, a baby born needing a NICU might not suvive the ride to the hospital. If you are a mother considering an out of hospital birth, consider that you may be making a life or death choice for you and your child. My reason for posting is to tell you that stillbirth hurts-bad. If their is even a small chance that a childs life can be saved, take it! What is one day of being poked and prodded? Labor won't be comfortable anywhere and in an emergency the health care staff acts quickly to help you live, not fell comfortable in the moment. Most docs and nurses really care. My doc had tears in his eyes when he told me my child was dead. Don't bash the people that you expect to help you in an emergency!
Everybody quit blaming doctors. No doctor with a shred of ethics would deliver a child by C-section "just because" it fit his/her schedule or the mother wanted to avoid natural birth.
Giving birth to a baby is not all about you, mother, or how "natural" or "empowering" you want it to be. It is about the health and safety of your baby.
Giving birth in a hospital is not like it was even 30 years ago. Doctors are more willing to work with you and listen to what you want or don't want. The whole damned family can be in the room if you want. And if something goes wrong, the help is immediate.
"The medical establishment" is not out to get you.
This woman has too many children!
As long as she is finacially responsible for them then so what. If she is giving birth to make a paycheck from the state that however is a different story.
Your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion!
She's a professional womb at this point...and each +10 pounds a piece too. I bet they just slide right out at this point.
The Earth is straining to support the human population as it is. We need to decrease our numbers, not increase them, most especially by having multiple births. We cannot continue to live with the anthropocentric mindset that we do. Water, air, soil, and all other species who share the planet are at great risk. That's "so what".
Wait until the next super volcano blows...you will thank the proliferate breeders!
50 percent of welfare recipients have one child. Only 1 in 10 have more than 3.
The stereotypical "welfare mother" doesn't really exist.
Hey Mozzie, If you are so concerned with the earth's population, you can make a difference- reduce it by one. And I am going to guess that you haven't been outside your metropolitan area for awhile. There is plenty of space for all. And there would be food for all if those with plenty were more conscientious about waste. We in the USA dispose of enough food on a daily basis to feed millions.
independence: I'm the only poster in this discussion who has a green star. That says it all. Your comments are ignorant.
There is nothing ignorant about stating the facts. Actually it is the antithesis of ignorance!
Independence-Please: I agree with the waste of food by us Americans, ( not all, but most) some of my childrens friends in school don't even eat left overs!
It is strange and hypocritical that those who would like to have fewer people in the world press the ideal on others while failing to remove themselves.
Mozzie is correct. As Americans and Westerners, we actually live in a bubble. The current world population is unsustainable. Water resources around the world, even in the US, are depleting. Rainforests are being cut down to make room for coffee, palm oil, banana crops, and other agricultural products. The oceans are dying from the introduction of poisonous chemicals, such as mercury. A massive coral die-off is occurring due to bleaching from excess carbon in the oceans which is also causing acidification. Most of our oxygen is produced in the oceans from plankton, so guess what happens when the oceans become too toxic to support life? Why is this happening? Because billions of people are producing billions of pounds of waste products.
The current population is 7,000,000,000, and we are adding 75,000,000 people to that every year. That's literally another Germany added every year. Remember, we only have a finite amount of resources on this planet, and here in the US we consume 25% of the world's resources. We are, quite literally, stealing the labor and resources from poorer countries to maintain our unsustainable lifestyle. Also, what happens when developing countries begin living semi-western and western lifestyles? Driving vehicles, using ipads, and drinking Starbucks?
When someone decides to have a baby, they are actually making a huge decision. They have decided to create someone that will tax the system more. That is another person who will become a consumer, drive a car one day, want an ipad, and want to get a latte at Starbucks before going to work.
This system will collapse in our lifetime unless we get it under control now.
I agree the world's population has risen, and will continue to rise for now, but what many people, and even researchers are not including in their calculations, is the large amount of deaths the U. S., and many European countries will be having in the next roughly twenty to thirty years. All those post WWII baby boomers will be dying off, and in several European countries, they are not at replenishment status. These facts could have huge repercussions on the world political and economic stage.
Hahaha. Is this really your argument? This is called the internet. There will always be at least 37 other people who agree with what you say, no matter how dumb it is.
Buffy, I'm not usually one to nitpick, but... I believe you meant "prolific" -- as in the adjective meaning "producing in large quantities or with great frequency" NOT "proliferate" -- as in the verb meaning "to grow or multiply." And there is no reason for anyone to thank the prolific breeders of today in the case of a super eruption tomorrow. Prolific breeders and their offspring are no more likely to survive on an individual statistic basis that anyone else. In the meantime, they continue to contribute statistically more to the current state of over-population. Now, after a super eruption, women who chose to be prolific breeders might be useful to the continuation of the human species. But they are far from needed at this time.
So what!
This is an uninformed comment, because guess what? Nearly every "Western" country has a birthrate below the replacement rate. We are not adding an iota to the world population. The only reason the population of the United States increases is because of immigration, not because of childbirth.
Moxie- I'd be curious to know if you support medicine, hospitals, vaccinations, etc. . . If we eliminate all of those, i'm sure the population would start decreasing, just like you want! :)
Nobody has the capacity to comprehend the meaning of "overpopulation" with any meaningful amount of perspective.
A green star Mozzie? Big flaming whoop! It doesn't mean jack squat outside of this forum!
Its no more your business than mine how many children this woman has. If someone started putting their two cents in about your personal life you'd probably tell them to mind their own business.
It's funny to me how Western civilization, especially America, gets lambasted about overpopulation when 2010 estimated numbers set China at 1.3 billion people, followed by India at 1.1 billion people. America is a DISTANT third at 309 million but we're the biggest part of the problem? I hate to burst your bubble but it doesn't add up. By 2050 China is projected to have some 9 billion people living there. America could double its birth rate from today until then and still be a far cry behind China.
Additionally, America's birth rate has been below replacement rate since 2008, meaning that new births in the United States are not currently contributing to population increase (2.08 births as of 2008; 2.1 births required to break even at the time). When all facts are gathered, the world population increase is not due to the number of births; it's due to the fact that the people already here are living longer due to advances in technology.
And finally, it is projected that by 2050, the same time China hits 9 billion, the birth rate worldwide will fall below the rate necessary to maintain the population. So, after sharing all of this information Miss Mozzie, would you like to lambast her again for having too many children?
@ Dave: Absolutely. And you as well. (It's not Miss, it's Mort.)
I don't have a problem with how many kids Ms. Wilcox has had (4 is actually my maximum number if and when I decide to have kids), but the fact that all her kids weighed more than 10 pounds at birth raises some questions for me. Is it just family genetics or is she eating too much during her pregnancies. Again, I'm not trying to be judgmental, but I can't help wondering.
Dear Patriots!, Does your screenname indicate who you're supporting in the Super Bowl? If so, I look forward to my boys beating your boys again. Giants pride! Sincerely, MsPiven
Dave, I love your icon! Stitch rocks!
Mozzie: My mistake. I apologize.
MsPiven: Thanks! Now if I can find better stitch merchandise than I have found so far....
for those of you that feel the world is overpopulated, i hope that you feel free to not have any children. Also, to make it more sustainable, I know that you reduce, reuse, recycle, and do everything else in your power to help with that problem.
Thanks!
Love,
Myself and my 5 kids
I find it so curious that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee wrote an opinion that contradicts the raw data on home births. Although the numbers of homebirths are minuscule, a 30% rise will bring out the fear mongering from the medical profession.
Save money give birth at home.
When the Repubs take away your health insurance, have your babies at home!
It keeps them in their mansions and buys them that extra Lexis every year. It is profit driven or else our infant mortality rate would not be the worst in the western hemisphere. C-sections are no longer done for safety, now they are done for the convienence of the docs. I have lost all faith in the medical profession and our healthcare system.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists'Committee data is comparing apples to apples (i.e. Normal pregnancies in a hospital and normal pregnancies in home births).
The "raw data" compares apples to oranges (i.e. all hospital births including high risk as well as normal, to home births which are almost always "normal" pregnancies). And even so, the safety risks are nearly identical for a normal home birth than all pregnancies (including premies and at risk) at a hospital. Further, when a home birth goes wrong, and the woman is transported to a hospital for the delivery these numbers go into the hospital category.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee has the more honest and accurate statistics.
You know midwives monitor fetal heart rates as well. Studies actually show that continuous fetal heart monitoring is actually not more helpful then intermittent monitoring (done regularly during both contractions and rest) and it results in a lot more unnecessary interventions. There are a lot of statistics about home births that are also off because they include unplanned and unattended home-births! Guess what, those are both bad ideas. But for a low risk pregnancy with a licensed Midwife, the outcomes are generally about the same as for low-risk hospital births. I was born at home, as was my sister. My brother was not because my parents could not find a midwife they liked, but he was born so fast the emergency room doctor barely got there in time and told my dad to catch!
There was a study done in 2000 that looked at 5418 homebirths attended by certified professional midwives in North America () that found that "655 (12.1%) women who intended to deliver at home when labour began were transferred to hospital. Medical intervention rates included epidural (4.7%), episiotomy (2.1%), forceps (1.0%), vacuum extraction (0.6%), and Cesarean section (3.7%); these rates were substantially lower than for low risk US women having hospital births. The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America. No mothers died. No discrepancies were found for perinatal outcomes independently validated." The overall conclusion found was that "Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States." Research is always a good idea ;D
The fear mongering reigns high when money is at stake. OB/GYN's love to bemoan their riduclous malpractice ins rates. They gotta keep scaring moms to keep those bills paid and maintain their $500K/year salary.
missrn: 1st - not sure where you get the $500K/year salary for Ob/Gyns - that is so far above the average it's not even funny. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, as of May 2008, the median annual salary in the United States for an OB/Gyn is $199,350. The average annual salary for an OB/Gyn who practices in a specialty hospital is just under $202,000.
2nd: ob/gyn's do pay the highest average malpractice insurance rates - but the amount paid varies greatly from region to region and state to state.
3rd: As someone that is in medical school and seriously looking at ob/gyn as my specialty, I disagree that ob/gyn's "fear monger". Yes, I do think there are some (many?) ob/gyn's that opt for induction and scheduled c-sections too frequently. I do think that most women can successfully labor and deliver without induction or c-section (I was not one of these women, but, what happened to me is very rare, and was just the way things worked out - thankfully, we're all ok now). Personally, I have no problem with a woman choosing to give birth at home - assuming she is comfortable with that and the pregnancy is not known to be high risk. I do think that women need to be very well informed about the potential risks of delivery - whether at home, a birthing center, or at a hospital. I do think that women need to consider things like - how far do I live from the nearest hospital that could take care of problems should problems arise unexpectedly. I had a midwife all through my 1st pregnancy, but opted to deliver at the hospital because I lived about an hour from the hospital and I didn't feel comfortable being that far away in case something went wrong during delivery. For me, there were a lot of complications (my son and I would've died had we not been in the hospital - in fact, both of us needed resuscitation during delivery). With my 2nd pregnancy, due to all the complications from the 1st - a VBAC was out of the question, so I had another c-section (but, it wasn't pre-scheduled as I went into labor before it had been scheduled) - and hemorrhaged my entire blood volume. So, for me, hospital births were the right thing to do - but, the complications I had were, admittedly, very rare, and most women wouldn't be faced with these things during delivery. In the end - I say, whatever makes the birthing experience the best for the mother and the baby is fine.
Tessa, I think what you're saying is that in a normal pregnancy the risk is about the same either way and it's the mom's choice to do home vs. hospital birth. Is this right?
Such paranoia regarding doctors and hospitals!
Everyone must educate themselves and advocate for themselves, and not swallow everything that a doctor tells you blindly, of course.
But the medical profession is NOT OUT TO GET YOU.
The medical profession may not be out to get you, but medical errors are the number three cause of death in the U.S., behind heart disease and cancer. When it comes to childbirth, I certainly wouldn't want to deliver in a hospital today, where risk of Cesarean Section is, depending upon the hospital 1 in 2 to 1 in 3. For a matched risk comparison of normal, healthy women, the risk of death doubles for both mother and infant. If African-American, mom is 3 x's as likely to die when delivered by Cesarean Section. Read "Understanding the Dangers of Cesarean Birth" by Nicette Jukelevics. Maternal death rate has been rising in the U.S. the past 20 years, (not due to home birth) due to the increased rate of Cesarean Section. Women die, due to infection, blood clots, and hemorrhage. They and their babies are also at increased risk in future pregnancies. Obviously, only low risk women should deliver at home. Noone with diabetes, high blood pressure, multiples or breech baby should deliver at home. Normal, healthy women however, should be able to choose home or birth center birth as a healthy option with a licensed midwife or doctor in attendance. The majority of children born in the world today, are still delivered at home. This is how most humans were born until the 20th century. Even though we spend more money on healthcare than any other nation in the world we still are rated 34th in Infant Mortality and 42nd in Maternal Mortlaity. THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG. Prenancy and Childbirth are normal, healthy, physiological functions that should be treated as such. When we treat pregnancy like a disease it produces poor outcomes. The U.S. could have healthier infants, mothers and families and save billions of dollars on healthcare by educating women regarding the benefits of keeping themselves healthy during pregnancy with good nutrition, exercise, positive childbirth education and midwife care and out-of-hospital birth.
30 years old and have had 5 kids and wants to have 2 more. I am thinking this is a lot of the problem on planet Earth. The planet can't support this kind of growth much longer.
She's actually had 4 kids.
She had one before all this, and yes, she should be cultivated, so we can save 20K a piece on each child, seen from national production/expense!
With Obama health care, some people don't have the option of using a hospital with outrageous doctor and hospital costs that the Obama administration has done nothing about!!!!
What about Oh wait, that's right. The Republicants HAVE no plan to help cut the costs of doctor and hospital visits. All they want to do is continue allowing insurance company lobbyists, drug company lobbyists, and other lobbyists to keep buying their votes and making record profits. You know, at least Obama has the courage to put forward a plan. Since you seem to think Obama has not done enough, perhaps you can suggest what should be done.
Actually Obama's health care is the only thing allowing you to use the hospital. When the repubs try to repeal, your insurance will get too expensive and you'll give birth at home to avoid the costs.
JimmyHoffa, that is just stupid rhetoric and you know it.
The healthcare overhaul will force the system to work out its own solution to serving more patients rather than having it dictated to them by Big Brother. Let the AMA, ACOG, and the other's throw their cash behind tort reform (among other needed changes) to reign in healthcare spending. Isn't that what conservatives are always going on about personal responsibility, industry "self-correction", and whatnot? Oh, but I forgot the line is usually drawn at personal accountability. Other's should be accountable to you, but you needn't be accountable to anyone else.
Nothing like gambling with your life or your child's life, eh? While home birth may be great for mothers in rural locations where medical facilities are sparse, the security of giving birth in a hospital surrounded by well-trained medical personnel who can respond immediately in case of unforeseen circumstances cannot be substituted.
I gave birth at home because, despite having health insurance, I couldn't not afford to have a hospital birth (no pregnancy coverage). If people are not in a rural area, there is usually hospital service available very close and fast, so there is no more risk, and actually a lot less if you do the research. I did have to get transported to the hospital for a tear to be sown up, it was beyond what the midwife could handle. The baby, 9 1/2 lbs was able to stay home. Hospital births are much more likely to result in C-section or other stress related complications (failure to dilate is a huge problem). I would absolutely give birth at home again. The benefits for time alone were great. The midwife came to me after work, I didn't miss a single hour of work for pregnancy, do that with a regular doctor!
Actually many midwives require that you be within a certain distance from the hospital. If you live in the middle of nowhere, that would be a factor against having a home birth and most midwives in that circumstance are likely to recommend a birth center (which is basically like - go to the midwife's house instead of her coming to yours).
Nothing like having your foreskin sliced off, eh? Why aren't men lining up to give theirs when it's been proven to lower STD transmission rates improving the health of untold numbers of people?
See, it sounds just as stupid for me to make comments about body parts I don't have. But I forget, for most men it's not just a woman giving birth, it's THEIR woman.
Uh, Ripcity, in most rural locations there won't even be a doctor on the premises. You're monitored by nurses (with less education that midwives, by the way) who decide when to call in the doctor.
I think people without a biblical hate and fear agenda should multiply and multiply quickly. Otherwise, the Duggars will inherit the earth and that's not the place I want my worldly, fully educated children to grow up.
Studies have shown that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to have multiple children, or even children at all.
I've read this and it's very sad. I weep for the moronic future of this planet.
With home births . How do they go about getting a birth certificate ? Oh! never mind . Your President can't prove where he was born .
Hahaha! Skillfully pivoted, even if incredibly ignorant. Gotta love the AfterBirthers.
This subject is not about politics and there is no mystery about how to get a birth certificate for homebirths....unless only hospitals issue them....right!
RON-1137649
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Wow, that looks like a birth certificate to me.
The President should not have to show his birth certificate to appease a bunch of bigots. What a lot of nerve.
'Nuff about politics...
give them time, they will soon make it elegal...cant have all that money lost and unaccounted for. as we speek the lobbyests are lineing up to get law makers to write laws... anyone that tries to help these women will be charged with practicing without a license, fined and jailed. conform of we will crush you.
Actually, they will never be able to make giving birth at home (or in a cab on the way to the hospital) illegal. Your comment demonstrates your ignorance of the whole process of giving birth.
I'm sure they won't, but they could make it illegal. They could make it a law that all pregnant women must check into a hospital at four months and they can't leave until the baby is born.
Wow, Katy and you really think ANYONE can afford a five month stay in the hospital. Unless you're in the 1%, you sure can't afford the bill and the hospitals certainly can't afford your charity care. But hey, at least you prove that it's not just the guys making stupid opinions about where women whould give birth.
missrn,
I certainly wasn't making a suggestion that this be done. Dirp101 had stated that it would be impossible to make a law that women have babies in the hospital due to the nature of childbirth being unpredictable. I was just showing that if legislators wanted to be stupid (and I think they have shown in the past that they sometimes do) that it could be done. I can't believe anybody would think I was suggesting that this law should be made.
I have two children, and my wife decided to go with a homebirth and a skilled mid-wife for the second delivery. It went amazingly smooth, was far more comforting for the mother and we didn't have to deal with hospital equipment, unnecessary drugs, nurses and doctors more concerned with getting the baby out fast and within their shift. I hope that anyone considering a home birth does some research and tries it. It was amazing!
I'm glad that the delivery went well! Though I'd definitely emphasize the last thing you said to anyone thinking about home birth: DO THE RESEARCH! Home birth isn't for everyone, especially if your doctor believes there may be ANY chance of complications.
There is always a chance of complications. I think it's about making sure you're within a quick drive of a hospital should the need for emergency care arise.
That's cool. :) I had considered a birthing center for my first, but turned out to have a few different check marks in the high-risk list. I think if you're low-risk, are comfortable with it, and have a good midwife, there's no reason not to give birth at home.
No, don't encourage research! You will only increase the number of homebirths.
Most midwives will not even take high risk pregnancies, they do know what they are doing.
AlejandroFelx: Actually, it sounds like you and your wife should have been researching better doctors and hospitals. The hospital my family uses has an extremely good nursing, physician, quality care staff for every shift. The primary purpose is the care of the patient. I suggest you look around and try to find a better hospital and doctors. You may not need it now, but when you do, you want to make sure you get the quality care you are paying for.
I'm curious about something. Are all the people that are suggesting you search around for hospitals from big cities? Because if you don't like the hospital in your own town, it seems like it wouldn't be all that practical to live 20-30 miles away from the hospital you want to give birth in.
If something had gone wrong during the birth, I'll bet you would have been damned glad to deal with hospital equipment, "unnecessary drugs" and doctors and nurses...
Choices are great. It's a free America after all.
Thank you! I don't think that I could personally feel comfortable birth anywhere other than a hospital. I worry and the possibility of complications would just be too much for me (plus I doubt my mom, a labor and delivery nurse, would allow it). There's nothing wrong with either situation, it's a personal choice. Like any choice regarding your child, people should research and make sure it's the right decision for them. Other than that, though, who cares what others choose to do and why are some people on here trying to tell everyone there's only one acceptable way?
Choices are great...as long as they are in your provider network. And duly approved by the little guy in a suit who arbitrarily makes up drug formularies and belongs to an insurance company that tries to weasel out of paying every possible thing they can on technicalities. (Sorry, my baby has cancer and we are fighting with the insurance company so I wanted to reveal my bias about their "treatment solutions" upfront.)
I had my first baby 30 years ago. Nobody even suggested I have an ultrasound. The baby was breech at about 6 months and my doctor (who was a darling, enthusiastic young man at the time) turned my son so he was facing the right way. Then he proceeded to do a little dance, wave his arms and say, "Hooray, it worked just like Doctor/Professor X said it would!" I was all for having my son naturally and labored "manfully" to do just that. 23 hours later I wasn't progressing and something was said about pressure on the cord putting the baby in distress. (Sorry, things got pretty vague for me about that time.) My husband signed those C-section papers so fast I never knew what happened. Next thing I knew I was in the operating room and I think I came partially awake during the procedure because to this day I remember thinking, "Gee this ought to be really hurting," but it didn't.
I am a small woman married to a tall guy with an enormous round head. (More brains?) My son's weight at birth was slightly under 10 pounds and I was so glad they decided to do that C-section. Yes, I spent 4 days feeling like I was hit by a truck but was up and walking the same day. And I went home in 3 days. There are some really nice painkillers out there.
12 years later: Yay! Pregnant again. My husband's employer changed from one EGHP to another in the 7th month of my pregnancy and suddenly my doctor wasn't "in network" any more. So I had to scramble to find a practice that would take me. (I am also ashamed that at that time I threatened to set the President of the company's dog on fire....which I would never, ever do, but pregnant women get crazy; that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) My new doctors about fell on the floor and died when I told them I'd never had an ultrasound (this was 1993) and then we talked about my medical experience with my last birth. Still thinking of my husband's handsome, but huge head, I opted to have another C-Section and this time I told them what I wanted, when I wanted it and how I wanted it done. They went along with it, even to the point of giving me general anesthesia. There was a little discussion about that, but the anesthesiologist agreed with my reasoning and respected my feelings. The ob/gyn wasn't too happy, probably because he'd been overruled by my own wishes (the very nerve!) but went along with it. He threatened not to let my husband in the delivery room if I wasn't "there" myself but I told him that my husband had been there for conception and he can darn well be there for the big event. Overall, it was a really good experience for me; we picked the latest possible date to have the baby and I went home 2 days later with a couple of Vicodin and very little pain, maybe because I knew what to expect this time around.
The only sticking point about the second time around was that they wanted to charge me an extra $475 to have my tubes tied. I figured that it wouldn't be any big deal since they were rummaging around in there anyway, but insurance said that it wasn't medically necessary so we'd have to fork for that ourselves. I never understood the logic behind that; they'll pay the cost of my having another baby but not the comparatively small cost of a tubal ligation. I went back to my ex-psychiatrist and said the next baby I had was going in the toilet (another lie, but I was 36 years old at the time and SO done having babies, who wants to watch their child graduate high school while you're already using a walker) so could he please write a letter saying that it was medically necessary for me to have a tubal ligation. When I brought the letter into the ob/gyn office the guy I saw that day read it and said, "Oh. Heh-heh. I don't think we need to put this in your file and we'll be sure not to charge you for the procedure." And they did not charge me and the subject was never raised again.
Every woman wants to have their children in their own way and I admire the fortitude and strength of these (hopefully low risk) moms having their children at home. I'm sure it's possibly a more rewarding experience and very empowering to have control over every aspect of the birth. I know someone who had a planned home birth and it did not go well; there was some brain damage to the baby, but I think that there are so many more instances of home birth going well that for some people, home birth is the choice that makes the most sense to them.
C-section made the most sense to me at the time. That was my choice and, given my history, I was allowed to decide how I wanted to have my second child. It worked for me and I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone how to have their children. Thank you, Allielcea, for your wise words about individual choices and childbirth.
How dare they give birth at home and save the tens of thousands of dollars doing so would cost at a hospital if you don't have insurance! Selfish wenches - don't they think that hospital CEOs have to eat too?
I can tell you as an experienced maternal-newborn nurse (care giver and in leadership roles) that obstetrics and pediatrics are money losers for most hospitals- very labor intensive (and labor is what costs hospitals the most) and reimbursement from Medicaid (which pays for approximately half of all deliveries in the US) does not equal the payout. Most hospitals suck it up because they may be the only healthcare game in town (especially rural and smaller communities) or if they are large and regional in their markets they can justify providing the speciality services that come with high risk obstetrics and pediatrics (maternal-fetal medicine specialists, genetic counselors and neonatal intensive care), acting as the referral centers for all those neighboring smaller hospitals.
If for reimbursement reasons a hospital had to choose between a laboring woman or grandma needing a hip replacement, the choice is obvious.
Hrm. Seems to me here that the story should be that, even with a lower risk profile selected for women who choose to give birth at home, they still have a higher risk in actual birth.
The midwife program seems okay, though I'd like more details about their training and qualifications. Do they know when to call a doctor? Do they attempt to correct high-risk complications on their own? Which ones are they trained to do? Are the women they select in an area where they can be rushed to the hospital easily if something goes wrong?
As for drugs, I think that's mostly up to the patients. My sister opted out of drugs initially, but when the pain hit during her first birth, she asked for them (too late for her, unfortunately). Her second kid came way too quickly for them to even think about drugs, apparently. And from what I understand, most women who have a designated prenatal doctor usually end up with them throughout the entire process, so they can be comfortable with that person.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of quackery out there. Groups against any drugs or pain management, groups against any "unnatural" treatments, groups that think pregnancy is completely normal and has no risk whatsoever. Groups that think a woman's body was "designed" for pregnancy. A key here is looking for any religious affiliations: most religious doctors or doctors in religiously affiliated hospitals are still doctors, but it seems more and more are putting religious ideology above patient care (especially in new-age woo like $cientology and homeopathy, and in fundamentalist cults of more mainstream religions). These people need to be called out, protested, and shut down. Permanently, before they continue their rampage against rights and safety.
My daughter was born at home in 1975. It was a planned home birth. She is perfect. The problem today is that 1. Dr's are inducing labor at the highest rate ever, they are scheduling births 9-5 Mon-Fri. I say that this practive should be totally eliminated. It endangers the mother and the child, plus the birth date calculations are often incorrect. Babies come when they are READY. Women have born children in fields and in cots etc without consequence for EVER.
2. Having a baby costs a small fortune. No, it costs a large fortune now.
3. The birthing centers are awesome. I was a midwife in the 70's and helped to deliver 3 other babies in these clinics. They are relaxed, welcoming and comforatble.
It is a shame that we lost all of the 60's and 70's return to "mother" nature groups and ideas. Maybe our kids will come full circle and we will see hippies in the streets again sitting in and walking out for a better world, peace, and acceptance.
The stats show lower risk in home births....did you not read the entire article.
For 2009 only, and that was comparing all hospital births (including high risk) to a normal pregnancy home birth. When you compare apples to apples home births are 3-4 times more risky.
When teasing out planned vs. unplanned? When teasing out legal homebirth midwives from illegally practicing midwives who may be hesitant to transfer a patient because of potential legal repercussions? Is the midwife taking on low risk homebirth cases or inappropriate, higher risk clients? When teasing out how rural the woman is (did the midwife take on someone an hour from the closest hospital for a HB vs. within a 30 min radius? When teasing out the midwives' training (CNM vs. lay midwife)? When you look at the data, look for studies that tease out these specifics-a trained, legal, licensed midwife taking on low risk clients within a reasonable range to transfer to a hospital. Make sure the study teases out planned homebirths with a skilled attendant vs. "oops" births that occur "out of hospital" but are on the side of the road in transit (not a planned homebirth) or that happen so quickly at home the woman has no attendant present.
I think home birth is a good option for SOME people. That said, home birth carries considerably higher risks than hospital birth, mainly that if something goes wrong during hospital birth, it can be treated immediately, whereas at home you have to drive to the hospital to get treatment, or may not even know there is a problem with the baby until it's too late. People who have been assessed to have potential difficulties with birth should NOT go with home birth, and even people who are poised to have a "normal" birth should carefully consider the risks first.
Just like giving birth in a hospital, choosing a good midwife is as important as choosing a good doctor. A good midwife won't take clients that have high risk and will send a client to the hospital if they think there is any chance or any thing going wrong. A midwife out to prove that mainstream pregancy care is wrong should not be hired. (I gave birth at home, couldn't afford the hospital and like the comfort.)
I am a woman, gave birth to 2 live boys, 9 years apart in age. why so far apart? because of the hospital and the doctor during the first experience! #1 - ALL of my "rights" were removed, I HAD to have this and that done; NO PRIVACY whatsoever - I had to strip and gown up and spread my legs before the doctor even came into the exam room. Then he brings some other guy with him and talks to that guy without EVER introducing himself or the other guy! all while I'm laying on the table with my legs apart!! I yelled and kicked the other guy out and the doctor says "no he has to examine you, he's a student. I told him I didn't care what he was, he was leaving and could practice on somebody else! common courtesy would have been more appreciated! #2 - the nurse had to call the doctor 3 times to have him come to deliver my baby! my husband was the only one in the room when my baby's head emerged. the doc walked in and cut me (twice!) without waiting to see if I could deliver without tearing. Then, as he's sewing me up, says "no sex for 6 weeks and you'll be tight as a virgin!" Um, what kind of dignity is that? experience #1 scared and scarred me so much that I didn't want to get pregnant for a long time! Experience #2 was better because I had a different doctor who was with me from the beginning and actually delivered my baby. I was still forced to undergo an IV (which I didn't need) and medicines that I didn't want because it was "hospital protocol." They do those things, so that if the outcome is bad (dead baby or mom), they can prove that they "did all the right things." I wanted baby #2 to be born at home, but my 2nd hubby wouldn't allow that. many of my friends here have their babies at home with NO bad outcomes. I've known several others who have had "perfectly normal pregnancies" and delivered full term in the hospital with bad outcomes (still births); AND I've known several full term pregnancies to be delivered C-section because of physician convenience! RN Mike: I know that you are trying to help, but because you are a MAN, you cannot understand what actually happens inside a woman's body. you may be trained in obstetrics, but can only know from 2nd hand experience, not first hand. your comments are based on what you "know" because you work in a hospital! (I worked at our local hospital for 7 years and have several nursey friends and a few docs that I call by their first name. Home births are a wonderful option for those who are healthy! Hospital births are a wonderful option for those whose pregnancies present challenges, but let's not close the door on either choice!
Cape,
RN Mike DIDN'T close the door on either choice. He was just stating facts which are important when deciding between home and hospital birth. A perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy pregnancy might choose a hospital birth and that's fine. RN Mike seems to be basing his comment on facts while you're basing yours on biased personal experience. I don't blame you for being biased in the least, but don't jump down his throat because he's offering an objective view. He said home births are fine for some people but aren't for everyone. So cool your jets. He wasn't bashing anything.
In a world already starting to suffer from an overstressed and overused agriculture chain, with overpopulation a growing problem and world hunger and supply shortages becoming apparent. This woman has tons of kids so they can suffer in the future hellhole we've all created for ourselves, *captian picard double facepalm*.
As long as you are low risk, a good midwife can do far better than a doctor. Childbirth is not a medical problem, it's a natural process. It only becomes a medical problem when medicine intervenes, which we see time and again. Because of the insurance industry, doctors are pushed way too hard for fast, good outcomes, which means inductions. Plus, hospitals are for sick people and, as hard as they try, it's hard to come out of one without picking up a bug. Being in your own home, with your own germs, vs. being in a hospital with a zillion germs.....which do you think is better? I don't blame OBs. They really do think they have women's best interest at heart but, because of the insurance industry, they are just pushed too hard to see too many patients, to use too many interventions and, because OBs are so afraid of lawsuits, they have to practice CYA medicine. It's just all a bad recipe for childbirth.
Geez, if you can take the pain, go for it! Respect! I couldn't do it.
First of all, pregnancy isn't a disease.
Second of all, in general, Homebirth is going to be a lot safer than giving birth in a hospital. Have you people actually been in a hospital lately?
Yes in fact, I work at one, and have worked in many different units, including maternity. It's not just my opinion that having a baby under the supervision of trained nurses, doctors, and midwives is safer than having one at home without any sort of monitoring. Is it safer to drive a car by watching your speed limit on a sharp curve, or eyeballing it?
Let me tell you something RN.......part of the trouble with hospital births is that they intervene where they should not. The statistics show better outcomes at home. Like I said I have lost all faith in the healthcare system in the United States.
The statistics for home birth vs. hospital births are very skewed. Midwives won't takes on high risk pregnancies, hospitals do. If it weren't for the qualified medical professionals (doctors, nurses and even midwives) with the proper medical technology and sanitary conditions, the complication rate would be much worse. Another reason for the home birth complication rate being so low is that if something were to go wrong usually you can go to your nearest hospital and get treatment, that is if you are lucky enough to not have a major complication.
Suggesting that you know better than the medical professions of when to intervene during the birthing process is simply ignorant. They have gone through YEARS of training and schooling to understand the human body and it's processes. If you are so skeptical of the US healthcare system I suggest the next time you cut yourself, get an infection, or injure yourself, to a point that not just rest is needed, don't go to your local doctor or clinic, try to treat it yourself. Likely you will end up with infection, get a worse infection, or heal improperly. Are there doctors who care more about profit than their patients, yes, but there are also mechanics, lawyers, accounts, CEOs etc. that are like that. A little self-education (research about your local doctors and hospitals) and being an advocate for your own health will get you a long.
RN Mike- All of those additional people are just more opportunities to see problems where none exist furthering the intervention cascade. All that medical training has taught us is generalities about the human body.
There has yet to be anyone to challenge the rates of socomial vs nonsocomial neonatal infection.
Im glad we were at the hospital when our son was born. There were complications which led to an emergency c-section. He would have died if we had been at home.
I wish more people would take comments like these into consideration before they unilaterally decide that medicine and professional care are bad and their own amateur knowledge of home birth is superior.
I am also greatful to the Dr.s and Nurses during the difficult preterm birth of our first child. They were amazing. I am eternally grateful as both Mom and baby were fine and today, 7 years later, have no apparent long term effects. She was born via C-Section, which is a major surgery with many more possible side effects and complications than natural birth, but is necessary sometimes. Our next two were VBACs in a hospital- horrible experiences which resulted in an unnecessary episiotomy on the 2nd birth and resulted in a confrontation where I informed the Dr.(an OBGYN with 30 yrs exp.) what would and would not happen. He got very angry, made some terse comments and left the room. I delivered the baby myself while the nurse hyperventilated(not at the process, but at the liability). Child #4 and 5 were birthed at home, delivered by myself. All are healthy. I do not advocate home birth for everybody. It is a personal decision that should be made by informed individuals. Once they make decision, they assume responsibility for it. I should be able to have the freedom to do so. I have had medical professionals who do not oppose abortion tell me that it is wrong for me to endanger my child by having it at home. Paradoxical, no? I have also had medical professional fabricate 'facts' and percentages in an attempt to scare us. All I ask for is honesty. The problem is when honesty affects our bottom line, then honesty is not longer as valuable- not just Dr.s- human nature. Dr.s can be great. My occupation is a risky one and I have been stitched, pinned and stapled back together on several occasions. Midwives can be great, also(they are illegal in our state- that is why i had to deliver my children unassisted). Some Drs. are worse than a great midwife. Some Midwives are worse than a great Dr. Do not generalize. Why in the world is common sense so rare these days??? Why can't we be balanced. I would never force or even recommend that anyone give birth at home. I will not be responsible for my recommendation causing your child harm. Make your own informed decision. And in the end, the most important question is.. IS THE MOTHER AND CHILD OK??? If so, where it happened is irrelevant.
Sorry, I was typing too fast.. 'grateful' not 'greatful'.. too bad I wasn't homeschooled- I would have caught it sooner ;-)
independence: your statement is great. The reality is, finding out what about your doctor at the time of the birth is not the time to do it. The doctor is VERY lucky that there were no problems. Walking out in the middle of a surgery (child birth is surgery) does not look very good to a malpractice jury.
Glad mom & all the kids are good.
And that's the inherent flaw in the system, dirp - childbirth is NOT surgery! Pregnant women are not sick! It's a natural, physiologic process that will normally happen just fine without any interventions if you just leave the woman alone!
Tell that to the woman who's child is breech or has the cord wrapped around it's neck.
I wonder if lack of fear of using benefits is a factor. Ya think?
I don't know statistically how much safer -- hospital vs. home -- I just wouldn't want to have something go wrong at home even with a "midwife" or someone trained in home delivery. I guess because I can think of all the things that could go wrong....
all of our problems can be traced back to over population....its the elephant in the room no one talks about. when you ask some ladies or even some men why they want more kids, (when they can not make ends meet and pay there bills as it is) the look at you with a blank expression and say..."i just want another child" you ask them why if they are having such a hard time? there answer..."i just do, i would like to have at least a couple more". its almost like a mental disorder. (and alot of these people are having there kids on the tax payers dime with programs such as denali kid care) seeings the cannot pay for the births themselves. i saw one of my friends keep popping out kids even though it was over taxing her husband. i voiced my consern as he was a good friend. I asked her point blank if having "one more child" would bankrupt the family would she still do it even if it ment giveing here husband a nervus breakdown. not only did she say yes, she had two more!! her husband took to drinking...the marage ended and now she has a house full of kids and guess who is footing the bill for them seeings they cant???? ohhhh come on.......guess! what the hell is wrong with people? how many people is to much? I will say this write here and now to all of you, the amout of people in a given location is directly responcible for quality of life.... more people more stress, more fighting, less resorces. its not rocket science.
Fix-it-Man: I have 5 kids. I pay for them myself. I am self employed and pay for the insurance we carry. Our homebirths saved the insurance company well over $25,000. We do not accept WIC, food stamps or any assistance. If my kids are starving, I would, but as long as I can support them fully, the number we have is irrelevant. I love children. We plan on 1 or 2 more. If I could not support them, we probably would not continue having them. That all being said, my children do not wear designer jeans, though we could afford them. My wife and I are more concerned with relationships than materialism. We live on several acres with a 100 year old, 2250 square foot house that is 80% remodeled and we will have paid it off in 4 years. We then will be debt free. I did not even make $40,000 last year. I am 33 years old. We are all happy and well fed. We have a freezer full of garden veggies, fish and deer meat. Why all these figures? To brag? No, to offer hope to the despairing. You do not need to live like a king to be happy. Clothes and toys do not improve relationships. Please people, let's make a difference! Maybe by the time our kids grow up, they will be reasonable people who can.... wait for it..... LIVE WITHIN A BUDGET!!!! Both on an individual and a national level.
Love your story and sentiments. While my husband and I are in our 30s, and we are in a different boat financially and family size-wise, I do feel a shift in how we are starting to think and feel about possessions and money. We both work and make about six figures between the two of us but we live below our means. We bought a cheap fixer-upper for a house, and well, fixed it up. did most of the work ourselves, with the help of family. It was fun and good bonding experience. It feels more like home than some fancy brand-new construction would have. We cook at home. I drive a paid-off 9-yo car and plan to drive it until it dies. (my husband has a company car). We have paid off all credit cards and cut them up and have not used them in years. when we buy something, we pay cash, and if we don't have the cash, we don't buy it. We are hoping to have a child in the next year or so, and at that point i plan to quit my job to stay home with the baby for at least a year or two. A lot of young people in our situation end up with a higher mortgage than they should have, charging lots of dinners out and vacations on credit, and when a child comes along, they have to hand it over to strangers at a daycare and keep working their butts off to pay for it. When i quit, we will lose 60% of our income, but we will be ready b/c we have not been spending like we had that money anyway. We've put a lot of money into savings for a rainy day. I feel so much more comfortable and peaceful not having the pressure of keeping up with the Joneses. The "extra money" that we do have is a security blanket, or a cushion. we enjoy the real FREEDOM of not having car payments, credit payments, and getting books at the library. Simpler is better. There is really a dialogue starting out there about changing the way we think about what's important in life, and I love talking about it with my friends and colleagues who are starting to feel the same.
Okay first off PLEASE learn proper grammar. IT'S the elephant in the room, not its. And it is THEIR, not there like in your statement: "...pay there bills as it is." And as to the woman friend you mentioned, who kept popping out babies therefore causing her husband to start drinking and leave her, had her husband never heard of pulling out or using condoms????????????? HOW is it HER fault, when her husband knew they were financially unstable and kept having sex with her anyway? Is he really so stupid that he fell for the ole' "Oh I'm taking my pill" bit MULTIPLE TIMES???????!!!!!!!!!!! REALLY? REALLY? Come the eff on. It takes two to tango, buddy.
And it's responsible, not responcible. Pick up a dictionary. You're on the internet. You can't google correct spelling???????????????????
What does all this have to do with childbirth in a home or hospital?
Children who are loved and trained to be respectful are a huge asset to society. If you look at it only from an economic stand point. Think of it this way: a declining population makes a declining economy. Our economy is built on the assumption that the population is growing. If the population shrinks it is devestating for any economy. Everything has to downsize
It a perfectly natural experience ...If a family chooses to have their child at home.... that is their prerogative. My wife and I had a terrible experience with the hospital with my daughters birth. Afterwards my wife almost died as a result of a misdiagnoses. It is up to the individual family and certainly not a question of politics. Emergency services should be on the ready if needed....and the family should be on the ready to pay for them if utilized.
Death from complications of child birth is a natural experience too, I just would not recommend rolling the dice.
Dirp- so is dying from diabetes or cancer, but we don't commit people for refusing treatment, because <gasp> it's their RIGHT! Why doesn't a women get to make that choice (with astronomically lower rates of death) without being ridiculed? This story is as old as the bible, a woman's body is hers until sex comes into the picture then it becomes the property of the nearest or dearest man.
Women deserve to have whatever kind of birth they choose! Stop judging people because they want to do what they feel is right for them and their child. It's a personal choice, not a societal one. Women give birth all the time, all over the world, and only here in the U.S. have we made such a huge deal about how it 'should' be done. Give it a rest.
Totally agree with you, LeafitAlone! It seems to be a fad these days, to give birth at home, and then turn around and criticize those who don't. Every woman has the right to choose how and where to give birth.
As an interesting piece of info, most of my friends who decided to have a C-section was because they could not afford to lose their jobs and had to plan their childbirth to return to work ASAP! On the other hand, I chose C-sections because after having my first one "normally" I could not bear the thought of facing that most horrendous and agonizing pain, ever again! I also recovered much faster both times, while the first one took me a couple of months! We are all different, it's our bodies, it's our choice, "Give it a rest!"