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 work in a hospital with over 8500 deliveries a year. We have a large midwife service and people are given a wide range of options for delivering.Home births are referrred to a different midwife service.I feel that if yo u want to have one please be careful that your midwife does all the appropriate tests including group b strep.
I have seen great outcomes,with home births. I have also seen babies who have died from a home birth that may have been saved by a hospital birth.
I also don't think the home birth rate is going to go through the roof. Many women still want the security that a hospital provides for them
Excellent comment, I have observed similar things in my hospital as well.
Why don't you share the unfortunate stories of hospital births that went terribly bad?
Buffy- jo-ann isn't fear mongering home births. It isn't fair for you to call her out on it. It is fair to say that there are circumstances where babies could be saved in a hospital that might have died at home. That's true. That doesn't mean that most of the time it is just as safe for the baby and more safe for the mother (less likelihood of damage to her body from childbirth injuries) to be at home for a low risk birth. That's also true.
Fair enough...
Having birth at home with qualified midwives is standard in England.
The key is co-ordinating with your ob. Once, your ob determines you are a good candidate for a home birth and you request it, they contact the midwives and set up the appointements. The midwives come out, do home visits, set up where the birth will take place, they take all medical equipment with them and notify the ob of the impending birth once they are contacted.
This can be a good option for people who are comfortable with it and who would like to save the expense of hospital care.
I personally would rather be at the hospital, at least I wouldn't have to cook or clean for a day.
And that women in the article, gives birth at 17, puts child up for adoption, makes 4 more and wishes for more is flicking nuts. Trying to atone for her sins through her other children?
If I were to have a baby I would DEFINITELY have a water birth at home. I think the hospital environment is too stressful for the mother and too expensive. I believe that emergency services should be on-call in case an emergency did arise, but I think, in the best interest of the mother and baby, it's best to birth at home. Of course, each circumstance is different, so it really depends on the health of the mother & baby.
The idea sounds nice. The reality isn't. I believe homebirth is a ridiculous choice & much too risky! There would be MORE STRESS in a home birth than in a hospital delivery anyday! Don't bet on emergency services to arrive IN TIME or FULLY EQUIPPED IF there IS an emergency! And, for those who have NEVER (as yet) given birth - ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha............!
Why would there be more stress in a home delivery?
SJIS, in order to be the judge of which, in reality, is more stressful then you must first experience both. I have; the first time in a hospital and the second time at home and I found the home birth much more relaxing and enjoyable. I would not go to a hospital to give birth unless absolutely necessary!
Having your emergency people right there as your child is born was the difference between life and death for my 2nd child. We did not know it would be life or death until he had his head and 1 shoulder out. I was healthy, my pregnancy was great. Everything was fine.
I will put his life above my "birthing experience" any day.
Good luck to those who can survive - mom & babe - unscathed from 'natural' home birth as practiced for centuries before the advent of modern medicine, sterilization, and help with complications in delivery, etc. If you're lucky enough to get away with it - fine. Many aren't! I think home birth is taking a dangerous chance with the life & health of the newborn & the mom! (Gee whiz! I 'ain't' so politically correct & romantic.)
SJIS - this really is a personal decision. My first and and last (who was high-risk) were hospital deliveries. The other 3 (yes, I know, but this was 40 years ago and I wasn't up on overpopulation then) were born at home. The deliveries were very low stress, attended by midwives, EMT's or nurses, and far lovelier than my hospital deliveries. My OB was supportive of my decision and I could not have asked for better births. Remember, we would not have an overpopulation problem if childbirth were as "dangerous" an enterprise as many would have us believe.
Agree with that Walla Walla.
I really don't care if this woman opts to have her children in the hospital, in the living room or in the middle of the forest. I take issue with this sentence referring to those who birth at home.
"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."
In case you missed it, I'll extract the offensive material:
" ... states with renegade reputations, such as Montana, ... followed by Oregon and Vermont ..."
So, states that stand up for personal rights are now renegade?
In today's political environment, yes!
Just practicing for Obamacare.
Funny you use Tommy Lee's name for your user name. An interesting bit of trivia here: He and Pam had both their sons at home.
I can't imgine how mankind survived, most of the world population was born without doctors. A womans body is made to give birth. Doctors have made us think it cannot be done without their involvment. I really have to wonder if all the intervention from the medical community isn't the cause of problems like autisum and all the other medical problems children have today. Most women are not allowed to have a baby in a natural manner. Most women are induced, forcing the baby to be born before its time. Just because the doctor and/or parents don't want to be inconvienced.
and that is exactly why I reject what healthcare has become in this country......all for the convienence and benefit of the DOC's and to hell with the patients.
"most" women??? Come on now! Kimmie...where is your reference for this "fact"? Women should be allowed to decide where they give birth! Go to a country where there is no medical care for pregnant women and see how high the death rate is for those women and the babies as well. It's easy to dismiss medical care when you haven't experienced true lack of it!
Kimmie and Maroontje, If I were you I would be embarrassed to post such ignorant drivel.
I think having a home birth is a good option - IF you don't have a high risk pregnancy AND that's what you are more comfortable with. If someone does have a high risk pregnancy, then home birth becomes dangerous.
In my case, with my oldest son, I had a midwife that saw me in her office throughout my pregnancy. The plan was for me to give birth naturally (without pain medications, etc.), but at the hospital. I was nervous about delivering at home since we lived an hour away from the hospital and I felt that was too far away in case there were complications. Turns out that was a good thing because I ended up having severe complications that resulted in an emergency c-section during which my son and I both had to be resuscitated during. I had complications afterward (I ended up becoming septic and nearly died several more times). Due to the sepsis I had, my uterus was extremely scarred. Due to the extreme scarring of my uterus, when I had my second son, my risk of uterine rupture far exceeded the normal risk of uterine rupture for subsequent pregnancies - so a VBAC was out of the question. I had a second c-section (during which I hemorrhaged due to the scarring of my uterus, requiring blood transfusions that amounted to my entire blood volume, and I developed a post-op ileus).
My birth experiences, with the complications, were very rare - most women don't have these kinds of problems. So, for me, while home birth was not an opinion; it's a perfectly valid option for other women.
awesome
Just want to make a statment as a 24 year old, homeschooled mother who had her first child at home. I believe there is a stigma attached to homeschooling that shouldn't be, most homeschooled children are socialized with other kids their age and with adults. We receive a well rounded education, complete with field trips and sports and are continually encouraged to find the answer when we have questions. My husband and I made the decision to have a home birth after researching the pros and cons and I am very happy with my entire experience. Our midwife wouldn't have accepted us unless I was low risk and healthy. I of course wanted the best for my son, so if she had suggested I wasn't a likely candidate for a home birth, I would've happily scooted over to a hospital to ensure the best outcome for our pregnancy. Marie was licensed as a midwife and had been a nurse for over 20 years. As a nurse she specialized in care of preemie infants. We were in good hands. Our choice isn't for everyone, we recognize that and hope that before you judge me for my home birth that you would know that I'm not judging you for your choices.
I know a number of homeschooled kids. Some are extraordinarily well-rounded, socialized, intelligent and open-minded. I positively adore them. Others are sheltered, coddled, arrogant, closed-minded and kind of clueless about how to interact with children or adults who come from different backgrounds.
I will say, however, that the second group, in my own personal experience only, tends to be the ones that are home-schooled due to religious reasons. Again, not to say that ALLLLLLL fit into that category. But in my own experience only (which is all I can speak of), it's the case.
But all in all, I say whatever works! Not every family is the same, so you have to just do what works best for you, and hope for the best in general. It sounds like you are making all the decisions that are right for your family, and I say good for you.
When I got pregnant, I made sure my doctor (yes a OB/GYN, not a midwife!) was affiliated with the hospital in our area that contains a NICU (neo natal intensive care unit), "just in case" something went wrong. I had an uneventful pregnancy, but would NEVER give birth without a qualified doctor and all of the medical help in the world at the end of the hall.
A friend of mine swore by the midwife/home birth. She developed gestational diabetes, and the midwife's only advice was "don't drink juice." Well, her baby grew too large and she experienced a very difficult birth, culminating in a gruesome injury (that I won't describe) to the mom and dislocated shoulder for the infant. Despite her plans for the home birth, she was rushed to the hospital in the nick of time.
With all the advances made in obstetric medicine, why on earth would someone take a chance like this with the health and life of their precious baby?? If you had a bad experience with a doctor that's part of a group or a hospital, shop around! My doctor is a sole practitioner, was with me through the whole thing, and I was confident I was getting the best care for me and my baby. No matter how well you think through your "birth plan," unexpected things can and will happen and it's best to be prepared.
The moral of your story should be: don't be a moron, and don't pick a midwife who's a moron. There were plenty of warning signs that birth should have been done in a hospital, and mom and midwife should have recognized that well before the birth. You can't make a sweeping generalizations on home births just because some people do it recklessly.
My dear, in todays world most people don't have the options you describe. HMO's have foreclosed on shopping around and any real choice for people, most especially women. Home births are quite uneventful for the vast majority of women. If you are in the high risk group you should know that well before choosing a birth method. Medicine long ago gave up caring much about the general wellfare of the patient and care more about their next golf game and new car.
1st - it's not always known that one is in a high risk category well before choosing a birth method. True - gestational diabetes is known before hand. There are many very serious life-threatening complications that occur during delivery - albeit, these are rare.
2nd - Medicine has not given up caring about the general welfare of the patients. There are those that do just that - but, there are many physicians that care very much. The challenge is finding the RIGHT physicians for you.
3rd - as a parent that was NOT able to give birth at home (I did have a lot of very serious complications that resulted in a need for resuscitation, massive blood transfusions, etc., etc.) AND a medical student planning on going into Ob/Gyn (I actually am planning on doing a fellowship in maternal fetal medicine and specializing in high risk pregnancies and I would be interested in doing fetal surgery), I think that women SHOULD have the option to deliver at home if they want to. If a woman feels comfortable giving birth at home - that's great, and she shouldn't feel bad doing that.
For 100,000+ years humans have been without hospitals. This isn't ground breaking stuff here folks.
And people have died for things that are completely survivable with the hospital care of current times. Before hospitals if you got bitten by a rattlesnake you tried sucking out the poison and hoped for the best. So would you do that now? No, you would go to the hospital. Love how men think that women should "tough it out" and have babies at home. But if they are passing a teeny little kidney stone they head right for the hospital.
Scared of a little pain? Cry me a river. I poop turds bigger than babies.
Rob- Don't be an ass.
Lack of Health Insurance!!!! Da! and Republicans want to make health insurance impossibile to afford!!
Ding, Ding, Ding! Stupid comment of the day winner.
My wife and I were interested in home delivery until we heard about Cord Prolapse. Rare but we decided we would rather be in a hospital than stuck 45 minutes away in a snowstorm. Why risk it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord_prolapse
I think that's a wise decision, William. Your wife's lucky to have your advice and support.
My wife and I had our first three in the hospital and the latest one at home. She decided to give the home thing a try after the first three went so well, we're only a couple miles from the hospital, and found an RN midwife who was incredibly competent.
Putting aside for a moment the risk/reward/research arguments that have already been hashed out, one of the nicest things about a home birth was being able to plan financially. Try asking your doctor how much the hospital birth is going to cost you. He has no freaking idea, and neither does anybody else. They don't even know *after* you leave the hospital. The bills trickle in for a year after the birth, $2000 for this, $12 for that, $200 for the other, ad infinitum. Ask your midwife how much it's going to cost, and she gives you a straight number. Doesn't matter how long the labor is or how long the recovery time is, you pay half in advance, the rest when it's done and don't hear from her again until you want to.
Nobody in their right mind argues that home birth is better in all circumstances. It will never become the norm. Some people even do it recklessly - I know of a person who recently had her baby at home with no midwife, because none would take her after her first two hospital births ended in c-sections. I suspect nutcases like that are skewing the home birth risk statistics. For those that do the research, have competent midwifes, backup plans, and a history of smooth pregnancies, it can be an outstanding experience.
When I was laid off Cobra Insurance would have cost me $900.00 a month!!!!!!!!!!!
How can you afford this!!!!!!!!!!! No Money!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doesn't surprise me...when the ~30% of women who get pregnant don't have health insurance, and vaginal deliveries are $10,000+, and C-Sections are $20,000+.
America needs to pull its head out and realize what is happening to the middle class....seriously.
Agree with that......doctors now decide when your baby will be born. You are told what day to show up at the hospital for inducement..........and that is the truth, unless of course you are a blue blood.
Kathryn, WTF do you know about it?
Your statements are glaringly false.
To each their own, I say. I had my daughter in the hospital as a scheduled induction, complete with an epidural AND and Nubane. There's not enough of anything in the world to make me choose to have one at home.
But hey, I have a friend who had all of her babies at home and she's just as happy with her birth experience as I am. I think she's nuts. She thinks I'm nuts. But we both agree that the only opinion that matters is our own, and so we're friends and we're perfectly content.
If people want to have their babies at home, fine. Why do people care so much what other people choose to do?
I think your comment is one of the most sane I have read on any board in a long time. People today mostly have the attitude that my opinion is right and if you disagree then you are stupid or crazy. It seems we have lost the ability to agree to disagree.
I would love to have the chance to homebirth but after being a victim of a dr's unnecessary interventions I had my first son VIA c/s. My second son was a hospital VBAC and my daughter due in June will also be a hospital VBAC. That stupid scar took away my dreams of a homebirth with a midwife.
Just because childbirth is a "natural" experience does not mean it is easy and should be done at home. Giving birth is the body's natural reaction to pregnancy. Passing a kidney stone is the "natural" reaction to having stones in the kidney, having a heart attack or stroke is the "natural" reaction to clogged arteries. But you don't see men toughing it out at home without medication and medical help when their body has one of these "natural" reactions. And a kidney stone is waaayy smaller than pushing out a baby!
Why can't women just choose what they want? Why does it always have to be an argument??? There is nothing wrong with a home birth OR a hospital birth. For the most part, a lot of the problems in hospital births could be corrected if the WOMAN having the baby would just STAND UP for herself.
My first was a C-section, he was breech, feet down, standing straight up, coming 4 weeks early and estimated to be big ( and he was). My second I succesfsully delivered naturally, as in not a single drug, in a hospital. I stood up for what I wanted and got it.
Ugh, and forigve the horrible speeling mistakes!! :P
I REFUSE to EVER have another child in a flippin hospital. I had to give birth to my child alone and the evil midwives made me give birth for their comfort. If I ever have another child, I WILL NOT EVER have another child at a hospital. I did not want a epidural towards the end but was pressured. No way. Never not happening. How dare people make a mom give birth on their back when your body is telling you to give birth on all fours like a lot of mothers. It's horrible. People are so self centered it makes me sick. Good for all those mothers giving birth at home. And it's NOT a liberal thing, if anything is more of a conservative thing honestly.
these women are just doing it to save money . they all should be sterilized because they are only having babies to get support or some kind of government subsidises . it all about making money without working
What a silly, uninformed comment, Harry. Even with insurance, childbirth can be ridiculously expensive. I count myself lucky that my employer provides insurance that totally covers maternity expenses after a five hundred dollar co-pay, but I also realize that not everyone is as fortunate as I. As an added note, those women you cite who are supposedly having children in order to be supported by the government often have their childbirth expenses paid by Medicaid, so saving money by giving birth at home is rather pointless for them.
A quick Google search:
The average vaginal hospital birth is $7800
The average cesarean costs about $15000
--Since the Health Insurance Mafia often does not offer maternity coverage anymore, and their plans that do cover it, have outrageous premiums & deductibles, it's no wonder people are seeking other options in this corrupt, greed-based healthcare system...
I'd like to comment about having a VBAC at home. My first child was born in the hospital by cesarean because "my pelvis was too small". That was 27 years ago. My next children (all bigger) were all born at home 25,22, and 20 years ago with a certified midwife. I reserached in the medical library (no internet back then) and there was no greater risk for me at home. Scar tissue is strong (maybe even stronger) and there is no greater chance that it will not tear or rupture. I'm very glad to see home birth is on the rise, but wanted to make this point also!
That is not a medically supported fact. Scar tissue, while tough, has very little elastic capability - so it's actually more likely to rupture and it doesn't heal as well. I have an exceedingly scarred uterus from my first delivery (there were a lot of complications, including sepsis and my uterus lost almost all of it's blood flow due to the infection). In fact, my uterus is so scarred, the fact that I carried another pregnancy to viability, let alone close to term was amazing. My second son was born by c-section (not scheduled - it was done when I went into labor earlier than expected and it was done because I have a much higher risk of uterine rupture due to the complications w/ my first delivery that was an emergency c-section), and I hemorrhaged my entire blood volume - because my uterus tore in several places during the c-section.
That said - most women who have had one c-section without serious complications (as I did) CAN safely deliver vaginally in subsequent pregnancies.
Don't get me wrong - if a woman feels comfortable giving birth at home, then she should do give birth at home. There is absolutely nothing wrong with opting for this route of delivery if one feels safe and comfortable with it.