Free Birthing

[partgypsy]

I agree. There seems to be an assumption that homebirthers can figure out in advance whether their delivery will be uncomplicated or not. Though some things can be found out in advance, other complications can make things go south very quickly, like the cord going around the baby''s neck, that can both go undetected and cause permanent effects (if not death) to the baby. I don''t know what the risk is, but I''m not sure what the argument is to not minimize those risks. Other stuff. My SIL had a birth with a midwife at a hospital. The birth was natural, but afterwards she was bleeding so much from the birth canal she needed stitches and I believe fluids. There are just things that you can''t anticipate.

I am all for women having input in their birth experiences, to a reasonable limit, to the point it does not infringe on the rights and welfare of the child being born.

I disagree that being at a hospital will by default lead to unnecessary medical interventions. Because my water broke and hours had gone by without active labor, I was placed on pitocin. "Dry" birth with intense contractions: Game over, right? I requested a hep lock so that the IV could be disconnected easily so a) I could walk around, and b) take advantage of the jacuzzi tub. By being able to periodically get in and out of the tub allowed me to relax and have an otherwise natural (other than the pictocin) childbirth. Being at the hospital allowed me to relax MORE than if I was at home, because I was in control of what I could be in control of, but if something out of my control happened, help was close at hand.

 

[Blenheim]

DD - that''s an excellent description of birth, and actually made me think of another reason why I just can''t understand wanting to birth without any trained attendants. Women use different parts of their brain during birth than they normally do. I''ve read that birth attendants should avoid open-ended questions and should opt for giving about two options so that it''s easier for laboring mothers to make a decision. And the answers to "How do you deal with shoulder dystocia?" or "Is this amount of blood too much?" are much more difficult than "Would you prefer water or Gatorade right now?" and I have to admit that last question threw me for a loop when I was in labor.

Date: 3/9/2010 2:07:40 PM
Author: part gypsy
I agree. There seems to be an assumption that homebirthers can figure out in advance whether their delivery will be uncomplicated or not. Though some things can be found out in advance, other complications can make things go south very quickly, like the cord going around the baby''s neck, that can both go undetected and cause permanent effects (if not death) to the baby. I don''t know what the risk is, but I''m not sure what the argument is to not minimize those risks. Other stuff. My SIL had a birth with a midwife at a hospital. The birth was natural, but afterwards she was bleeding so much from the birth canal she needed stitches and I believe fluids. There are just things that you can''t anticipate.

I am all for women having input in their birth experiences, to a reasonable limit, to the point it does not infringe on the rights and welfare of the child being born.

I disagree that being at a hospital will by default lead to unnecessary medical interventions. Because my water broke and hours had gone by without active labor, I was placed on pitocin. ''Dry'' birth with intense contractions: Game over, right? I requested a hep lock so that the IV could be disconnected easily so a) I could walk around, and b) take advantage of the jacuzzi tub. By being able to periodically get in and out of the tub allowed me to relax and have an otherwise natural (other than the pictocin) childbirth. Being at the hospital allowed me to relax MORE than if I was at home, because I was in control of what I could be in control of, but if something out of my control happened, help was close at hand.

Please don''t lump freebirthers and homebirthers in together here. I gave birth at home and I certainly did not assume this. I knew that I was low-risk going into the birth, and had experienced and licensed midwifes present because complications can develop and they are trained to deal with a lot of stuff that comes up at birth and also to recognize when transfer to a hospital is appropriate.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/9/2010 7:29:57 AM
Author: rockpaperscissors67

Date: 3/9/2010 5:30:45 AM
Author: Pandora II

Sorry, but exactly what are the benefits of free-birthing compared with a professionally assisted home-birth other than pandering to some selfish woman''s ego?

I don''t think calling Social Services was wrong either. If a woman will take that kind of risk with her child''s life, maybe she will take others like not seeking medical care for the child - at which point the State can quite rightly step in. The State will also step in to ensure that you educate your child appropriately, either at home or in school - should this too be down to the mother? Or if she decides to homeschool and teach nothing but Astrology for example is that acceptable?

I think maybe you need to have a child of your own and have experienced labour to really understand what the stakes are and just how nuts this is...

Well, I''ve had 6 kids and I don''t necessarily think UC is nuts.

I don''t think you can make the leap from someone choosing to have UC to not being able or willing to take care of her kids because I think the majority of the people that UC don''t make that choice lightly. They do it because they feel that it''s the best choice for them and their child. To me, it''s no different than choosing to co-sleep or delay vaccinations. There are risks associated with both of those and people certainly get up in arms about both topics, but I don''t think I''ve ever seen anyone suggest that someone who co-sleeps may also be capable of neglecting to get medical care for her child or educate them appropriately.

I''m sure there are lots of people that think we were crazy to have homebirths because they are convinced that the risks outweigh the benefits, so it''s conceivable that they would make the same leap of logic about us. I can assure you that even though we do avoid the doctor''s office as much as possible because I hate having the kids pick up every germ that''s going around, in an emergency, I''m off like a flash to the hospital or urgent care center. And our kids are being educated by the good old public school system (which some days makes me think they would be better off being homeschooled, even if they only learned astrology!).

Some of the benefits to UC that I can think of:

1. An intervention free birth. A couple might feel that going to the hospital will make this difficult and there may be no midwives in the area, so it''s either one extreme or another. Midwives that attend homebirths are not available everywhere in the US and often, midwives that are attached to a hospital are no less intervention minded than the OBs.

2. Avoiding exposing a newborn to the various germs at the hospital. Hospitals are nasty places and I would not want to expose my baby to the germs there if I could avoid it.

I don''t think UC is a good idea for a first time mom because she doesn''t know how birth will go for her. Moms with experience and a history of complication-free births, though, are a different story IMHO.

I disagree strongly that it''s the same thing, but I''ll leave it at that.

 

[Kay]

I would never place myself or my child at risk by choosing to give birth without qualified assistance. I understand why a woman would choose to have a home birth with a trained midwife, although that option is not for me either.

My dad lost his mom (and unborn little brother) when he was 5 years old because she died during a home birth with her 6th child. It was 1931 in a rural community with no hospital nearby, so she had little choice in the matter. I had my DD in the hospital, and will do so with any future children.

 

[rockpaperscissors67]

The umbilical cord around a baby''s neck is not an emergency, although many people think it is. Please see this page, which contains information and links to studies. That page states that "Nuchal cords rarely cause fetal demise and are not intrinsic reasons for intervention." My 14 year old son had the cord wrapped around his neck once and it broke when the doctor tried to slip it over his head. My 5 week old had the cord wrapped around his neck three times, which is quite rare.

That page also goes on to say that a cord that''s constricted can''t be diagnosed prenatally and most infants with it are stillborn. Is being in the hospital going to save that baby? Nope.

I get the impression that some of you think that the people that choose UC do so without putting any thought or planning into it, which is far from the truth in my experience. You don''t just decide, "Hey, I''m going to have this baby at home with no preparation or planning!" Instead, you learn as much about birth and the possible complications as possible so that you ARE prepared if something goes wrong. The partners are also prepared so that they know what to do if the laboring woman can''t tell them.

Take post-partum hemorrage, for example. Preparation for that includes knowing how much blood is too much and what that amount looks like, which may involve doing a trial run of birth by spilling a colored liquid in the same amount either on chux pads or into a filled birth tub. To avoid hemorrage, you want to get the baby to your breast asap to encourage contractions to deliver the placenta, allow the placenta to detach naturally (no pulling on it!), and afterwards, do fundal massage. Shepherds purse and cayenne tincture are 2 things you can use to avoid or help stop a pph, as well as continued nipple stimulation, and if the woman has already delivered the placenta, eating a piece of it will help. It''s not like pitocin is the only game in town!

UC might be silly, irresponsible and selfish to many of you, but it seems that this is a visceral reaction to something outside the norm, rather than an opinon based on education about and experience with childbirth or interaction with UCers. If we''re basing opinions on the risk to the child, is there the same attitude about co-sleeping, delayed vaccinations, using formula, feeding fast food or allowing a child to play contact sports?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

Tacori, I read that too and decided to close out of this thread and come back when I could close my trap shut. I only caught 2 flies.

 

[sbde]

Date: 3/9/2010 3:43:58 PM
Author: Kay
I would never place myself or my child at risk by choosing to give birth without qualified assistance. I understand why a woman would choose to have a home birth with a trained midwife, although that option is not for me either.

My dad lost his mom (and unborn little brother) when he was 5 years old because she died during a home birth with her 6th child. It was 1931 in a rural community with no hospital nearby, so she had little choice in the matter. I had my DD in the hospital, and will do so with any future children.

+1

as someone who saw the documentary, i do want to reiterate how selfish and naive the women sounded. most of them gave their reasoning for choosing a FB because of their own dislike of hospitals and attitudes of the medical staff rather than their need for an uplifting, magical experience.

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

Erm, yeah... I caught that too. Hopefully that wasn''t meant in the way it was written.

But I''m going to say maybe the point rockpaperscissors was making is that there will always be choices that people don''t agree with. And that what is completely normal to one parent might be completely insane to another. What one parents perceives as insane, another perceives it as the only way they ever considered doing it. And whether or not we agree with those choices, we should try to respect them.

 

[partgypsy]

I mean "free birthers" not home birthers.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:38:32 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM

Author: Tacori E-ring

RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

Erm, yeah... I caught that too. Hopefully that wasn''t meant in the way it was written.


But I''m going to say maybe the point rockpaperscissors was making is that there will always be choices that people don''t agree with. And that what is completely normal to one parent might be completely insane to another. What one parents perceives as insane, another perceives it as the only way they ever considered doing it. And whether or not we agree with those choices, we should try to respect them.

I don''t know the percentages but it would be interesting to know how many complicated births there actually are. Risking your child''s and your own life is something I will NEVER respect.

 

[partgypsy]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:09:32 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

Tacori, I read that too and decided to close out of this thread and come back when I could close my trap shut. I only caught 2 flies.

Ditto

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:42:40 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring

Date: 3/9/2010 4:38:32 PM

Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM


Author: Tacori E-ring


RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

Erm, yeah... I caught that too. Hopefully that wasn''t meant in the way it was written.



But I''m going to say maybe the point rockpaperscissors was making is that there will always be choices that people don''t agree with. And that what is completely normal to one parent might be completely insane to another. What one parents perceives as insane, another perceives it as the only way they ever considered doing it. And whether or not we agree with those choices, we should try to respect them.

I don''t know the percentages but it would be interesting to know how many complicated births there actually are. Risking your child''s and your own life is something I will NEVER respect.

That''s fine, I understand why you would feel that way. I''d be interested to see how many complications arise during freebirths as well. There are also people who swear that vaccines kill babies, and that formula is poison, and even that crib mattresses contain toxic chemicals that cause sudden infant death syndrome even if none of those claims are based in fact. Like it or hate it, most mothers will always make choices regarding their children that they see as the best choice.

I don''t believe freebirthing is a responsible choice, but I will defend the right of mothers to make that choice for themselves, even if I can''t agree with it.

Personally, my labor suite at the hospital was like a 4 star resort and I loved every minute of it. Give me doctors, nurses with cold drinks and a monitor so I know exactly what my baby is up to

 

[Mandarine]

free birthing and home birth are COMPLETELY different, IMO.

I''m with the camp that says free birthing is irresponsible...as for home birth, more power to you gals...but it''s just not for moi!!! I knew I had to have a c-section and was ok with that. My birth plan was: "Get babies out safely" and be at a location where they would have anything they could ever possibly need in the worst circumstances (luckily we didn''t need any special care!).

To each their own I guess...but why put your baby in a risky situation when they are the MOST vulnerable?

 

[rockpaperscissors67]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

I was NOT comparing the specific risks of UC with the risks of formula feeding (or any of the other things I listed). My point was that I don''t think it''s right to say that a person is silly, selfish and irresponsible for UCing because it carries risks to the child while supporting (or not actively denigrating) other behaviors that also carry risks (albeit different risks) to the child.

I chose to co-sleep. I get my 9 year old daughter and 3 year old son McDonald''s pretty much every Thursday night. My 14 year old played soccer (and it was pretty physical) and he wanted to play football. My 3 older kids were fed formula. My 5 week old isn''t getting the hep B vaccine for a while. There are inherent risks in every single one of these choices, but I would be really hurt if someone called me silly and irresponsible for making these choices. I wouldn''t call someone silly and irresponsible for making parenting choices I don''t agree with.

IMHO, it''s one thing to say "I wouldn''t be comfortable doing that myself because I think it''s too risky" and yet another to cast aspersions on people that do something that isn''t understood or accepted by society as a whole.

 

[rockpaperscissors67]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:38:32 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678


Erm, yeah... I caught that too. Hopefully that wasn''t meant in the way it was written.

But I''m going to say maybe the point rockpaperscissors was making is that there will always be choices that people don''t agree with. And that what is completely normal to one parent might be completely insane to another. What one parents perceives as insane, another perceives it as the only way they ever considered doing it. And whether or not we agree with those choices, we should try to respect them.

Thank you -- I''m glad you understood what I was trying to say (and obviously did not do very well).

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/9/2010 5:08:18 PM
Author: rockpaperscissors67

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

I was NOT comparing the specific risks of UC with the risks of formula feeding (or any of the other things I listed). My point was that I don''t think it''s right to say that a person is silly, selfish and irresponsible for UCing because it carries risks to the child while supporting (or not actively denigrating) other behaviors that also carry risks (albeit different risks) to the child.

I chose to co-sleep. I get my 9 year old daughter and 3 year old son McDonald''s pretty much every Thursday night. My 14 year old played soccer (and it was pretty physical) and he wanted to play football. My 3 older kids were fed formula. My 5 week old isn''t getting the hep B vaccine for a while. There are inherent risks in every single one of these choices, but I would be really hurt if someone called me silly and irresponsible for making these choices. I wouldn''t call someone silly and irresponsible for making parenting choices I don''t agree with.

IMHO, it''s one thing to say ''I wouldn''t be comfortable doing that myself because I think it''s too risky'' and yet another to cast aspersions on people that do something that isn''t understood or accepted by society as a whole.

RPS, there are risks in everything. Mothers need to weigh the risks against the benefits.

Co-sleeping? I''m not a fan, but I would assume that if the mother really wants to have the baby in her bed (and not in a cosleeper), she will know that both she and her partner are not super heavy sleepers and don''t roll around in bed all night. Weigh the risk and figure the benefit (attachment, or whatever) outweighs the risk of smothering the child, not to mention that risk should be very low.

Sports? Sure, risk of injury is definitely there, as is the minute risk of death. But death on the field is major news...it doesn''t happen that often. Very small risk compared to the benefit.

Delayed vac? Again, not a huge fan, but definitely less of a problem for me personally than no vacs. Again, the mothers weighs the potential benefit (peace of mind, possible reactions from the baby) vs the risk that one of the diseases would hit during the window when the child is not vaccinated.

Formula? I can''t even comment on that one...it''s ridiculous.

But free birth? The statistics are there...many, many, many women have complicated births. If you take a PS as a cross slice, I would say a good percentage had some kind of complication, many of them potentially life threatening. The benefits you mention do not fly with me. Many midwives are proponents of intervention free births. If the choice came down to a hospital or free birth because there is no midwife around, then it would be STUPID to choose a free birth just to try an intervention free birth, or because hospitals carry germs. The odds of something going wrong are HIGHER than catching cooties at the hospital. A smart person should objectively be able to weigh those odds.

It IS irresponsible. I support a mother''s right to choose in many scenarios, but in a case where the risks for FATALITY outweigh the experience, I still maintain that there''s a bit of kookooroo going on if a mother chooses free birth. I absolutely cannot respect the mental capacity of a woman who chooses to do this. Whether or not there should be laws making it illegal is another, more tricky manner, but I definitely don''t respect the choice.

 

[Lilac]

Date: 3/9/2010 5:08:18 PM
Author: rockpaperscissors67

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM

Author: Tacori E-ring

RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

I was NOT comparing the specific risks of UC with the risks of formula feeding (or any of the other things I listed). My point was that I don''t think it''s right to say that a person is silly, selfish and irresponsible for UCing because it carries risks to the child while supporting (or not actively denigrating) other behaviors that also carry risks (albeit different risks) to the child.

I chose to co-sleep. I get my 9 year old daughter and 3 year old son McDonald''s pretty much every Thursday night. My 14 year old played soccer (and it was pretty physical) and he wanted to play football. My 3 older kids were fed formula. My 5 week old isn''t getting the hep B vaccine for a while. There are inherent risks in every single one of these choices, but I would be really hurt if someone called me silly and irresponsible for making these choices. I wouldn''t call someone silly and irresponsible for making parenting choices I don''t agree with.

IMHO, it''s one thing to say ''I wouldn''t be comfortable doing that myself because I think it''s too risky'' and yet another to cast aspersions on people that do something that isn''t understood or accepted by society as a whole.

I have never given birth - I hope to have children some day in the near future. So I guess I can''t talk about childbirth from personal experience - however, I know many women (mother, stepmother, MIL, friends, family) that have gone through childbirth and many of them had completely textbook pregnancies with no complications at all. When it came to giving birth, some had complications that were completely unforseen and were bad enough that, had they been alone without the help of a *trained* medical *professional*, they would have died and their babies would have died or ended up severely disabled as a result of oxygen deprivation and not breathing. There is a reason an ob/gyn or a midwife needs to be trained in their area of expertise - they are trained to deal with the worst case scenarios that CAN happen and DO happen sometimes.

A woman can have a perfectly normal pregnancy and then a perfectly uncomplicated free birth at home by themselves. Is it possible? Of course it is. But what about the women who try the free birth and there IS a problem that they couldn''t predict? What happens if the mother loses consciousness during childbirth and she physically is UNABLE to finish on her own or take care of the newborn baby who possibly isn''t breathing? There are COUNTLESS things that can go wrong in childbirth that are so unpredictable, and while they may be unlikely, they are still possible. So I stand by what I said. Attempting to give birth without the assistance or supervision of a *trained* medical professional is silly and irresponsible. To put oneself in danger is one thing - but to put the baby''s life at risk is unfair and careless.

 

[D2B]

Childbirth is dangerous, thousands of women in undeveloped countries die becuase of lack of medical intervention. I think we have become complacant in the West and consider it routine and safe, simply because of the medicine we have to assist during pregnancy and birth. Pre-eclempsia for example is pretty straight forward in most cases now, 100 years ago, women had a good chance of dying from it if it escalated to eclempsia.

Whilst I do think c-sections are being carried out too routinely (another matter for another thread!), we are lucky to have such healthy survival rates now in developed countries.

For me I would have died and so would my baby if I had not been in a hospital, I had a perfectly healthy pregnancy, all ready to go to a birthing center with midwife when it just fell apart horribly.

I think there needs to be choice for home births, but not total free birth, someone needs to protect the child, contingency plans need to be in place in case things go wrong. Holland has one of the saftest birth rates in the world, and they are majorily home birthed with midwifes, so it all depends on how it is done.

But total free birth - selfish and indulgent and forgetful of the fact that childbirth is dangerous to millions of women in countries without medical help right at this moment, let alone that we are only a few generations removed from when childbirth was more risky for us as well. Look in old cemetaries where you can read the gravestone of young women buried from death in childbirth or post birth complications, and their husbands on second or third wives raising all the kids together.

 

[RaiKai]

I have not given birth, however, I can say that this concept does not appeal to me at all. I know too many women (or babies) who had last minute complications after very healthy and uncomplicated pregnancies. In many cases, if medical professionals and and OR had not been there IMMEDIATELY they would have died. In the others, quick care was still required.

There is a difference to me between a home birth and a free birth. I can understand women wanting a home birth with a medical professional (i.e. a licensed midwife with hospital privileges in case there are complications). While not for me (I am going to want my drugs for one!) I have known women and family members to go this route. Some of them were able to follow the "birth plan" and some ended up having to go to the hospital, but they were in good hands. A free birth without any medical professionals around at all...no thanks.

Childbirth used to be the biggest cause of death to women in the not-that-distant past in the Western World. It is still a tremendous risk in many undeveloped countries without adequate medical care. I consider myself rather liberal and left wing, however, I would not be that eager to give up medical advances and risk my babies life so I can promote some female empowerment or anti-establishment agenda. Just because something was done a certain way for "thousands of years" as the host of that site says does not mean it is therefore the best way of doing things. I usually have noticed however that when some people start to take certain advances for granted as they never had to deal with the alternative (be it medical advances in childbirth or polio vaccines...) they seem to cling to the former ways with some form of nostalgia or idealization.

 

[rockpaperscissors67]

Date: 3/9/2010 5:36:35 PM
Author: TravelingGal

But free birth? The statistics are there...many, many, many women have complicated births. If you take a PS as a cross slice, I would say a good percentage had some kind of complication, many of them potentially life threatening. The benefits you mention do not fly with me. Many midwives are proponents of intervention free births. If the choice came down to a hospital or free birth because there is no midwife around, then it would be STUPID to choose a free birth just to try an intervention free birth, or because hospitals carry germs. The odds of something going wrong are HIGHER than catching cooties at the hospital. A smart person should objectively be able to weigh those odds.

It IS irresponsible. I support a mother''s right to choose in many scenarios, but in a case where the risks for FATALITY outweigh the experience, I still maintain that there''s a bit of kookooroo going on if a mother chooses free birth. I absolutely cannot respect the mental capacity of a woman who chooses to do this. Whether or not there should be laws making it illegal is another, more tricky manner, but I definitely don''t respect the choice.

Ok, I can see that while I''m willing to afford people that make different choices than I do the courtesy of not calling them irresponsible, it''s not a two way street.

Perhaps I''m feeling a bit sensitive about this because I am the SOLE person on this thread that has said that I would consider it. It''s good to know that regardless of everything that I do to ensure my childrens'' safety, I am silly, selfish, irresponsible and I guess stupid, too.

So I will just peace out and leave you all to be the final judges on who is a responsible parent and who isn''t.

 

[qtiekiki]

Supportive of homebirths with midwives but not free births, for the many reasons already stated. I had not made up my mind on whether free birthing should be made illegal.

RPS, just want to clarify your ysage of the term "unassisted childbirth" (I am assuming that what UC stands for). Do you mean childbirth without medical interventions or free birthing? I ask b/c those are not the same thing. Although you labored alone, I wouldn't consider you a free birther since you have a midwife and you were trying to hold the baby in until your midwife gets to your house. I understand your points in that everyone have their own opinions on various topics regarding childbirths and parenting, and each parent needs to assess the risks and benefits themselves, but it's a little far-fetched to have a parody with formula feeding. I mean a baby will not die from being formula-fed.

And I am a little bit offended that someone stated that hospital birthers are less informed b/c they just assume the doctors and staffs will know what to do. I know I am taking this personally and it's not intended that way. Just b/c I chose a hospital birth doesn't mean I didn't bother doing research.

ETA: RPS, just read your last post and understand that you are just saying you would consider free birthing, not that you were a free birther. So just ignore my question to you.

 

[cara]

So when are people allowed to judge others for taking risks with societal implications? There are societal implications to this issue. Brain damaged babies require a lifetime of care. And yes, I do personally know one that was the result of a home-birth went awry. She is a lovely girl but will require round the clock care for the rest of her mother's life and then will probably be institutionalized. Avoiding interventions can be taken too far.

I do not think that women should be legally compelled to have a skilled person attend their birth, but it is awfully close to the line IMO. We prosecute parents that choose to treat their child's cancer or diabetes with prayer rather than a doctor's visit, and this is pretty close. Giving birth used to be the most dangerous thing a woman did in her lifetime, and it is only modern medical practice, whatever its flaws and occasional harms, that has lowered the risk so much these days.

RPS, among other things, I think you underestimate the challenges presented to hospital staff when patients are emergently admitted versus when they progress in hospital. A pregnant woman in distress arriving via ambulance or otherwise after things have gotten bad enough to warrant transfer to a hospital is WAY WAY different than a woman admitted when things are calm and then monitored as things progressively turn bad and ending up needing emergency care. Are you telling me that if you knew in advance that your would need a time-sensitive emergency c-section to deliver your child, your choice would still be to remain at home until the last possible minute and then rush yourself to the hospital and present under duress in the ER, wait for them to evaluate you (precious minutes pass) and then decide on surgery and then get you into surgery (because its almost the same as starting off in the hospital)? You are counting on the medical professionals to do their job better, under higher stress and more time pressure, than if you had progressed in the hospital. People want doctors to be perfect, and when they are not, they sue. While doctors should treat all their patients with respect, even ones that disregard medical advice and take huge risks for stupid reasons, sometimes it makes the doctor's job harder and docs are only human.

I grant that there are reasonable reasons for attempting a home birth with skilled birth attendant, but to minimize the tradeoffs involved does not one any favors. If you can cite statistics showing that free-birth attempts result in similar outcomes for babies and mothers to hospital births, I'd love to see them. There are such statistics for certain populations of low-risk patients that attempt home births attended by skilled birth attendants, but no attendant or lay-attendant births do not have that record behind them. To say people that do not approve of free-births merely don't 'understand' them is pretty insulting - what evidence is there that the mothers that choose home birth really understand the risk and benefits involved? At least among women I know that would be open to this, they *don't* really understand the risks involved. They have some kind of faith-like belief system that makes them skeptical of medicine and hospitals and friendly towards things 'natural', and this belief system skews their risk perception.

And at some point, I think it is fair to say that NONE of the benefits you mentioned for a free birth come close to compensating for the risks involved. You need some kind of magical thinking involved, or a value system that prioritizes lack of medical interventions and birth environment over survival or serious disability of mother and baby. Or at best, one that does not properly account for unlikely but serious events. Honestly the next example that comes closest to mind is men with ultraconservative religious beliefs that would rather their wives die in childbirth that be touched by a male doctor. I also have no problem judging people for those completely skewed cultural preferences.

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 3/9/2010 6:48:44 PM
Author: rockpaperscissors67

Date: 3/9/2010 5:36:35 PM

Author: TravelingGal


But free birth? The statistics are there...many, many, many women have complicated births. If you take a PS as a cross slice, I would say a good percentage had some kind of complication, many of them potentially life threatening. The benefits you mention do not fly with me. Many midwives are proponents of intervention free births. If the choice came down to a hospital or free birth because there is no midwife around, then it would be STUPID to choose a free birth just to try an intervention free birth, or because hospitals carry germs. The odds of something going wrong are HIGHER than catching cooties at the hospital. A smart person should objectively be able to weigh those odds.


It IS irresponsible. I support a mother''s right to choose in many scenarios, but in a case where the risks for FATALITY outweigh the experience, I still maintain that there''s a bit of kookooroo going on if a mother chooses free birth. I absolutely cannot respect the mental capacity of a woman who chooses to do this. Whether or not there should be laws making it illegal is another, more tricky manner, but I definitely don''t respect the choice.

Ok, I can see that while I''m willing to afford people that make different choices than I do the courtesy of not calling them irresponsible, it''s not a two way street.


Perhaps I''m feeling a bit sensitive about this because I am the SOLE person on this thread that has said that I would consider it. It''s good to know that regardless of everything that I do to ensure my childrens'' safety, I am silly, selfish, irresponsible and I guess stupid, too.


So I will just peace out and leave you all to be the final judges on who is a responsible parent and who isn''t.

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to be open minded. For what it''s worth.

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 3/9/2010 6:52:10 PM
Author: cara

At least among women I know that would be open to this, they *don't* really understand the risks involved. They have some kind of faith-like belief system that makes them skeptical of medicine and hospitals and friendly towards things 'natural', and this belief system skews their risk perception.

This is very much what I was trying to get at with part of my post, and my impression. I can honestly say I have spent a lot of time around a lot of what would be considered very hippie-culture and this is very much the sort of attitude that is prevalent. Things like "there are no such things as germs!" when it is coming from someone who actually lost their leg from flesh-eating disease, or things like "vaccinations aren't necessary" when their child is brain damaged from a bout of measles which could have easily been prevented just does NOT fly with me. There is often an attitude that these "negative medical issues" are things come to you as you have not lived a pure, natural enough life and willingly subjected yourself to toxins, or did not do enough yoga (I love yoga, but I don't buy that "yogis never get sick"!).

I do believe natural medicine can be very helpful and beneficial in many ways and come from a family who appreciated natural medicine as well, however, I think that is only in conjunction with medical science. If relying on it alone and forsaking medical science and intervention only put that individuals health at risk, that would be alright with me. But it doesn't. It often puts other people at risk too, and that to me crosses the boundaries of personal choices and consequences.

 

[whitby_2773]

rockpaperscissors,

i don''t have children, so can''t comment on this from experience.

but regardless of what i''d do or not do, i can see you''ve put considerable thought into how you''d proceed and what works for you.

it''s different. it''s potentially risky . in some ways it''s potentially safer. it looks to me like you have plenty of experience of both your body and your body having babies.

for those mothers who wish to have UC, i don''t really see how the absence of a midwife cramps their style. however...

you certainly don''t seem ignorant to me, or insane, or stupid or like you come from the boonies, can''t string two words together or have no idea what you''re doing. you don''t seem selfish, self indulgent or blind to the needs of your children or the advancements of modern medicine.

i don''t say ''bravo''. i don''t say anything at all. you seem like a competent, caring parent; it''s your decision.

just for the record, and without meaning to start an ongoing discussion (cause i doubt i''ll revisit this thread), as a kids'' psych, i worked with many children with brain injuries sustained during childbirth. as far as i can recall, none of them were either HB or UC. and my practice was in an area of Australia where home birth, at least, was VERY popular and much more the norm than in most areas.

but one thing is for certain, all issues to do with parenting will ALWAYS bring out the strongest of opinions!

 

[zoebartlett]

I''ve never had kids, but I do know that when/if I do, I want to be in the hospital with doctors and nurses (and maybe a midwife). I saw part of the documentary, and because I watched only a little of it, I know I missed a lot of information that was presented. I also don''t think it would have changed my mind. I know 100% that I do not want to go it alone without medical personnel there.

 

[Jas12]

I think birth is something that is meant to be supported. Part of our social nature as human beings is to be surrounded by others, and that goes for birth. Not too many ppl go at it alone. Other social animals like dolphins have what appears to be a midwife support system. Throughout time, woman have looked to older, experienced woman (and now doctors/nurses/OBs/doulas etc) to provide guidance for birth.
So for that reason i wouldn''t want to do it alone, not to mention i would not want to deal with a complication during that crazy time. Deep emotion gets involved when it''s your own child/spouse at risk and i don''t know if a husband or wife could act appropriately even if they had planned ahead of time. That part scares me.

I will say this about hospital birth vs home birth : (sorry if i repeat, i didn''t read the whole thread).
Hospital births are NOT safer for low risk woman. They are about the same risk as *assisted* home births. A huge canadian study was just done on this topic and showed the same result. The problem with stats in the past is that in the category of "home birth" they included unplanned, unassisted home births (like toilet bowl births) in the stats.

I wouldn''t go for a free birth, but i can see where it stems from...
The USA has one of the WORST maternal and infant death rates of the developed nations, yet some of the HIGHEST use of medicine and surgery in birth. So ppl should not be lulled into a sense of security in a hospital.
I think we have a tendency to just blindly trust medicine, but medicine and birth don''t always mix well. It totally floors me that people ignore this. Most ppl spend more time researching the purchase of a new appliance than the standard care & drugs they''ll receive for the birth of their child. We claim we want what is best for child and mom, but then subject ourselves to all sorts of procedures that may do the opposite. I think many free birthers know this, but then take it to the next level of rejecting ALL support.

I guess when something goes wrong in a hospital we don''t question it and think "well, it could have been worse, we did what the doctor said, etc. etc.". You would *never * hear "well, if only you were at home". Even though, in some cases being home might have been best (as was the case of girl in my city who''s baby died after contracting a bacteria that was in the hospital at the time of birth) but when something goes wrong at home, we alone are left with the burden of guilt and questioning. I am sure that''s a big reason ppl avoid birthing at home (especially Free birthing) There is that potential for judgment. God knows if my home birth goes badly, i would feel like ppl would be thinking "she put the baby at undue risk by doing it at home" even tho I know that from a purely statistical perspective, this isn''t true
So anyway, every mom does what they think is right for their family. Some ppl think it''s selfish and foolish to have a birth without doctors around, some think its selfish & foolish to schedule your induction or c-section b/c it fits into your schedule better. We are human, we have different motivations and i guess at the end of the day, only we alone need to be comfortable with our decision.

 

[Blenheim]

Date: 3/9/2010 4:42:40 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring

Date: 3/9/2010 4:38:32 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 3/9/2010 4:07:20 PM

Author: Tacori E-ring

RPS, Maybe from someone who had a VB, but baby and I both had complications, looks at this differently. Had I not had a hospital birth my child and I would have gotten very, very sick. Like I said before if you want to have a home birth WITH a medical professional it is none of my business but I find it insulting that you are comparing the risk of a FB with FORMULA FEEDING. I really hope I am misreading your comment.

Erm, yeah... I caught that too. Hopefully that wasn't meant in the way it was written.

But I'm going to say maybe the point rockpaperscissors was making is that there will always be choices that people don't agree with. And that what is completely normal to one parent might be completely insane to another. What one parents perceives as insane, another perceives it as the only way they ever considered doing it. And whether or not we agree with those choices, we should try to respect them.

I don't know the percentages but it would be interesting to know how many complicated births there actually are. Risking your child's and your own life is something I will NEVER respect.

From the BMJ Homebirth paper, which used data from low-risk planned US/Canadian homebirths with certified midwives in attendance (and I would imagine that the midwives would have done a better job of deciding if these woman needed to be risked out of a homebirth than the women themselves would have done had they been doing their own prenatal care, and would also have a better sense of if/when to transfer):
"Of the 5418 women, 655 (12.1%) were transferred to hospital intrapartum or post partum. Table 2 describes the transfers according to timing, urgency, and reasons for transfer. Five out of every six women transferred (83.4%) were transferred before delivery, half (51.2%) for failure to progress, pain relief, or exhaustion. After delivery, 1.3% of mothers and 0.7% of newborns were transferred to hospital, most commonly for maternal haemorrhage (0.6% of total births), retained placenta (0.5%), or respiratory problems in the newborn (0.6%). The midwife considered the transfer urgent in 3.4% of intended home births. Transfers were four times as common among primiparous women (25.1%) as among multiparous women (6.3%), but urgent transfers were only twice as common among primparous women (5.1%) as among multiparous women (2.6%)."

Also, from a follow-up piece:
"Several studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s established the wide variance in outcomes between planned vs. unplanned and attended vs. unattended
home births: in North Carolina researchers found a neonatal mortality of 3/1000 for planned home deliveries attended by a lay midwife, 30/1000 for unattended planned homebirths, and 120 neonatal deaths/1000 for unplanned homebirths (Burnett et al. 1980), ..."
(By the way - larger studies have shown neonatal mortality rates for planned home deliveries attended by midwives to be more in the 1.7/1000 range, which is similar to low-risk hospital births.)

Qtiekki - UC/unassisted childbirth is the same thing as freebirthing (and I believe is the term more commonly used by people who go that route).

 

[PumpkinPie]

I would consider a mid-wife assisted homebirth (but my husband refuses to even think about it), but I can''t imagine doing it completely alone.