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:
I believe that where a woman gives birth is her choice BUT I also know that had I attempted to deliver either of my oldest boys at home - they wouldn't be here and I might not be either. My Dr. is a very laid back optimist so interventions were minimal until we needed them. A birthing center is truly the way to go as it is the best of both worlds.
As for the discussion on c-sections - many are necessary. I do not believe that they should be scheduled unless there is a pressing reason. All of children ended up being delivered by c-section but only the last ones were planned because my doctor told me it would not be safe for me or my baby to try a vbac again considering the complications that had already been experienced. I know there is a trend for women to want them to make planning easier but that should be illegal! (As it was my last baby was delivered a few days prior to the scheduled c-section. Babies don't like to follow schedules! lol)
Yes, hospital births are expensive and many can't afford them but having children is expensive. If that is your ONLY reason for planning a home birth maybe you should re-think the whole pregnancy idea and stick with birth control. It is less expensive than feeding and clothing a baby!!
There's always an argument over the simplest things, isn't there? Do what is best for you. If its home birth, do home birth. If its hospital, do hospital. This is a personal choice. Nothing to be arguing about.
In 2005, I had the same experience as Shipup Mom. My first pregnancy was completely normal and uneventful but labor and delivery turned into a nightmare. After pushing for many hours my child's heartbeat began dropping. I did the same dance as Shipup Mom of trying every position that I could (including being on all fours) to stabilize his heartbeat. Then, my blood pressure began to drop. Thank goodness we were in a hospital. My ob/gyn performed an emergency c-section that night. Not all c-sections are because of schedules or vanity.
Home births may be great for other moms but not me. Luckily, we live in a country where we get to choose.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at the people who think a hospital is so much safer for low-risk women. You mean to tell me your OB is going to be in the room with you the ENTIRE time you're in labor? No? Because my midwife was with me the entire time, never left my side. Even with my 31-week preemie I didn't even have a nurse in the room with me, they relied on the monitors they were monitoring from a room down the hall (and mind you, the monitors didn't even work because they didn't pick up my contractions, ergo I really wasn't in labor - but they sure as heck believed me when I told them it was time to push).
I gave birth to my first child at a birth center. I just gave birth to my 2nd child last Thursday at home in the water. Both are perfectly healthy and happy. With my first, we had planned to do a hospital birth then switched to a birth center at 34 weeks. Why? My friend convinced us to watch the documentary "The Business of Being Born" (you can stream it on netflix or get it at the library or blockbuster). That completely made me AFRAID to go to the hospital. Don't get me wrong, hospitals are great when you need them. But if you are low-risk, have a good pregnancy and are in great health, then there is an excellent chance that you will have a safe home birth.
The nurses and doctors at hospitals intervene too much. IV's, epidurals, pitocin, vacuum, etc. Not to mention unnecessary C-sections. There are some doctors who will give a woman a c-section just because they want to clock out and go home. The system is flawed. Also, there is more chance your baby will catch an illness at a hospital whereas at home, they are used to the germs, air, surroundings that Momma lives in.
My home birth was so relaxing. At the end of it, I could just lie in my own (comfortable!) bed and not have to worry about any going-ons at the hospital.
You have so many misconceptions about hospitals it's unbelievable...
All those against hospital births because of interventions that aren't necessary...if you don't want and intervention do not have it. Have a plan and the backbone to advocate for yourself. No one can force you to have a monitor on, take pitocin, use a suction, have a c-section if you don't allow it. For those who are against a hospital birth because of the cost, maybe you can't afford a baby. Those who are against home-birth because the Mom is selfish are also terribly wrong. All (or almost all) mothers want the best for their babies. This is such a personal choice even those who chose a responsible home-birth, with midwife etc. need to be prepared for emergencies. This decision is and has to remain between the woman, her partner and her chosen medical professional.
Could this have something to do with the cost of having a kid born in our extremely expensive hospitals? Also we are 37th in the world in infant mortality.
People were shocked to find out that I had my son at home in 1976. With incredulous expressions on their faces they would ask, "Why didn't you go to the hospital?!" My reason was simple: I was pregnant, not sick. The statistics for deaths of people who went to a hospital for a minor proceedure but died because they contracted some lethal strain of something or were the victim of a dosage error was a lot scarier to me that giving birth.
I had a homebirth after two horrible c-sections. My only regret is that only my last baby was born at home. I was healthier and so was my child, even better breast feeding was successful. I am well educated as are most of my fellow home-birth moms. In my state we have to know the risks and sign off on home births, education for and aganst home birth must legally be provided.
If you go by what the American Association of GNs and OBs say, home birth statistics are scary. When in truth, home birth statistics are quite positive. I researched home births looking at what the World Health Orgnization had to say as well as death rates for both mothers and infants in countries like the UK, Australia, Switzerland, and Denmark. Research has proven that the way the US handles birth is leading to higher rates of death and injury to both infants and their mothers, mostly related to c-sections which are also on the rise.
My point is, one must look where statistics come from, who is doing the research and providing the findings, and what do they have to gain from it. Also, birth is just the beginning of many choices a parent has to make. The one giving birth should be able to chose how she gves birth, not the goverment who often is being presented with the "facts" by highly paid lobbyists.
Giving birth is a very messy business-thank heavens I had my child in a hospital where someone else got to clean up
I agree that women have the right to choose to give birth any way that they like; but seriously...come on; whether you can afford it or not don't have 5 or 6 or for that fact even 3 kids. We as a World just passed 7 Billion people on this planet; true that the US throws away ALOT of food; but you're comparing apples and oranges here. If we as a Country were really smart; we would do what HAD to be done in China years ago...you can have only 1 child. I know what you're gonna say...I don't wanna be like China...neither do I; but we have to many damn people in this World; any moron can see that. I am highly educated and a very hard worker; I have chose not to have any children just because I am trying to do my part in curbing the Earths population; If I can have 0 children; then maybe you can cut it down to 2 at the most...
"THE CREATOR" created "man" and "wo-man" --- LONG BE-FORE "man" and "wo-man" created hospitals!!!