Home Birth, Birthing Center, or Hospital ?

[dconrad000captain of 1,000]

...some thoughts about mortality rates...

As is the case with respect to child mortality rates and vaccination, traditional medicine likes to take credit for mortality rate improvements for child birth. I believe in reality overall however, that the improvement in rates has more to do with living conditions, better nutrition, and other factors -- not whether the babies are born in hospitals, under their care or not.

As I stated earlier, both settings have different kinds of risks. Neither setting is risk-free. For a normal, healthy mother -- however -- I believe the hospital to be far riskier -- and the interventionist approach taken there, quite often is the cause for the complications; including oxygen deprivation; permanent brain damage; and even death.

However, as I also stated before -- I feel that parents should exercise their moral agency to study the issues, employ the Spirit -- and choose whichever options seems right for them under their various circumstances.

Here are some revealing statistics comparing home birth in a modern setting with hospital birth in a modern setting, which some of you might appreciate.

Statistics About The Safety Of Home Birth

•“Every study that has compared midwives and obstetricians has found better outcomes for midwives for same-risk patients. In some studies, midwives actually served higher risk populations than the physicians and still obtained lower mortalities and morbidities. The superiority and safety of midwifery for most women no longer needs to be proven. It has been well established.” (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.30)

•“In the U.S. the national infant mortality rate was 8.9 s per 1,000 live births [in 1991]. The worst state was Delaware at 11.8, with the District of Columbia even worse at 21.0. The best state was Vermont, with only 5.8. Vermont also has one of the highest rates of home birth in the country as well as a larger portion of midwife-attended births than most states. ” (Stewart, David, International Infant Mortality Rates–U.S. in 22nd Place, NAPSAC News, Fall- Winter, 1993, p.36)

•“The international standing of the U.S. [in terms of infant mortality rates] did not really begin to fall until the mid-1950s. This correlates perfectly with the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) in 1951. ACOG is a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians who has sought to secure a monopoly in pregnancy and childbirth services. Prior to ACOG, the U.S. always ranked in 10th place or better. Since the mid-1950s the U.S. has consistently ranked below 12th place and hasn’t been above 16th place since 1975. The relative standing of the U.S. continues to decline even to the present.” (Stewart, David, International Infant Mortality Rates–U.S. in 22nd Place, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.38)

•The Texas Department of Health’s own statistics show that midwives in Texas have a lower infant mortality rate than physicians. (Texas Lay midwifery Program, Six Year Report, 1983- 1989, Berstein & Bryant, Appendix Vlllf, Texas Department of Health, I 100 West 49th St., Austin, TX 78756-3199.)

•In the state of Oregon from 1975-1979, there were approximately 3-4 neonatal s per 1000 births in home births attended by midwives, as opposed to approximately 9-10 s per 1000 births for all residents. The same figure indicates approximately 5 infant s per 1000 births in home births attended by midwives, as opposed to approximately 12 s per 1000 births for all residents. (Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, 1982, p. 175)

•“In The five European countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, midwives preside at more than 70 percent of all births. More than half of all Dutch babies are born at home with midwives in attendance, and Holland’s maternal and infant mortality rates are far lower than in the United States…” (“Midwives Still Hassled by Medical Establishment,” Caroline Hall Otis, Utne Reader, Nov./Dec. 1990, pp. 32-34)

•“Of the 3,189 midwife-assisted deliveries studied, episiotomies were done on 5 percent of the women, the Caesarean section rate varied from 2.2 percent to 8.1 percent, and perinatal mortality (the number of babies who die during or shortly after birth) averaged 5.2 per 1,000. Compare these numbers to those for New Mexico obstetricians and physicians during the same period: nearly routine use of episiotomies in many hospitals, a Caesarean rate that varied from 15 percent to 25 percent,and a perinatal mortality rate of 11.3 per 1,000. Looking at these numbers, Rebecca Watson, the maternal-health program manager at the New Mexico Department of Health commented, ‘I sometimes wonder why [we bother compiling statistics on midwives], since their statistics are so much better than everyone else’s. ” (Sharon Bloyd- Peshkin, Midwifery: Off to a Good Start, p. 69, Vegetarian Times, December 1992)

•Records kept from 1969-73 in England and Wales indicate still birth rates of 4.5 per 1000 births for home deliveries as opposed to 14.8 per 1000 births for hospital deliveries. (The place of Birth, Sheila Kitzinger & John Davis, eds., 1978 Oxford University Press, pp. 62-63)

•‘Mothering Magazine has calculated that using midwifery care for 75% of the births in the U.S. would save an estimated $8.5 billion per year.” (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p. 15 November 23, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal.)

•“Our research has shown that, for women with low risk pregnancies in the Netherlands, choosing to give birth at home is a safe choice with an outcome that is at least as good as that of planned hospital birth.” (Ibid. p.13)

•“During delivery, the home birth group needed significantly less medication and fewer interventions whereas no differences were found in durations of labour, occurrence of severe perineal lesions, and maternal loss.” (“Home Versus Hospital Deliveries: Follow Up Study of Matched Pairs for Procedures and Outcome”, p. 1)

•“The mean Apgar score, five and 10 minute, babies in the planned home delivery group had higher scores.[over planned hospital delivery]” (Ibid. p.

•“There was no evidence that the more liberal use of episiotomy in hospitals prevented severe perineal lesions.” (Ibid. p. 9)

•“The lower rate of interventions in home births meant a lower risk of subsequent complications for the mother.” (Ibid.)

http://www.cmomb.com/statistics-about-t ... ome-birth/

Here are some excellent books that were very helpful to my wife and me on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Immaculate-Decept ... 0890876339

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3222 ... lternative

http://www.amazon.com/Childbirth-withou ... 0953096467

http://www.amazon.com/Pollys-Birth-Book ... 1576360199

(Some, if not all of those books should be available through inter-library-loan -- at your local library.)

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

Someone else may have been in our situation and declared: "wow, it was a good thing we were in a hospital"; and never even took a second to consider what seemed obvious to me: Due to the type of care provided by the hospital, my wife received the largest wound she's ever likely to receive in her life. My baby also had a few days of complications due to blood inhaled/swallowed during the c-section.

I do not discount the fact that for some of you it was a good thing we were in the hospital.

Statistics, like the one's dconrad showed, (which we studied prior to deciding to not go to the hospital) prove they are on autopilot and the place they are driving towards is not the best possible one. One more far less significant anecdote about how hospitals are on autopilot: While we were there, we told them "I [the father] am RH negative. We don't need the immune suppressant." I dare say we said it two or more times. But, here they come with it! We ask, what is that? They said, your immune suppressant. We said, see, we knew you weren't listening to us. She doesn't need the &%$# thing. Just one more case where she would have received unnecessary drugs and their side effects, (if we had not tried to be vigilant) due to the machine that is the hospital.

[sixgunsuecaptain of 100]

I rarely comment, but usually enjoy reading everyone's posts and discussions. That said, I'm going to chime in here
mainly because I have had 4 babies, have not had one in 14 years but am going to be going through all this again in Sept.
I'm 43 now and this was not planned, but we are happy. I'm stunned though. As was were my husband, 21 yr old, 19, 17 and 14 yr old and also my 13 &10 yr old adopted daughters. I have always delivered at hospitals because I was always high risk and had early babies, usually a month.
It's just how I do things, I have had good and bad experiences with Dr.s nurses and hospitals. I feel it's a blessing to live in an age and country where we do have options. Not that I did, but as I matured I found my voice and started to make it clear up front what I wanted and did not want. Still it's not Burger King, things go wrong and you can always have it your way.
But,
you sure as heck can try! I would love to have a birthing center birth, close to hospital but more relaxed and less rules, however,
it won't happen because I'm 43 and have a history of complications. It would be unwise to try anything but a hospital this time. But I am mature and experienced at dealing with people and have no problem fighting for what I want how I want it. I too need nutrients while I labor and this time, by gum I will have it. I want a midwife or at least a doula. I will have one!
When I say episiotomy, they'd better dang well do it! I know some are against that but after what I've been through at the hands of a Dr, who insisted I did not need one, it took months to heal from the damage, I feel it's my right to say what and when I need something or don't! My husband made dang sure the next time, the Dr. listened and did it when I asked. The very best we can do is appreciate all the wonderful options we currently have, educate ourselves on all of them, weigh the risks and benefits to each and decide through discussion with spouse and
the Dr.s, midwives, etc. that we have available to us, and prayer. I don't want this baby inoculated at ALL, so I need to be sure that's part of the plan and that all involved know it. My husband will do his best to escort baby everywhere to see to that.
Really it's the woman who needs to decide how she wants it. It's her body that goes through all the change and duress, stress and pain.
Not that her husband should not be considered, but really in the end it's our decision. I do not take it lightly as both our lives (baby and mine)are on the line. I say thank the Good Lord for our choices and midwives and technology and all of it. I don't think there is a right way. The right way is the ideal way for each of us to choose, but our choices can't always be "delivered"
Hehe. Pun intended.
Hope this is a comfort to someone out there feeling angst or guilt about a choice they made or weren't able to.
Ultimately, please lets refrain from judging eachother, people are more apt to change opinions because of persuasion than guilt and accusation. I wish you all the best in your birthing and rearing, it's a really tough job full of tough choices all along the path, no matter what.
Take care all, Sue

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

Even in a backwards little hospital in a town of 1200 on the border of Minnesota and South Dakota with a doctor who delivered roughly 2 babies a year and a nurse searching the hospital to find a pain killer (worst one out of the six in nine years at 5 different hospitals with 4 different doctors).....beat a sister in law's last minute scramble from a birthing center to the hospital with baby stuck in canal with umbilical cord around its neck and multiple other complications.

[dconrad000captain of 1,000]

...just a word about cords around the neck...yes it happens from time to time, but a good lay midwife giving birth at home handles them routinely and competently, as was our experience with our 3rd and 4th births at home (2/5). I prefer the philosophy and training that lay-midwives receive, over nurse-practitioner-midwives that work in birthing centers. I also think it very important that if a mother is going to choose the home birth option -- it is vital that she take it upon herself to be conscientous at keeping herself very healthy and strong, through proper diet and exercise.

[sixgunsuecaptain of 100]

...just a word about cords around the neck...yes it happens from time to time, but a good lay midwife giving birth at home handles them routinely and competently, as was our experience with our 3rd and 4th births at home (2/5). I prefer the philosophy and training that lay-midwives receive, over nurse-practitioner-midwives that work in birthing centers. I also think it very important that if a mother is going to choose the home birth option -- it is vital that she take it upon herself to be conscientous at keeping herself very healthy and strong, through proper diet and exercise.

True,
Good advise and vital to anyone. But, even if she was in perfect health things can go wrong. And for the record, my sister just told me about a good friend of hers who just lost her sister and the baby in a botched hospital birth.
Dr.s were trying to be conservative because of all the backlash they've received for over stepping, they did not intervene fast enough and two people died. A man lost his wife and first baby that day. Does this make me nervous to have my baby in a hospital? No. No matter where you go or how you do it, things can happen, and you MUST have a plan. Dr's are damned if they do and damned if they don't and are leaving the profession in droves. Anything can happen either way no matter how healthy you and the baby are 2 minutes earlier. Life is fragile a miracle.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

...just a word about cords around the neck...yes it happens from time to time, but a good lay midwife giving birth at home handles them routinely and competently, as was our experience with our 3rd and 4th births at home (2/5). I prefer the philosophy and training that lay-midwives receive, over nurse-practitioner-midwives that work in birthing centers. I also think it very important that if a mother is going to choose the home birth option -- it is vital that she take it upon herself to be conscientous at keeping herself very healthy and strong, through proper diet and exercise.

I'll take the 50 years of education (however flawed that may be) over ?????

[jdtechcaptain of 100]

Hospitals certainly have the emergency care advantage. For me though it appears that for most normal births a "natural" child birth has many advantages over the way things are usually done in hospitals. By "natural" I mean spontaneous (not induced), no drugs (even epidurals), and none of the immediate stuff on the eyes or injections that hospitals tend to do to newborn infants.

We (and by we I mean my wife) have actually had quite the varied birth experiences. Our first was c-section because my daughter was breech. The doctor didn't know this until tool late in the pregnancy to do anything about it (although he definitely should have known earlier). For our second we wanted a vbac, but we couldn't find a doctor who would do that here in Florida, so we went to a birthing center. We had the regular check-ups that are required, and at about 30-32 weeks the midwife told us that our second was also breech. We were given some natural remedies that allowed my wife to increase the amniotic fluid, and he turned on his own a couple of weeks later. There were also some circumstances with his birth that at a hospital would definitely have lead to another c-section, but the experienced midwife knew how to handle them and he was born without any immediate danger to him or my wife. Our third was also breech and didn't turn on her own so in this case the experienced midwife was able to turn the baby before she got too big. Again the birthing center was definitely the way to go, providing us a comfortable environment with experienced mid-wives and a hospital only a short distance away in the case of emergencies.

Our last was a new experience because the laws changed here in Florida where the birthing center was now no longer allowed to do vbacs. My wife was able to find a doctor that did vbacs, and when we went to the hospital we had put together a list of items that we wanted...and although it was a bit different than their normal routine, they were able to accommodate. This last one was a bit late in coming, so our doctor recommended that my wife be induced. Although not exactly what we were planning, it was the proper thing to do in our case. Because we weren't inducing too early (we were actually past the due date), we saw none of the complications that can occur with induced labors, my wife bravely refused the epidural, and overall the birth was relatively "easy" (although I can't really say what "easy" means having never experienced it personally...). One of the nurses also commented after the delivery how nice it was that my wife could get up and move around...most of the women she deals with have the epidural and so cannot feel / move around until sometime after the delivery.

My feelings: Hospitals / doctors certainly are good at emergency situations and can save many lives that way. I don't think anyone should shy away from them in such cases. Nor do I think women should shy away from getting the proper pre-natal care that can anticipate difficulties and prevent life-threatening situations. But for most healthy women and babies, a natural childbirth would probably be a much better option...whether that is at home, at a birthing center or at a hospital.

[dconrad000captain of 1,000]

...just a word about cords around the neck...yes it happens from time to time, but a good lay midwife giving birth at home handles them routinely and competently, as was our experience with our 3rd and 4th births at home (2/5). I prefer the philosophy and training that lay-midwives receive, over nurse-practitioner-midwives that work in birthing centers. I also think it very important that if a mother is going to choose the home birth option -- it is vital that she take it upon herself to be conscientous at keeping herself very healthy and strong, through proper diet and exercise.

I'll take the 50 years of education (however flawed that may be) over ?????

Mummy, I love ya...and I'm perfectly fine with you having your babies in those barbaric hospitals.

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

Lest anybody feel attacked by opinions about the best birthing/vaccinating/health care choices, I just need to say: You mother's are really incredible no matter what. As a youth I had a warped view about how much good and strength existed in the world. I think my estimates were low. Now that I've had a couple kids, I am tempted to admire anyone who actually brings children into the world and parents them. Especially my dear wife!

It's a big task!

[2wet2burncaptain of 100]

This thread really exemplifies the theoretical difference between traditional midwifery and the medical model. Midwives believe that women's bodies where created and designed to grow and deliver children. Until a woman's body proves other wise, she is capable. The medical model views childbirth as a potential crisis. You must prove each pregnancy that your body is capable of giving birth without intervention.

Things happen. Life is full of experiences that are joyful and painful. Only God knows when its our time or an infants time to move on to the post-mortal world. The best choices are made after prayer with faith and trust in God's will.

I will continue to study and learn about midwifery because when tshtf midwifery skills will be essential.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

I find this to be a very informative movie. It's called The Business of Being Born

warning: some nudity/language



PART 1




PART 2



PART 3


PART 4



PART 5


PART 6

[Rinconcaptain of 100]

Removed

[Glenncaptain of 100]

Don't give birth to children at hospitals[/b], don't vaccinate, don't take infants to 3,6,9 month doctor visits, etc, it's unnecessary. Do all that you can to educate yourself on how YOU can be your child's primary health provider (i.e. eat healthy, learn about herbs, essential oils, natural remedies), learn how to be as independent as possible so that you don't find yourself in a situation where you want/need to see a doctor. (and homeschool).

I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to think or act just providing my recommendation based on my own experiences.

I couldn't agree more. We delivered our third child at home after having very negative experiences in the hospitals; it turned out to be one of the most amazing/rewarding experiences we have ever had. Of course we did our homework by confirming the pregnancy was low risk and we also hired a certified mid-wife team to help deliver the baby.

My wife and I did not wake up one morning wanting to homeshool and have a home birth etc, but the experiences of life have pushed us in that direction over time. These decisions are more the product of a journey rather than a single event. The journey of life may lead others along a different path, but for us we have been both pushed(negative experiences) and guided(divine experiences) to our current worldview.

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

I think it is easy to take things to the extremes one way or another.

I like it when midwifes deliver babies in the hospital. "The whole hath no need of a physician but them that are sick." But when seconds count, it really great to be in a hospital where you have some backup by a doctor.

Yes, pitocin delays when your milk comes in, Yes some vaccines are suspect, yes, doctors do too many C-sections, yes, giving a baby a bottle can cause nipple confusion.

I just think taking an "Amish" view of things (no public schools, no public hospitals, no vaccines, no meds, no this, no that ) is taking things to the extreme.

I do not deny that doing things your "own way" or "on your own" may be rewarding, but there are many things, good and bad, that provide a sensation of reward.

Of course in a few years we might all be having home births, the way our country is going.

[chicafoomcaptain of 100]

I couldn't resist posting on this thread because it's something I have strong opinions about. That being said, it's obviously from reading these posts, or just talking to basically anyone who has been involved in a birth or works in the medical field, I think there are many strong opinions on these matters.

I agree with those who have said where or how you plan (plan being the operative word since things don't always go as planned with birth) to have your baby should be a matter of research, pondering and prayer. There will always be anecdotal evidence for and against all points of view. I have had one medicated hospital birth with an OB, one unmedicated hospital birth with a midwife and will be delivering (if things go as planned) at a birthing center with a midwife this August. Our birthing center happens to be about 2 blocks from the hospital so the risk is pretty minimal if things escalate to an emergency situation. It is wonderful we have options, so we should explore them all and then take it to the Lord to know where we should be when the time comes to bring a child into the world.

My personal experience is that the unmedicated birth was far, far better, even if it was extremely, nay excruciatingly, painful for a short time. My recovery was so much better and made the finite amount of time I was in pain completely worth it. I didn't have to worry about any side effects from drugs for me or my baby. I was happy with the decision to go that route and am very excited to have a birthing center experience this time.

My biggest beef with our birthing culture is the lack of information given to mothers-to-be by medical professionals on the risks of routine procedures. My step-dad's child (who was born to his first wife) was born via c-section because the mother had had a previous c-section so she wasn't given a choice for a vbac. They set the date for the c-section based on the due date and when that date came, as soon as the doctor pulled the baby out he said, "Ah oh!" because the poor baby had been extracted early. This baby had a tough struggle for about 6 months because he hadn't been "fully cooked" and he eventually succumbed to death. I wish OB's, even CNM's, would discuss the risks of induction and scheduled c-sections. There are real risks. Due dates are arbitrary dates based on estimates of time of conception and average menstrual cycle and gestational times. I wish more people were informed about waiting until your body goes into labor, unless there is a real medical reason for induction or c-section. Convenience should not be a major factor, even though we all know is it these days. Most births will start on their own when both the baby and the mother are ready and that will be the ideal time for them to be born, even if it is more inconvenient to not know.

I also wish more mothers were aware about the risks of epidural. I know of at least 2 people whose epidurals was inserted incorrectly, causing something like a hole in the spine (others might know better details about this condition) which cause fluid to pool necessitating a spinal tap the new mother to lie on her back for a week (and good luck with that when you are trying to nurse a newborn), as well as making it so they can never receive an epidural again. No one ever discussed these risks to me while I attended my constant appointments to the OB. I am sure there is something about it in the consent forms you sign when you get drugged up, but that is no time for a mother to be able weigh the risks of the epidural. I would have also liked a frank discussion prior to receiving the epidural about how I might feel itchy, have the chills, nauseous and not be able to walk for hours, or how about not being able to go to the bathroom and having to be cathed. I know the information is out there if someone seeks it, but I believe the responsible thing for an OB or CNM who is talking to a patient about their birthing options to include those kinds of details. Women should be empowered through the information, and if induction, medication, elective c-section, etc. still is appealing or feels right to them after being informed everyone is benefited. Of course, medical practitioners can't foresee all complications, but a good discussion about all options and the pros and cons of each option (not just the standard, oh the hospital is the safest place and induction and the epidural has so few complications you don't need to worry about it) would at least prepare the expectant mother a little better.

Anyway, I could rant about this all day. Ultimately, as with anything, it's important to be informed and, most importantly, to feel that you are doing the Lord's will for your child and your body. Every person and situation is going to be different and every option has its risks / rewards.

[2wet2burncaptain of 100]

What you are describing is the principle of "informed consent". In my experience most midwives and doulas try to work on this principle BUT it's difficult to be neutral. Attitudes and beliefs cloud statements and can lead clients to make decisions that are comfortable for the caregiver. Hospitals are horrible at informed consent. The information on proceedures and their risks and/or benefits is always tainted by personal beliefs, experiences and hospital policies. On occasion it has made me sick to my stomach. The best time to learn about the risks and benefits of any aspect of birth is during pregnancy, not as concerns or variations of normal are observed during childbirth. Women don't think as clearly during childbirth and partners don't do much better.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

I do not discount the fact that for some of you it was a good thing we were in the hospital.

Thank you.
The odds are that if you have a baby at home or in a birthing center you'll be just fine. But there are instances where being in a hospital or not could be a matter of life and death, such as my case. And yes, we had a midwife who obviously couldn't be of assistance. Fortunately we opted to have the baby in the hospital just in case!
It seems we have a group camped out that are anti-hospital. That's fine! Typically I am too. But they need to admit that there are cases where equipment and doctors found in a hospital can save a life whereas if you have a birth at home or in a center, a life, or lives, can be lost. We can sit back and say that events during a birth will never require immediate attention such as an emergency C-section, but that just shows that our heads are deep in the sand. We can say that the odds are emergency C-sections (or many other life saving circumstances) won't be required, and if you want to play those odds that's your choice and you'll probably be fine, but the fact of the matter is that there are situations that can be dealt with at a hospital where they can't be elsewhere. As one who has experienced the odds, I'll encourage my wife (like I have any say!) to go to the hospital for labor and delivery. My daughter is a living testimony that being born in a hospital vs at home or in a birthing center can be life saving. Try as you might, you just can't argue with that fact! And yes, some of you are purple in the face, which is entertaining
Hopefully I won't be banned by posting my thoughts that are contrary to those with power and authority on this site

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

I do not discount the fact that for some of you it was a good thing we were in the hospital.

Thank you.
The odds are that if you have a baby at home or in a birthing center you'll be just fine. But there are instances where being in a hospital or not could be a matter of life and death, such as my case. And yes, we had a midwife who obviously couldn't be of assistance. Fortunately we opted to have the baby in the hospital just in case!
It seems we have a group camped out that are anti-hospital. That's fine! Typically I am too. But they need to admit that there are cases where equipment and doctors found in a hospital can save a life whereas if you have a birth at home or in a center, a life, or lives, can be lost. We can sit back and say that events during a birth will never require immediate attention such as an emergency C-section, but that just shows that our heads are deep in the sand. We can say that the odds are emergency C-sections (or many other life saving circumstances) won't be required, and if you want to play those odds that's your choice and you'll probably be fine, but the fact of the matter is that there are situations that can be dealt with at a hospital where they can't be elsewhere. As one who has experienced the odds, I'll encourage my wife (like I have any say!) to go to the hospital for labor and delivery. My daughter is a living testimony that being born in a hospital vs at home or in a birthing center can be life saving. Try as you might, you just can't argue with that fact! And yes, some of you are purple in the face, which is entertaining
Hopefully I won't be banned by posting my thoughts that are contrary to those with power and authority on this site

Like most jobs.....its all about the tools. That said there are some idiots out there that jump at the opportunity to use a jackhammer to pound a nail....when they have the options.

[1984Orwellherenowcaptain of 100]

I'm chuckling just a little bit right now. Anyone interested in a thread titled "John Deere Combines, Sickles, or Picking By Hand"?

Them John Deeres cause us some bad asthma I tells ya. Reals bad asthmas. We's needs be gone back ta them hand pickins days. That air was reals good way back there.

[chicafoomcaptain of 100]

What you are describing is the principle of "informed consent". In my experience most midwives and doulas try to work on this principle BUT it's difficult to be neutral. Attitudes and beliefs cloud statements and can lead clients to make decisions that are comfortable for the caregiver. Hospitals are horrible at informed consent. The information on proceedures and their risks and/or benefits is always tainted by personal beliefs, experiences and hospital policies. On occasion it has made me sick to my stomach. The best time to learn about the risks and benefits of any aspect of birth is during pregnancy, not as concerns or variations of normal are observed during childbirth. Women don't think as clearly during childbirth and partners don't do much better.

Yes, I agree. I don't think I made it clear in my post, but the discussions about risk factors for things like induction, epidurals, c-sections, vbacs, home births, etc, should be done long before the baby is due to give the parents time to really consider the best option for them. But, you are right, depending on the practitioners you see, you will get a biased point of view. That's the nature of basically anything. That's why it's such a blessing to have the spirit. I am so happy for the people who have had both successful hospital and home births. I believe we can all make better judgment calls if we seek information and then, of course, the spirit. No way is the right way for everyone in this and many instances.

[Rosabellacaptain of 1,000]

A discussion on vaccines turned into a discussion on birthing... so I split it and made this new one:

* * *

Don't give birth to children at hospitals, don't vaccinate, don't take infants to 3,6,9 month doctor visits, etc, it's unnecessary. Do all that you can to educate yourself on how YOU can be your child's primary health provider (i.e. eat healthy, learn about herbs, essential oils, natural remedies), learn how to be as independent as possible so that you don't find yourself in a situation where you want/need to see a doctor. (and homeschool).

I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to think or act just providing my recommendation based on my own experiences.

Agree 100% with you. I've also had my life lessons and once your in the know on these subjects theres no going back. Hospitals will allways have their place in society but giving birth isnt a sickness or a disease. The birthing process was created by god himself and is the greatest miracle. I see all these vain moms on facebook scheduling their C-sections and it just makes me shake my head.

WHAT??? Hmm C Sections are for Vain mom's? I do not agree with this kind of statement. I also find that an extremely judgmental blanket statement. In my experience the women in my family and freinds were not doing C-sections for vanity. C Sections are because of complications or prior C sections. My (best friend/closest family) member to me would be alive today if she had followed her doctors advice and had a C section instead of natural child birth. She is deeply missed and it was completely unnecessary tragedy to have happen. She died and almost lost her twins in the process. My daughter just this month had an emergency C section and would have hemorrhaged and lost the baby and her life were it not for going to the hospital. The baby was premature also and needed special care. So I fully completely disagree with this attitude of a blanket what is right and what is wrong for everyone. There is nothing sinful about going to a doctor, but I do think their is sin in being flippant with life and not wisely choosing based on the situation and doctors recommendations and the Spirit. Let it be a choice of the individual and their family and not some kind of badge of honor or badge of dishonor how one decides to birth their children.

If I had not been born in a hospital I would not be alive. I had the cord wrapped around my neck twice and was blue. I am glad my mother went to a hospital.

Out of my families about over 50 births I have been well informed of all the details the only tragedies we have faced were from those that did not follow the doctors instructions. So the percentage of safety in my family has been 100% for best possible help from going to the hospital. We have had zero negative things arise from hospital births, but if they had not been in the hospital the loss of life would have been high for we have had many extreme complications for both the mothers and babies. There are some women that are not as prone to complications so it makes it look easy but it is NOT easy for everyone.

I do not see why we must go back to the days when many woman and babies died in labor when it is not necessary today. If the percentage was worse to go to the hospital I could see the point but it is not. We can and should use advances in medicine and not be so overly focused on what is "natural" the natural man is natural too that does not me it is good. I find this obsession with "natural" everything to be just that an obsession and not necessarily a healthy one. The new age is all about everything being natural, everything natural is not necessary the best or the most appropriate way to do everything.

Sorry this is a sore subject for me because of the losses I have experience and the almost loss recently. If my daughter followed this idea of NOT going to a hospital she would not be alive just like the my closest family member is NOT today. So I cannot just stay silent about this topic. Thank goodness my daughter did not listen to the anti hospital voices! I only wish my other family member had also!

[BrianM]

I certainly appreciate the perspective and opinions of others on birthing. While I prefer a home birth, I also realize it's not for everyone, and I don't outright reject hospitals and doctors, I simply try my best for myself and my family to avoid ever having to visit one... that's not to say we won't if the Lord wants us to, or if the situation dictates it. In all my comments on this discussion I haven't intended to imply that no one should ever have a baby in a hospital. Have it where you want it.

As I mentioned before, a bunch of my friends and family have had home births, with no problems, and no regrets. I think it's best for all of us on all sides of this issue not make blanket judgmental statements one way or the other. I'm just glad that, as corrupt as the system is that we live under, we still have the freedom to exercise our agency and choice to have our babies born in at home, a birthing center or a hospital.

[Neil Ruckercaptain of 100]

Rosabella
WHAT??? Hmm C Sections are for Vain mom's? I do not agree with this kind of statement. I also find that an extremely judgmental blanket statement. In my experience the women in my family and freinds were not doing C-sections for vanity.

Most Scheduled C-Sections done today are because of selfish reasons. Some because the doctor wants it that way because its easier for them to be home by 5 and some because more and more women are being brainwashed into perfering them. Most reasons are for the mom and not their baby. Here is a conversation on facebook in the last couple of weeks, mind you they're LDS woman and men.

Original post

Scheduled C-section or VBAC? Opinions & experiences, por favor!

Some comments
1.I have had both c section and natural.....call me crazy, but I prefer c sections.......
2.I was so scared that I would end up with an emergency c-section again with my second. Either way you will be fine. I did have a friend tell me to keep the damage in one place when I was trying to make that decision. Good luck!
3. I had the best experience with my scheduled c-section. It was nice to be able to pick the day I went in. Plus, I healed faster with my second c-section.
4.Well I've had both. I personally recommend C-section. It's a lot better when it's scheduled rather than emergency c-section. Either way, I can't wait to see your new lil child.
5.Courtney has had both our kids c-section. Shes walking around a few hours later like nothing has happened. I say c-section. Plus they're cool to watch.
6.after such a scary emergency csection with chloe, i opted a scheduled csection the second time around with liv. it was such a peaceful, controlled experience & i know i made the right decision for me. but everyone's different.
7.Only reason i opted to stick with scheduled c-section is I wanted to have sitter arranged for the kids and like the idea of knowing the day they were coming!

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

That's gotta be one of the dumbest posts I've read in a while, Neal. There are benefits or perks to having a C-section. All 4 of my kids have been C-section and they aren't stupid or deformed because they didn't come out of a Vagina. Our first was an emergency C-section that we had while in the hospital. A different venue would have resulted in death to the baby (not an anecdotal story BTW, just a fact). Our second was going to be a V-back (or whatever you call it) but at our last Dr.'s appointment the stress test wasn't good, so right into the hospital we went for another C-section. The last 2 were C-sections simply because the risk for a uterus rupturing was higher. I was not going to play the odds, I didn't have my Lucky Charms for breakfast. Yes, we were able to schedule the C-sections (the last 2, not the first 2). Yes this allowed for us to get a baby-sitter. So what?
The example you showed above was from a person who had previously had an emergency C-section. This was the basis for her choosing to have another C-section, and I'm sure her Dr. advised it.
You act like having a C-section is a sin which is an unrighteous judgement on your part. The real problem IMO is there aren't enough babies being born into LDS families. Who cares by what means (C-section or vaginal) or what location (home, hospital, back of a van) they enter this world so long as they enter it, preferably alive and well!

[bbrowncaptain of 100]

So, I haven't read through every post, but there is quite a bit of name-calling going on! It appears a few points have been missed (or at least I didn't read them when skimming through).

I've had 5 children in hospitals with CNMs and doctors, as well as the care of a perinatologist. That said, I'd give anything for a homebirth and may get my way some day. My situation would in reality allow it (no higher risk during childbirth than any other woman) but the law stands in the way. My only options, thanks to the government taking any responsible middle ground away, are to birth in a hospital with interventions galore or to birth unassisted. I haven't seen much discussion about the legal side of this equation. The midwives COULD and WOULD do much more (some do anyway) if the government would get out of their way and let them do their jobs and use/learn those skills. I was up to my elbow in goat uterus the other week and didn't need a Veterinary degree to save a mother and two of her three kids. Should I be put in jail for that? I didn't have government-endorsed training. We may not be goats (maah), but I think there'd be a great many more people with higher skill levels when it came to (human) birthing if we allowed them to learn it. The reality is that our government has squashed midwifery to the point that they cannot do what they should be allowed to do.

Many of the anti-midwifery stories I've heard are actually examples of the system working exactly as it is meant to work: The midwives handle the low-risk and "normal" births, and when something beyond their training level arises, the patient goes to a practitioner with a higher skill set and more training for that specified condition. You wouldn't go to a surgeon for a splinter. We are one of the only societies where doctors are the go-to for birthing. Most other developed nations see midwives for appointments and deliveries and only see a doctor IF there is a need for one. The doctors do not handle routine deliveries since that is not what they are trained for, they are trained for the emergencies and problematic births and they can be absolutely essential in those situations.

It is wrong to try to compare current hospital mortality rates with midwifery rates from the 1800's or earlier. That's comparing apples to oranges. It would be just as incorrect for someone to compare hospital mortality rates from the 1800's to current midwifery rates. Midwives would come out glowing! Even the "highly trained" hospitals back then (not saying they were that highly trained, mind you) had horrid mortality rates in every area. If you're going to make a historical comparison, compare past midwifery rates to current midwifery rates or past hospital rates to current hospital rates. Yet somehow many seemed to survive just fine outside of hospital care, with 10 and 12 kids whereas most these days max out at two or three (not speaking of forum members, but the nation as a whole). That is not to say that modern medicine cannot be a big blessing to those who need it, but it is needed much less than it is used.

I think, as with most things these days, the government needs to get out of the way and let the people choose for themselves with a full range of options. If you want a hospital birth, by all means, have a hospital birth. If you want a home birth, by all means, have one. You choose the risks and benefits that most suit your situation. Seek for your own inspiration --you can't convince me the government was inspired in their choices made "for" me.

[Rosabellacaptain of 1,000]

Rosabella
WHAT??? Hmm C Sections are for Vain mom's? I do not agree with this kind of statement. I also find that an extremely judgmental blanket statement. In my experience the women in my family and freinds were not doing C-sections for vanity.

Most Scheduled C-Sections done today are because of selfish reasons. Some because the doctor wants it that way because its easier for them to be home by 5 and some because more and more women are being brainwashed into perfering them. Most reasons are for the mom and not their baby. Here is a conversation on facebook in the last couple of weeks, mind you they're LDS woman and men.

Original post

Scheduled C-section or VBAC? Opinions & experiences, por favor!

Some comments
1.I have had both c section and natural.....call me crazy, but I prefer c sections.......
2.I was so scared that I would end up with an emergency c-section again with my second. Either way you will be fine. I did have a friend tell me to keep the damage in one place when I was trying to make that decision. Good luck!
3. I had the best experience with my scheduled c-section. It was nice to be able to pick the day I went in. Plus, I healed faster with my second c-section.
4.Well I've had both. I personally recommend C-section. It's a lot better when it's scheduled rather than emergency c-section. Either way, I can't wait to see your new lil child.
5.Courtney has had both our kids c-section. Shes walking around a few hours later like nothing has happened. I say c-section. Plus they're cool to watch.
6.after such a scary emergency csection with chloe, i opted a scheduled csection the second time around with liv. it was such a peaceful, controlled experience & i know i made the right decision for me. but everyone's different.
7.Only reason i opted to stick with scheduled c-section is I wanted to have sitter arranged for the kids and like the idea of knowing the day they were coming!

This is not vanity as you wrongly judge it to be. Your examples show that even.

There are various reasons and ways to have a C Section.

1) An emergency C Section when the mother was expecting a normal birth but when it is safer or necessary for mother and/or child to do a C Section.

2) A Non-Scheduled C Section. A woman waits till she goes into labor and has an planned C Section that is not scheduled. In your example this is what the woman were choosing not to do. Many women know along with their doctors that when they give birth it will be a C Section and not natural child birth. They just wait till the normal labor pains begin, but this does not change the outcome of it being a C Section or not.

3) A schedule C Section where the doctor and patient decide the date. The reason for the C Section is typically prior C Sections because it can be dangerous to have natural child birth after having ever had a C Section or other medical risks that can endanger them. It is safer if the C Section does not have to be an emergency. Just the same with all medical surgeries. This way it avoids possible risks and complications the doctor is attempting to avoid by the C Section. This is a practical way for at risk patients. There is nothing wrong with scheduling a surgery. Yes there may be some perks to it like having a babysitter ready and such but I ask so what? The reason for a C Section is not to have a babysitter it is because of a medical need. If there are some side perks to it so be it. Those are not the motive. There is no need to call them vain for being happy about some of the positive aspects. Just to let you know many planned C Sections do not make it to their date so they become emergency C Sections which are not as safe as the scheduled C Section.

As you can see with the following C Sections are not some kind of neat fun way of having babies and are chosen based on weighing the risks to the mother and baby.

A c-section is major abdominal surgery, so it is riskier than a vaginal delivery. Moms who have c-sections are more likely to have an infection, excessive bleeding, blood clots, more postpartum pain, a longer hospital stay, and a significantly longer recovery. Injuries to the bladder or bowel, although very rare, are also more common.

In addition, if you plan to have more children, each c-section you have increases your future risk of these complications as well as placenta previa and placenta accreta. That said, not all c-sections can — or should — be prevented. In some situations, a c-section is necessary for the well-being of the mother, the baby, or both.

Why would I have a planned c-section?

Sometimes it's clear that a woman will need a cesarean even before she goes into labor. Conditions that may require a planned c-section include:

You've had a previous cesarean with a "classical" vertical uterine incision or more than one previous c-section. (If you've had only one previous c-section with a horizontal incision, you may be a good candidate for a vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC.If you're not trying for a VBAC, your practitioner will schedule your c-section for no earlier than 39 weeks to minimize the risk that the baby's lungs are still immature.)

You've had some other kind of invasive uterine surgery, such as a myomectomy (the surgical removal of fibroids).

You're carrying more than one baby. (Some twins can be delivered vaginally, but all higher-order multiples require a c-section.)

Your baby is expected to be very large (a condition known as macrosomia). This is particularly true if you're diabetic or you had a previous baby of the same size or smaller who suffered serious trauma during a vaginal birth.

Your baby is in a breech (bottom first) or transverse (sideways) position. (In some cases, such as a twin pregnancy in which the first baby is head down but the second baby is breech, the breech baby may be delivered vaginally.)

You have placenta previa (when the placenta is so low in the uterus that it covers the cervix).

The baby has a known illness or abnormality that would make a vaginal birth risky.

You're HIV-positive, and blood tests done near the end of pregnancy show that you have a high viral load.

[Rosabellacaptain of 1,000]

That's gotta be one of the dumbest posts I've read in a while, Neal. There are benefits or perks to having a C-section. All 4 of my kids have been C-section and they aren't stupid or deformed because they didn't come out of a Vagina. Our first was an emergency C-section that we had while in the hospital. A different venue would have resulted in death to the baby (not an anecdotal story BTW, just a fact). Our second was going to be a V-back (or whatever you call it) but at our last Dr.'s appointment the stress test wasn't good, so right into the hospital we went for another C-section. The last 2 were C-sections simply because the risk for a uterus rupturing was higher. I was not going to play the odds, I didn't have my Lucky Charms for breakfast. Yes, we were able to schedule the C-sections (the last 2, not the first 2). Yes this allowed for us to get a baby-sitter. So what?
The example you showed above was from a person who had previously had an emergency C-section. This was the basis for her choosing to have another C-section, and I'm sure her Dr. advised it.
You act like having a C-section is a sin which is an unrighteous judgement on your part. The real problem IMO is there aren't enough babies being born into LDS families. Who cares by what means (C-section or vaginal) or what location (home, hospital, back of a van) they enter this world so long as they enter it, preferably alive and well!

AMEN!

I am happy that they were able to save your children and you!

[ChelCThe Law]

I agree with Shadow... who cares people, just have MORE babies

But I'm glad to know my babies are better than Shadow's babies.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

AMEN!

I am happy that they were able to save your children and you!

Thanks, and I should clarify that it was my wife that had the C-sections, not me