Freebirthing - are you people nuts?

[highthief]

I'm always amazed at the foolishness of some people. Whatever anyone might think about childbirth being a natural event, it is utterly undeniable that for millenia women have been dying in vast numbers while giving birth unassisted. Prior to the 20th century it was the leading cause of death of women around the globe.

Go the hospital or at least have a highly trained midwife on hand.

Am I missing something or is this concept really defensible?


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories


Canadian doctors warn against 'freebirthing'
Updated Thu. Jun. 21 2007 11:38 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The small but troubling faction of "do-it-yourself" childbirth advocates who encourage unassisted childbirth are courting danger, warns the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

"Freebirthing" is the practice of giving birth at home, without the help of obstetricians, nurses or even midwives or doulas.

Those who promote unattended delivery, called "freebirth," say the practice offers mothers-to-be a natural way of welcoming their child into the world, free from drugs, machinery and medical intervention.

They also note that the practice is free of charge and allows a woman to listen to her own body's signals rather than coaching from an outsider.

But the SOGC, meeting in Ottawa for its annual clinical meeting, says the practice is dangerous. They note that more than 500,000 women around the world die each year from complications during childbirth -- a sobering statistic, they say, "for what is deemed one of the most natural of life events."

Even in developed countries, where expectant mothers typically receive full prenatal care, as many as 15 per cent of all births involve potentially fatal complications, the SOGC says.

"Unassisted childbirth is unsafe − period," says Dr. Vyta Senikas, SOGC's associate executive vice-president.

Dr. Donald Davis, outgoing president of the SOGC, agrees.

"Whether you choose a registered midwife for a home birth or trained healthcare professionals in a hospital setting, having a skilled attendant's experience and knowledge at the mother's side can be the difference between life and death," he says.

No one knows how many Canadians are choosing to give birth unattended; neither federal nor provincial governments collect statistics on unassisted childbirth. The rate is likely lower than home births attended by registered midwives, which accounted for just 1.5 per cent of all deliveries in British Columbia and Ontario in 2005 and 2006.

Senikas says the people advocating "freebirthing" are tragically uninformed and are promoting high-risk, dangerous behaviour disguised as sound medical advice.

"You have to look at the source. These are not trained and educated medical professionals," Senikas says.

Dr. John Crippen, a doctor in the U.K. who writes an award-winning blog, has reacted angrily to freebirth. saying "giving birth is the most dangerous thing that most woman will do during their life."

He believes that if a baby were to die of an avoidable cause during a "freebirth," the mother should be charged with manslaughter. He also argues that babies permanently injured during an unassisted birth should have the right to sue.

"Should a mother not take reasonable care to protect the baby when she gives birth? And if she does not take reasonable care -- and the standard should be objective not subjective -- why should a baby who has sustained avoidable brain damage due to the mother's negligence not take action against his mother?" he says in his blog.

[Cynthetiq]

I know a midwife in Iceland and when I first met her she had just helped birth the 1,000 person in her village. Prior to that I had never known the option of having a midwife still exsisting. Since that time I have met many others.

Between this and the desire to not vaccinate baffles my mind.

[analog]

Sure, go ahead and freebirth- but understand that the NATURAL process of childbirth has a mortality rate. Without medical intervention, a "potentially mortal danger" turns into "you are dead" because of the lack of medical care.

Go to the hospital. Have a plan for a drug-free and intervention-free birth, barring complications. It's not like they can't do that. You're paying for it either way, they can accomodate you. Or, at least have a midwife at home- SOMEONE trained in birthing a baby.

Going the cheap route to go pop one out at home is too dangerous, the risk of serious complications to the mother or the baby are too high. At least get a midwife.

[Daniel_]

Dr Crippen?

Doctor CRIPPEN?!?

Do you not know who Crippen is?

See this: Doctor Crippen for more info.

[Walking Shadow]

Re: Giving birth unassisted being the biggest cause of death among women pre-20th century.

Total bullshit.

Now then, it's the fact that many women gave birth in disgustingly filthy environments which led to fatal infections that was the leading cause of death, but those women sure as hell weren't alone when they gave birth.

[The_Jazz]

One of my sister-in-laws is the family nut. For the first two kids, she went with a midwife and used a doctor for the last one. She's not a nut for using a midwife (actually "birthing coach" for the first one - a polished up unlicensed midwife). She's a nut for doing it more than once and for using them at home and not a hospital.

She has a very small frame, and her first child ended up needing a C-section after 14 hours of labor and 5 hours of pushing. You would think that she would have figured that there was a better-than-average chance of problems with the second one, but no. She used a mid-wife again, but my nephew was stuck, and they had to do an emergency c-section after rushing her to the hospital from home. He was deprived of oxygen for several minutes, but thankfully he doesn't show any signs of problems (other than he's just a mean little boy, but that's more related to being an overly bright middle child).

Her husband finally grew a backbone for the last one and insisted that they go to the hospital for the birth and making sure that his son was delivered by a doctor with a planned c-section, but it was a major battle to get her to agree.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Walking Shadow

Re: Giving birth unassisted being the biggest cause of death among women pre-20th century.

Total bullshit.

Now then, it's the fact that many women gave birth in disgustingly filthy environments which led to fatal infections that was the leading cause of death, but those women sure as hell weren't alone when they gave birth.

OK, they were either unassisted or assisted by people who had virtually no medical knowledge.

Better?

Seriously, women croaked at an alarming rate squeezing out kids before medical knowledge - about infections, anatomy, etc - came along.

[Lady Sage]

If birthing unassisted was so dangerous humans would never have made it this far. Gods forbid a woman give birth at home for free. Avoid unneeded c-sections and episiotomies? Ooooo. Why shouldnt a woman be allowed to choose a way to give birth away from tens of thousands of dollars, medical malpractice, being put on display for the world to see her crotch and possibly needlessly butchered to give birth? What the hell do I know though? I am not a man with a medical degree or a know-it-all.

Still today women die in child birth or with complications related to... theres a shocker.

There are mortality rates for car crashes as well. Willing to bet that most of us here on TFP have beein in one or more. Oh, look, I am still alive. Go figure.

[lurkette]

YYYYikes! That's a special brand of crazy, right there.

While I'm the biggest wuss on the planet, I can see the appeal of natural childbirth - there's the risk from epidurals, the appeal of being wide awake after the birth, the feeling of accomplishment for having done it without drugs, etc. And I'm definitely all for staying away from a hospital if you can - the way many doctors and nurses push epidurals and induction and C-sections and treat the birth like a complication that keeps them from getting home in time for dinner is criminal.

But this is beyond the pale and these idiots are helping clear out the gene pool, IMHO. I mean, even in them thar olden days people had a trained midwife or at least Granny around to give advice and smooth things along. Going completely without a medical safety net is the height of foolishness and irresponsibility. If they do end up needing a hospital it's going to be riskier and more expensive by the time they finally end up there.

Originally Posted by Lady Sage

If birthing unassisted was so dangerous humans would never have made it this far. Gods forbid a woman give birth at home for free. Avoid unneeded c-sections and episiotomies? Ooooo. Why shouldnt a woman be allowed to choose a way to give birth away from tens of thousands of dollars, medical malpractice, being put on display for the world to see her crotch and possibly needlessly butchered to give birth? What the hell do I know though? I am not a man with a medical degree or a know-it-all.

Still today women die in child birth or with complications related to... theres a shocker.

C'mon, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater

I'm certainly with you on the desire to not have some detached clinician calling the shots and making decisions that are in HIS best interest and not in mine. But there is a happy medium that can balance empowering the parents and honoring their wishes with providing a safe environment if anything should go wrong. My friend Holly just gave birth in a birth center assisted by a midwife and trained nurses, and it was really reassuring round about hour 20 that someone with experience was there in case anything started to go wrong. Holly got to move at her pace, sit in a nice warm bathtub as long as she wanted, and she was in charge. Her husband was there, I was there, our friend Christine was there along with Holly's parents. It was intimate and warm. But there were people there who knew what the fuck they were doing, and could spring into action or get Holly to a hospital if anything started to go seriously wrong. It's not a binary choice between medicine and no medicine. Even if you wanted to have the birth in your home, at least have a trained midwife there.

And I don't know about "leading cause of death" but until recently, it was quite a risk. 1% is not insubstantial:

The death rate for women giving birth plummeted in the 20th century.

At the beginning of the century, maternal death rates were around their historical level of nearly 1 in 100 for live births. The number today in the United States is 1 in 10,000, a 99% decline.

The decline in maternal deaths has been due largely to improved asepsis, use of caesarean section, fluid management and blood transfusion, and better prenatal care.

http://www.answers.com/topic/maternal-death

[ShaniFaye]

Having had a baby I can tell you right now, no way in hell I would want to be "alone". There are way too many things that can go wrong....even a midwife can turn a baby if its breech. What woman in their right mind would WANT to be laying in her bed ALONE trying to give birth to a backwards baby? Those labors go nowhere very slowly. I can certainly understand wanting to have it at home, while that wouldnt be my choice because I would much rather give both me and my baby the benefit of medical attention if something went wrong, for god's sake have someone there who knows about the birthing process.

Sure women of another time did it, but the mortality rate for both them and the baby was a lot higher and its just stupid to take that risk

[serlindsipity]

Alright, the money is an issue. We're all broke. but hell, why are you having a kid and skimping on the important things like making sure you get to see it after this all done! (by this i am refering to the mother AND/OR the child dying). You to broke to get a midwife? Dont have a kid. Save you pennies, these fuckers will never be cheap.


K, rage over. Sorry.

[TotalMILF]

Originally Posted by serlindsipity

Alright, the money is an issue. We're all broke. but hell, why are you having a kid and skimping on the important things like making sure you get to see it after this all done! (by this i am refering to the mother AND/OR the child dying). You to broke to get a midwife? Dont have a kid. Save you pennies, these fuckers will never be cheap.

Beautifully put!

I honestly don't understand why a mother would willingly put herself and her unborn baby at a greater risk of injury/death, for no good reason. When you go to a birthing center or a hospital, you can still be 100% in charge of what's happening. I don't know why women think that going to a hospital means that they'll be strapped down and treated like a farm animal. I gave birth in a hospital and I called ALL the shots. Luckily I was in a hospital, too, because I ended up needing an episiotomy so my son would come out faster (he had the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck TWICE and was being strangled). If they wouldn't have pulled that cord off of his neck when they did, who knows what could've happened?

I just don't know why you would risk your life and your child's life so unnecessarily. People are fucking idiots sometimes.

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

Having had a baby I can tell you right now, no way in hell I would want to be "alone". There are way too many things that can go wrong....even a midwife can turn a baby if its breech. What woman in their right mind would WANT to be laying in her bed ALONE trying to give birth to a backwards baby? Those labors go nowhere very slowly. I can certainly understand wanting to have it at home, while that wouldnt be my choice because I would much rather give both me and my baby the benefit of medical attention if something went wrong, for god's sake have someone there who knows about the birthing process.

Sure women of another time did it, but the mortality rate for both them and the baby was a lot higher and its just stupid to take that risk

Quoted for emphasis.
Had I not had my doctor, I would have definitely lost my son and quite possibly my daughter as well in my 3rd month, again in my 6th and again during birth.
The statistic that Lurkette quoted was 1 in 100 live births, not women, which means that, statistically, if 20 women each had 5 pregnancies, one of them would die by the 5th kid. And given that women more than likely did have 5 or more kids back before the earlier 20th century, that is not a very good statistic.
This is another nose-thumbing at the 'establishment' fad, much like the water births of about 10 years ago, where women attempted to give birth in a tub of water. At least one baby drowned and probably more did as well and we don't hear anything of that anymore.
There's a huge difference between 'natural' childbirth and idiocy. I'd really recommend those who would choose to do this take a trip to any 3rd world country and check out some moms and kids who weren't assisted. It'd be an eye-opener.

[Carno]

Everyone loves their self-righteous anger.

[Charlatan]

including you.

[analog]

Originally Posted by lurkette

It's not a binary choice between medicine and no medicine. Even if you wanted to have the birth in your home, at least have a trained midwife there.

I think that's really the only thing people are saying here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone MUST go to a hospital and be plugged into a thousand machines and put on all manner of drugs. All we're saying is that it's a much, MUCH safer idea for mom AND baby to have someone with formal training there in case things go wrong.

As for episiotomy, the choice to get one is yours, not your doctor's- so "I don't want birthing with a doctor because I don't want an episiotomy" makes no sense. You choose the limits of your medical care as long as you're conscious and sound of mind to do so.

You do not have to consent to any manner of treatment that you don't want, up to and including interventions that would prevent your death.

[spindles]

Originally Posted by serlindsipity

Alright, the money is an issue. We're all broke.

Or move to a country where there are govt run hospitals.

Two boys here - first by emergency caesar (he was brow presentation - which means he wasn't coming out naturally). Second by planned caesar (recommended because of the enormous scar from baby 1, and actually not on the planned day - Thomas wanted out!). Medical Cost = $0

The local public hospital had a 4 room birthing centre with big bath tub and anyone allowed in (my wife's mum and I were both there) run by midwifes and we only saw the doctor once the shit hit the fan. Best of both worlds IMO.

[analog]

I don't understand the rationale behind universal health care covering elective procedures such as childbirth. Elective = choose to have performed.

Oh no, having a child is expensive! Having a child is a choice. Why would anyone endeavor to have a child and then complain about how expensive they are? It boggles the mind. How about personal accountability where you determine BEFORE you have a baby if you can afford it or not? I know, it's a radical idea. Too many people don't think about the cost until it's on top of them.

[spindles]

I know children are expensive - I can afford them. Still not sure why universal health care shouldn't cover this - once you are pregnant, then having the baby sure doesn't seem elective to me.

In Oz you can still go to a private hospital, which is basically like a nice hotel, but you either need insurance or be willing to pay. Is the service better? probably, but hardly worth the extra money IMO.

My taxes pay for public hospitals to exist - why shouldn't I use them?

[analog]

Originally Posted by spindles

once you are pregnant, then having the baby sure doesn't seem elective to me.

Right, you choose to become pregnant and have a child. Your choice makes it an elective procedure.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by analog

I don't understand the rationale behind universal health care covering elective procedures such as childbirth. Elective = choose to have performed.

Oh no, having a child is expensive! Having a child is a choice. Why would anyone endeavor to have a child and then complain about how expensive they are? It boggles the mind. How about personal accountability where you determine BEFORE you have a baby if you can afford it or not? I know, it's a radical idea. Too many people don't think about the cost until it's on top of them.

Yes, in a perfect world, having a child WOULD be a choice, but unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes women of less education and fewer economic means find themselves pregnant for what ever reason. For that matter, women with educations and economic means also get pregnant--but they have access to abortion services.

So say you're Mary Sue in South Dakota. You get knocked up because you've never really been educated about sex or birth control, and even if you had been, birth control is hard to come by in your small town. Abortion is illegal in South Dakota. You're up shit creek without a paddle. The average abortion costs $486, and you would have to drive out of the state to get one--if you can find someone to perform the abortion. So what do you do? Have the baby, of course.

No freebirthing necessary here, though, because while Medicaid WON'T pay for abortion services or family planning, they WILL pay for childbirth--provided you show up at the hospital in labor.

Personally, I'm very interested in a more natural birth, and I know I would like to try and give birth in a birthing center instead of a hospital. I really feel like childbirth has become over-medicalized, with people going in for inducements and scheduled c-sections, but there is a line. Women should be giving birth with licensed midwives and should be giving birth in an environment where medical care is close by. Most of the birthing centers here are affiliated with local hospitals and can have doctors paged or have you transported should complications arise. Additionally, they won't take you if they suspect your birthing will have complications--they'll refer you to the hospital, which is as it should be. Trying to do it yourself at home is silly and dangerous.

I know if I am having a boy, I will probably choose the hospital, just because every boy in my family has had to be delivered via C-section. Big boys run in the family!

[analog]

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

No freebirthing necessary here, though, because while Medicaid WON'T pay for abortion services or family planning, they WILL pay for childbirth--provided you show up at the hospital in labor.

I'm not advocating for or suggesting abortion in any way, and I realize that those without the means to pay for their hospital bills are taken care of. I'm very well aware of this, in fact. I'm not talking about accidents and people with improper sexual education. I'm talking about people choosing to have children and complaining about the cost and insisting that my taxes pay for their intentional pregnancy.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by analog

Right, you choose to become pregnant and have a child. Your choice makes it an elective procedure.

Not all children are planned. Asking for them to be seems a little pollyanna-ish to me. It's just never going to happen.

And it's not an elective procedure for the child.

[robot_parade]

I think this is all part of the 'natural' craze that some people latch on to. Anything 'natural' is good, anything 'unnatural' is bad. Very simple.

Here's the thing - 99% of the time (or thereabouts), you'll be fine if you give birth at home, as long as you have some idea what you're doing. Like they say, people have been doing it for a long time without hospitals. What with how clean modern houses are, and basic knowledge of hygiene, your chances of a good result are much higher than they have been historically.

However, the other 1% (less, really) of the time, something horrible is going to happen. Mother or baby is going to be in a life threatening situation. One or both will die without medical intervention. This is where having trained medical personnel and the resources of a hospital comes in handy.

So, like with vaccinations, where the disease they are preventing is so rare that most parents can 'get away' with not vaccinating their child, the vast majority of 'home births' will be fine. And the tragic situations when they aren't will be ignored. But the 'medical establishment' or whatever they are against *still* helps these people - modern medical knowledge guides these practices (starting with the germ theory of disease). A kind of shared immunity is granted by the fact that most people do vaccinate, and thus the diseases aren't common enough to be a problem for many of the un-vaccinated.

</rant>

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by analog

I'm not advocating for or suggesting abortion in any way, and I realize that those without the means to pay for their hospital bills are taken care of. I'm very well aware of this, in fact. I'm not talking about accidents and people with improper sexual education. I'm talking about people choosing to have children and complaining about the cost and insisting that my taxes pay for their intentional pregnancy.

Pregnancy is not elective ala a nose job. It behooves us to have the best care available to produce healthy kids and keep their mothers healthy as well as a long term benefit to the population. Nose jobs don't benefit anyone but the one who had it. Maybe.

[analog]

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Nose jobs don't benefit anyone but the one who had it. Maybe.

Heh... looking around, I can honestly say that a great many of the children created are of little benefit to anyone, let alone of grand benefit to society.

TheJazz: as I said, I'm not talking about accidental ones. And the child's necessity to be delivered isn't overridden by the parents' decision to procreate. Their choice was first, and ultimately the one that caused everything else.

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by analog

Heh... looking around, I can honestly say that a great many of the children created are of little benefit to anyone, let alone of grand benefit to society.

TheJazz: as I said, I'm not talking about accidental ones. And the child's necessity to be delivered isn't overridden by the parents' decision to procreate. Their choice was first, and ultimately the one that caused everything else.

Well, your love of kids IS legion, Dear
It's really a matter of potential, though. Say everyone from here on in gets NO medical attention at all when preggers. No prenatal, not even a midwife in a small room at birth. They just wing it. Have'em in water, have'em in the woods, whatever....and no aftercare, no advice, no well visits. . As I said before,if you could visit a third world country where much of that is every day, then come back and say there's no benefit....hell, don't even have to visit, just google childbirth mortality or birth defects in 3rd world countries. We may not be perfect, but we're doing a little better than they are because of the medical attention given before, during and after.

[filtherton]

nevermind.

[*Nikki*]

As much as child birth hurts (worst pain of my entire life) there is no way in hell I would do it alone.

I had planned to do it without drugs though YEAH RIGHT that lasted about two hours before I caved.

[37OHSSV]

Originally Posted by Lady Sage

If birthing unassisted was so dangerous humans would never have made it this far. Gods forbid a woman give birth at home for free. Avoid unneeded c-sections and episiotomies? Ooooo. Why shouldnt a woman be allowed to choose a way to give birth away from tens of thousands of dollars, medical malpractice, being put on display for the world to see her crotch and possibly needlessly butchered to give birth? What the hell do I know though? I am not a man with a medical degree or a know-it-all.

Still today women die in child birth or with complications related to... theres a shocker.

There are mortality rates for car crashes as well. Willing to bet that most of us here on TFP have beein in one or more. Oh, look, I am still alive. Go figure.

Agreed. Why would anyone choose to see, say a drug counselor, when they could avoid unnecessary sessions and save tons of money? Why should they subject themselves to bad advice, when we all know that many of them will fall back into their drug habit?

Oh look. I'm not addicted to drugs. Go figure.

[ItWasMe]

I did the 'hospital thing' three times. I took such great care of myself and them during the pregnancy, there is no way I would take chances with the births. If I hadn't been at the hospital, and hadn't been plugged into those 'unnatural' machines... I would have lost the second, and most likely lost the third. There would not have been enough time to get to the hospital on time.

I don't know if they'll be 'great benefits' to society, but they are a source of great joy in my life. Even through the tougher times dealing with asthma and diabetes (theirs, not mine).

[tenniels]

I can't even imagine it. I don't know if I'll ever end up having kids, but I think if I do, I would hope it would be by c-section. I am so grossed out by the whole thing (and no, I'm not setting the women's movement back or anything, I just personally find the whole thing icky, probably a good thing I don't forsee kids anytime soon haha). Anyways, I suppose if these women chose to do this, I really don't care. I would care if it ended up costing more of my tax money coz they fucked it up and ended up needing extra care. I shouldn't have to pay for stupidity off my paycheque. Guess that's for a whole different thread though. Basically, I don't care if that's what people want to do, but I shouldn't be faulted for wanting all the drugs and a c-section if I were to give birth.

[opus123]

Originally Posted by highthief

I'm always amazed at the foolishness of some people. Whatever anyone might think about childbirth being a natural event, it is utterly undeniable that for millenia women have been dying in vast numbers while giving birth unassisted. Prior to the 20th century it was the leading cause of death of women around the globe.

Go the hospital or at least have a highly trained midwife on hand.

Am I missing something or is this concept really defensible?[/I]

Of course, it is defensible, there are no laws against free birthing. There are also no laws saying we have to license people to make sure they are fit parents. We license drivers, but not parents. Some people take classes and some don't. Some have midwives at home births and some don't. No reason to judge them. I knew a woman who gave birth at home and no complications and no drugs. They lived 10 blocks or so from the hospital and they made damn sure their car had gas in it and was in good working order. (^: My best friends tried to have a home birth, but the labor took 24 hours and they just went to the hospital in the car and did a c-cection. No big deal. Contrary to popular opinion life is not sacred ever. Just look at the carnage and death Bush is doing in Iraq to see that. Unborn children don't vote and fetuses are treated as people treat themselves. People yell at pregnant women who smoke, but don't yell at pregnant women who eat junk food or don't take parental classes ?? Freebirth is a direct reaction to the unethical high costs of hospitals and medications. Drug companies make record profits over and over again and push more an more drugs on the multitude. Those drugs are tested on animals and fetuses and lots of kids and adults. Life is not sacred, well it is at certain moments when I get stuck near a wasps nest and I run toward it accidentally instead of away from it. *smile*

Jonathan

[tecoyah]

Due to the general tone of this thread, I have no intention of actually commenting at length.

My first child was born in a birthing center.
The next two were born at home....unassisted.
I studied midwifery before we did so.

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Due to the general tone of this thread, I have no intention of actually commenting at length.

My first child was born in a birthing center.
The next two were born at home....unassisted.
I studied midwifery before we did so.

Which was the smart thing to do. From what's been stated in the article, these people wishing to go 'freebirthing' are not studying midwifery, nursing, etc.-they're gonna wing it, unassisted, I would guess with the help of Google....

They also note that the practice is free of charge and allows a woman to listen to her own body's signals rather than coaching from an outsider.

Had I 'listened to my own body signals', my son might have died or been disabled. I was pushing on a breech and stuck child who, through a subsequent emergency C-Section, had to be pulled back up, turned and then birthed before his sister could be.
As a midwife, you would have known what the danger line is in that scenario. Had your wife either been alone or with you as an excited participant, that line could have easily been crossed.
It'd have been fantastic if I could have given birth naturally and at home; there's no comparison to the healing time, among other plusses. What I find, personally, in this 'fad', is the implied arrogance that laypeople can do what others were trained to do and then some.

[tenniels]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Due to the general tone of this thread, I have no intention of actually commenting at length.

Hope you didn't think I had a negative tone towards home birthing. My thing is, I really just don't care. It's when you get idiots that do not do research and end up fucking up and needing more care which comes out of my tax money (I live in Canada, so that's where our healthcare comes from). I would think the majority of people choosing to do this though, would be quite educated on the matter, and then of course I have no problems with it. Also, there tends to be a condesending tone towards women who choose to have drugs or a c-section (which isn't of course by choice most of the time), so my point was, whichever end of the spectrum you fall on, as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care.

[StellaLuna]

onesnowyowl says:

No freebirthing necessary here, though, because while Medicaid WON'T pay for abortion services or family planning, they WILL pay for childbirth--provided you show up at the hospital in labor.

Late to the party (that's me), but Medicaid can and will pay for family planning-- not abortion, but certainly contraceptives and some education. Here's a link to our state's info, but it's becoming more widespread: Be Smart Be Ready. I work in social services, and my clients aren't stupid-- even the young ones. It's a choice to get pregnant. As for freebirthing, I have to say there is no way in high holy hell I'd be pushing out a kid without someone around who has had training! I love the idea of a birthing center and the comfort of knowing that I could get to a doctor ASAP if something went wrong. The idea of being at home with nobody around to help if there was a major problem is absolutely horrifying to me. If that's your personal choice, go for it. I can't imagine dealing with that myself unless there is no alternative.

[highthief]

Honestly it doesn't matter what you "study", to be polite. If you get in trouble there are simply some things you physically cannot do by yourself and there may be no time to call for help even if you have ten medical degrees. Indeed, in the case of some conditions such as hemorage, you won't even be able to call for help, you'll just pass out, die and take your child with you.

Can women have babies by themselves? Of course, it happens (usually accidentally in the western world) - our friend had hers on the way to the hospital in the front seat of their brand new Honda, no problems.

But the number of potential complications - from hemorage, to fetal distress, to umbilical cords around the neck (that was me at my birth) - makes any attempt to "go it alone" without doctors, nurses or midwife, IMO, irresponsible.

Originally Posted by opus123

Freebirth is a direct reaction to the unethical high costs of hospitals and medications.

Actually, I get the feeling that "freebirth" - especially as it practiced in nations outside the US and where you don't pay a cent for delivering a child - is more akin to a misguided "get back to nature" POV than anything else.

Shoot, we got the short end of the stick, humanity did, when it comes to having kids. Bipedalism and big brains make for a large number of hazardous deliveries.

[tecoyah]

One of the things that decided for us....an interesting study;/

So far, the largest and most complete study on the comparison of hospital birth outcomes to that of homebirth outcomes was done by Dr. Lewis Mehl and associates in 1976. In the study, 1046 homebirths were compared with 1046 hospital births of equivalent populations in the United States. For each home-birth patient, a hospital-birth patient was matched for age, length of gestation, parity (number of pregnancies), risk factor score, education and socio-economic status, race, presentation of the baby and individual major risk factors. The homebirth population also had trained attendants and prenatal care.

The results of this study showed a three times greater likelihood of cesarean operation if a woman gave birth in a hospital instead of at home with the hospital standing by. The hospital population revealed twenty times more use of forceps, twice as much use of oxytocin to accelerate or induce labor, greater incidence of episiotomy (while at the same time having more severe tears in need of major repair). The hospital group showed six times more infant distress in labor, five times more cases of maternal high blood pressure, and three times greater incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. There was four times more infection among the newborn; three times more babies that needed help to begin breathing. While the hospital group had thirty cases of birth injuries, including skull fractures, facial nerve palsies, brachial nerve injuries and severe cephalohematomas, there were no such injuries at home.

The infant death rate of the study was low in both cases and essentially the same. There were no maternal deaths for either home or hospital. The main differences were in the significant improvement of the mother’s and baby’s health if the couple planned a homebirth, and this was true despite the fact that the homebirth statistics of the study included those who began labor at home but ultimately needed to be transferred to the hospital.

http://www.birthmattersmidwifery.com/safe.htm

[ShaniFaye]

Tec your study is great but I would like to point out that it specifically states the homebirths had trained attendants which freebirths are not advocating.

I think most of us dont have a problem with home birthing as long as there is a trained midwife etc there