Freebirthing - are you people nuts? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ngdawg · 07-02-2007, 07:21 PM

Not only asked, but told what I should be eating, drinking, etc.; what I should gain and look for as I gain; tested for diabetes and high BP.

I don't know where you are coming up with these ideas, but as a child of the 50's and 60's and the oldest of 4, the last born in 1963, not one of us was a druggy, cutter, but my sister and I have tattoos. So?
I was given Demoral-my 15 year olds are sickeningly normal. How do you explain the drugs of the 30's? 40's? 50's?
One of the outcomes of the 'hippie' movement was the increase of natural chidlbirth, yet drug use hasn't gone down in kind.
Methinks you are grasping at straws in an effort to use any reason to promote your agenda, one that goes far beyond a simple choice to do it at home.
"Small studies" are just that and totally inconclusive when one takes in the bigger picture. Take 100 drug users and find out what their mothers were given, if anything, and dollars to donuts, there'd be an overwhelming ratio showing a false correlation. That's like saying those in prison had bad childhoods, then declaring all bad childhoods result in people going to prison.
Part of debate, in order to make a valid point, is 'doing the homework for you'. If you are going to make claims, show why the claim is made. Otherwise, it's simply your opinion.

Cynthetiq · 07-02-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

A few small studies have been done in Europe and Asia, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. Go find em. They are out there.

That's a load of horseshit. You are asserting your belief here. I'm challenging you to it, and the best you can come up with is, "I'm not going to do your homework for you?" If you've obviously found this, then cite your sources. The internet is a wide net to cast around.

Quote:

The newest linkage going on is between kids who spend months in NICU care feeling drawn to Raves, cutting, and Tatooing. They generally start to feel like getting into this behavior when they are fifteen.

Again, bullshit. There's no empirical evidence to show any link. But there is evidence to show that teenagers are filled with angst and trends show that they do things that are different from societal norms. There is evidence showing that.

Quote:

My cynacism towards the birth machine, or the BS, as you call it, is only further fueled by the lack of understanding on the part of obstetricians and NICU pediatricians of the role that prenatal nutrition plays in the prevention of Toxemia and Prematurity. They know NOTHING and they have been taught nothing about it in medical school.

Google Tom Brewer MD, he was a doctor in the truest sense of the word. Consumate researcher, practitioner, writer, scholar, and Passionate activist working to normalize and standardize prenatal nutrition as the foremost key to a healthy baby.

Did anyone on this board have a doctor ask them what they were eating while pregnant? I never did, not once during the three pregnancies that I went to them for prenatals. Yet it is in fact the key to a healthy pregnancy, great birth, and abundant breastmilk supply.

Again, you don't address what has been challenged. You use emotional triggers and buttons to try to subterfuge and strawman tactics to diffuse the question so that it doesn't get answered.

There was a saying that I recall from an iron tshirt, "If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit." Mrs. Jenny, you are just trying to baffle and confuse the issue.

Again, where is the evidence that shows a correlation to babies in hospitals with mothers that received birthing drugs and then went on to be drug addicts?

You are the one floating the idea, I'm saying prove it.

analog · 07-02-2007, 09:02 PM

Jenny:

You make wild claims with no evidence.
You make crazy assertions with no data.
You make emotional appeals out of statements which should be intellectual processes.

And you'd think this thread was farmland for the amount of strawmen I'm tripping over.

Your rhetoric, on the whole, is reminiscent of old-time horse-and-buggy street-corner tonic salesmen. "Cures what ails you. Why? It says so right here on the bottle, that's why!"

I say all this because I'm at a loss as to how I can have a discussion here. It definitely seems as though you want us to swallow whole all that you'd desire to feed us, and skip the intellectual processes altogether. That, unfortunately, doesn't really work for me.

Jenny Hatch · 07-03-2007, 12:36 AM

Moderator Jazz, would you please open up my ability to add links to my posts. Research coming!

Jenny Hatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

Jenny:

You make wild claims with no evidence.
You make crazy assertions with no data.
You make emotional appeals out of statements which should be intellectual processes.

And you'd think this thread was farmland for the amount of strawmen I'm tripping over.

Your rhetoric, on the whole, is reminiscent of old-time horse-and-buggy street-corner tonic salesmen. "Cures what ails you. Why? It says so right here on the bottle, that's why!"

I say all this because I'm at a loss as to how I can have a discussion here. It definitely seems as though you want us to swallow whole all that you'd desire to feed us, and skip the intellectual processes altogether. That, unfortunately, doesn't really work for me.

I agree that much of the FreeBirth movement is built on emotion and mothers intuition that we are not being well served by the allopathic birth machine. We don't have any financial backers, and very few professionals support our choice for birth. We have had no scientific studies to back up our claims, and we are one of the least funded grassroots movements probably ever to exist. But we are growing, at an Alarming rate, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians in the UK. And the Canadian Docs And the Aussie Docs

The ACOG docs are probably all out playing golf, and that is why they have not jumped on the Anti Freebirth wagon train.

I completely funded our second conference in 2001, which was attended by about 30 families and the children outnumbered the adults two to one. We didn't have some big pharmacuetical company waiting in the wings, sending money hand over fist to support us.

You asked for a study on the linkage between drugs used during labor and later drug addiction?

Here is one compelling study: Opiate addiction in adult offspring through possible imprinting after obstetric treatment.

The selected references for said study out of scandinavia are here:

This list contains those references that cite another article in PMC or have a citation in PubMed. It may not include all the original references for this article.

Horn G. Neural mechanisms of learning: an analysis of imprinting in the domestic chick. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1981 Oct 14;213(1191):101–137.

Salzen EA. Imprinting in birds and primates. Behaviour. 1967;28(3):232–254.

Salk L. Thoughts on the concept of imprinting and its place in early human development. Can Psychiatr Assoc J. 1966;11(Suppl)(Suppl Suppl):295–305.

Jacobson B, Eklund G, Hamberger L, Linnarsson D, Sedvall G, Valverius M. Perinatal origin of adult self-destructive behavior. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1987 Oct;76(4):364–371.

Jacobson B, Nyberg K, Eklund G, Bygdeman M, Rydberg U. Obstetric pain medication and eventual adult amphetamine addiction in offspring. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67(8):677–682.

Hynes MD, Berkowitz BA. Catecholamine mechanisms in the stimulation of mouse locomotor activity by nitrous oxide and morphine. Eur J Pharmacol. 1983 May 20;90(1):109–114.

KOVACH JK. EFFECTS OF AUTONOMIC DRUGS ON IMPRINTING. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1964 Apr;57:183–187. [PubMed]
Brazelton TB. Effect of prenatal drugs on the behavior of the neonate. Am J Psychiatry. 1970 Mar;126(9):1261–1266.

Please note this study was published in the British Medical Journal:

Quotes from the study:

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Administration of opiates, barbiturates, and nitrous oxide (for greater than 1 h) to mothers of all subjects during labour within 10 hours before birth as a risk factor for adult opiate addiction.

RESULTS--In subjects who had subsequently become addicts a significant proportion of mothers had received opiates or barbiturates, or both, compared with unmatched siblings (25% v 16%, chi 2 = 5.83, df = 1, p = 0.02), and these mothers had received nitrous oxide for longer and more often.

After controlling for hospital of birth, order of birth, duration of labour, presentation other than vertex, surgical intervention, asphyxia, meconium stained amniotic fluid, and birth weight the relative risk for offspring subsequently becoming an adult opiate addict increased with the number of administrations of any of the three drugs.

When the addicts were matched with their own siblings the estimated relative risk was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 12.4, p for trend = 0.002) for three administrations compared with when no drug was given.

CONCLUSIONS--The results are compatible with the imprinting hypothesis. Therefore, for obstetric pain relief methods are preferable that do not permit substantial passage of drugs through the placenta.

I don't have the gumption to do the work to link to any more, and frankly there is not a whole lot out there. Mostly just a handful of news stories and a couple of articles referencing this study.

But the study you have asked for is indeed being done in our society. We are right now sowing the wind with our children and grandchildren, and we are going to reap the whirlwind in another generation or two. I think it will probably be fifty years before we all collectively stand back and realize what we have done to our posterity with the drugs and violent birth. I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything, but you asked for evidence, and this is the best I can offer at this time.

The big pharma companies run the world right now and they are not going to give up that power and money without a tremendous fight. One of the ways they have fought hardest is by not doing the long term studies on what their "dope hath wrought" in the delivery rooms.

Reminds me of a statement by The Famous Chiropractor Bernard Jensen, who said in his book Empty Harvest...."if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."

I am attempting to ask the right questions as a mother. My children only have me and my husband to protect them from the money making schemes of conspiring men. And if we don't do it, nobody else will. I'm willing to live with the long term consequences of my life choices.

Are you?

Jenny

lurkette · 07-03-2007, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

The drug generation in America came One Generation after widespread drug use in birth. An experiment that had never before played out in our worlds history. Ever wonder why so many kids of the 60's and 70's were drawn to drugs?

I'm going to play Cynthetiq for a moment....

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!!!

The experimentation that happened in the 60s and 70s was the result of a complex matrix of social forces that led youth culture to rebel against the strictures of a conformist and repressed/ive culture. If your argument held any water at all, the 98% rate of use of epidurals in childbirth should equal a 98% drug addiction rate. The best researchers on drug addiction have identified a number of factors that lead to addiction, including genetic miswiring of the dopamine system in the brain. I'm not going to go digging for a few studies so I can see if they're bunk or not; you're the one espousing off-the-wall theories, so the burden of proof is upon you. If you don't care to produce your evidence, I'm not going to be swayed by some hypothetical "studies" that you claim back up your position, and that you're not willing to produce to be evaluated as to their validity and credibility. Are they in peer-reviewed journals? What was their methodology? Are they epidemiological studies?

Fuck health care, what we need in this country is a massive campaign for scientific literacy so people can tell their asses from their elbows when it comes to "evidence." Just because someone with letters behind their name says something doesn't make it a fact.

*hemhem*

You might also want to look into the following cognitive phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Quote:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is an area of interest in the teaching of critical thinking as the skill is misused when rigorous critical scrutiny is applied to evidence supporting a preconceived idea but not to evidence challenging the same preconception.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go bang my head against a wall, as it will do just about as much good as trying to bring logic to this argument.

abaya · 07-03-2007, 06:31 AM

All of the studies you cited are nearly 20+ years old (most recent one was 1988). Do you have anything more recent? Particularly something from the Journal of the American Medical Association or another well-known journal, say in the last 2-5 years? Just to prove that it wasn't a fad (as things go with academic publishing).

Also, from the following...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Administration of opiates, barbiturates, and nitrous oxide (for greater than 1 h) to mothers of all subjects during labour within 10 hours before birth as a risk factor for adult opiate addiction.

RESULTS--In subjects who had subsequently become addicts a significant proportion of mothers had received opiates or barbiturates, or both, compared with unmatched siblings (25% v 16%, chi 2 = 5.83, df = 1, p = 0.02), and these mothers had received nitrous oxide for longer and more often.

After controlling for hospital of birth, order of birth, duration of labour, presentation other than vertex, surgical intervention, asphyxia, meconium stained amniotic fluid, and birth weight the relative risk for offspring subsequently becoming an adult opiate addict increased with the number of administrations of any of the three drugs.

When the addicts were matched with their own siblings the estimated relative risk was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 12.4, p for trend = 0.002) for three administrations compared with when no drug was given.

CONCLUSIONS--The results are compatible with the imprinting hypothesis. Therefore, for obstetric pain relief methods are preferable that do not permit substantial passage of drugs through the placenta.

... I see no n whatsoever. Also, who decided that the p=0.002 for this "trend?" I'd like to know if this is a common p value and why, because in similar fields of research a p of lower than 0.05 cannot hold water.

Cynthetiq · 07-03-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Drugs in Labour
Little research has been done into the long-term effects of Demerol. However, infants with high Demerol exposure were more likely to cry when handled on days seven, 21 and 42, as were those with a high cord-blood concentration on day 21. Demerol also reduced the infant's ability to quiet himself once aroused. This was still observed at three and six weeks (Belsey, 1981). It is interesting that researchers consider three to six weeks to be "long-term." Our definition would be in years.

So babies who have been free birthed or have had no demerol are not more likely to cry when handled on days seven, 21, and 42???? WTF is that???

Babies cry. That's how they communicate since they have no other method of alerting the mother of hunger or issue.

Quote:

In a well-designed case control study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in 1990, researchers compared children exposed to pain-relieving drugs in labour with those who were not exposed and discovered an increased risk of drug addiction later in life (Jacobson et al., 1990). In 1988 they showed that when nitrous oxide was given to the mother the child was five and one-half times more likely to become an amphetamine addict than a brother or sister born to the same parents. In their paper in the British Medical Journal(1990), patients who had died from opiate addiction were compared with brothers and sisters; the researchers found that if the mothers had been given opiates or barbiturates or larger doses of nitrous oxide, the risk to the child of opiate addiction in later life was increased 4.7 times. In a further study, researchers discovered that the risk of drug addiction was related to the hospital in which they were born. In other words, the likelihood of a child developing drug addiction in later life depended on the labour ward policies of the hospital the mother chose for the birth, and I quote: "For the amphetamine addicts, hospital of birth was found to be an important risk factor even after controlling for residential area" (Nyberg, 1993). Jacobson and Nyberg’s research suggests that the use of opiates, barbiturates and nitrous oxide in labour causes imprinting in the babies, and we are now reaping the whirlwind.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that one out of every nine American children is significantly learning disabled despite having normal intelligence. Seventy-five percent of these children are born at full term into middle- and upper-class families. The U.S. National Institute of Health estimates that 75 percent to 85 percent of all disabled children in the United States were born within the normal range of birth weight and gestational age and had no familial or sociologic predisposing factors (Haire, 1989).

In 1984, Desmond Bardon suggested that a significant proportion of the millions of children and youths in the United States who are afflicted with significant mental and neurologic dysfunction are the victims of obstetric medications administered with the very best of intentions to the mother during labour and birth in medicalised maternity units. Not only have Bardon’s concerns not been addressed, but since that time even more women and babies have been subjected to high levels of drugs in pregnancy and labour, and little has been done to investigate the possibility that the huge increases in drug addiction and associated crime are a direct result of the drugs used on the labour wards. While various agencies work hard to pull the bodies out of the river, no one is investigating who is pushing them in upstream. It is time they did.

Quote:

Jacobson, B. et al. (1990). Opiate addiction in adult offspring through possible imprinting after obstetric treatment. British Medical Journal, 301:1067-1070

Subjects and methods
ADDICTS AND CONTROLS
The birth records for 200 opiate addicts born in Stockholm during 1945-66 were gathered from three
sources: (a) 41 opiate addicts identified when interviewing probands at the Stockholm County Custody
for a study of amphetamine addiction6 (of the total of 260 addicts of then unknown drug preference asked to participate, 11 (4-2%) refused and birth records could not be found for one opiate addict (2 4%)); (b) all 75 unambiguous cases of death from opiate addiction for which necropsies had been performed at the State Institute of Forensic Medicine in Stockholm during 1978-88, and in which, according to medical records at the county custody, the subjects had been categorised as opiate users (among a total of 80 subjects, birth records could not be retrieved for five (6 3%)); and (c) 84 opiate addicts accepted for the methadone programme at the Ulleraker Hospital (the first subjects responding were included to obtain the required total of 200 subjects; of a total of 120, another 31 (26%) were
originally considered for participation but not included, and of 89 addicts the birth records were missing for five (5-6%).

Two hundred and sixty two siblings were born in Stockholm during 1945-66, of whom, 24 were also
drug addicts or had been brought up outside the family, and they were consequently excluded from the
study. For eight of the remaining siblings, birth records could not be retrieved, yielding 230 siblings for
comparison with 139 probands who had siblings. The proportions of males among the addicts and their
siblings were 74% and 48%, respectively.

Quote:

Nyberg, K. et al. (1993). Obstetric medication versus residential area as perinatal risk factors for subsequent adult drug addiction in offspring. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 7: 2332.

Department of Clinical Alcohol and Drug Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

In an attempt to explain pronounced uneven distributions of births of subsequent amphetamine and opiate addicts at seven hospitals in Stockholm, two possible mechanisms for adult drug addiction were weighed against each other: (1) risk factors associated with the obstetric care at the hospitals of birth of the addicts and (2) risk factors associated with the phenomenon of 'contagious' transmission of drug addiction in certain residential areas during adolescence. The subjects comprised 200 amphetamine addicts and 200 opiate addicts born between 1945 and 1966. By loglinear analysis the relative risk for future addiction was determined for eight residential areas as well as for the seven hospitals and four periods of birth. For the opiate addicts only one weak association was found for the residential area, which could not explain fully a clustering of births at any particular hospital. For the amphetamine addicts, hospital of birth was found to be an important risk factor even after controlling for residential area. Hence, the variable residential area has not been able to explain the uneven distribution of births of drug abusers among the studied hospitals

Nyberg and Jacobsen both worked on this study together, the implication that theres is alot of research is faulty. The write up was published in 1990 and again in 1993 is from the same study.

I would also challenge that the sample of 200 is quite small in comparison to the total amount of births on record that do not result in drug addicted adults. If their findings are correct, then as lurkette suggested, you'd have a much higher drug addict rate here.

Quote:

I agree that much of the FreeBirth movement is built on emotion and mothers intuition that we are not being well served by the allopathic birth machine. We don't have any financial backers, and very few professionals support our choice for birth. We have had no scientific studies to back up our claims, and we are one of the least funded grassroots movements probably ever to exist. But we are growing, at an Alarming rate, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians in the UK. And the Canadian Docs And the Aussie Docs

Okay, you yourself admit that it is an emotional response and mother's intution. And then further state tha you have no scientific studies to back up our claims. Why then espouse all these studies? Why pretend that there is evidence to support your claims. Either there is evidence or there isn't. You just finally came around and said that there isn't any evidence. Why the charade?

Again, we've stated before the community is about respect for people and their lifestyle decisions. But to put out blatant misrepresentation of information, someone is going to call you on it. It doesn't change the fact that we do or don't agree with your position and lifestyle choices. It also should not hinder the fact as to how we perceive you within the community, your own actions provide that.

You mentioned that it was faith that moved you to this movement. That is wonderful and your choice. If you poke around our community you'll find that there are a number of people who have monotheistic, polytheistic, athiest, and agnostic beliefs.

Quote:

I completely funded our second conference in 2001, which was attended by about 30 families and the children outnumbered the adults two to one. We didn't have some big pharmacuetical company waiting in the wings, sending money hand over fist to support us.

Great for you. That is a benevolent endeavor. What does that have to do pharmacuetical company sponsorship? What does that have to do with any kind of sponsorship whatsoever? There are many community events that are done without any kind of coporate sponsoship. This site is a good example of one. It is entirely donor driven. Again, there are many events that are done across America that don't get any kind of sponsorship whatsoever.

But let me get to the crucial part of the last sentence, why would any pharmacuetical company want to give you any money or support you? I don't understand why you specifically state that. Again, I'll say that you are manipulating the conversation to create an emotional reponse from the reader to lead them to support you.

Quote:

The ACOG docs are probably all out playing golf, and that is why they have not jumped on the Anti Freebirth wagon train.

Again, why this comment? What does it add to supporting your statements?

sapiens · 07-03-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Also, from the following... ... I see no n whatsoever. Also, who decided that the p=0.002 for this "trend?" I'd like to know if this is a common p value and why, because in similar fields of research a p of lower than 0.05 cannot hold water.

In a given statistical test, the p value is the probability that an observed difference between groups is due to chance, rather than real differences between the two groups. Some fields adopt more stringent cutoffs than .05.

abaya, independent of the studies cited by Jenny, it's generally the other way around. The p value of the test must be lower than .05 "to hold water".

abaya · 07-03-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

In a given statistical test, the p value is the probability that an observed difference between groups is due to chance, rather than real differences between the two groups. Some fields adopt more stringent cutoffs than .05.

Independent of the studies cited, it's generally the other way around. The p value of the test must be lower than .05 "to hold water".

You're right in both cases; I work in the social sciences, so .05 is often the standard for us. I was curious what was standard in the studies she was looking at, if that was known.

On the second part, yep you got me there, I was flipping it in my head (thank you, last summer's statistics course)

Cynthetiq · 07-03-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

You're right in both cases; I work in the social sciences, so .05 is often the standard for us. I was curious what was standard in the studies she was looking at, if that was known.

On the second part, yep you got me there, I was flipping it in my head (thank you, last summer's statistics course)

so then p for trend = 0.002 means it "holds water"?

Jenny Hatch · 07-03-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Okay, you yourself admit that it is an emotional response and mother's intution. And then further state tha you have no scientific studies to back up our claims. Why then espouse all these studies? Why pretend that there is evidence to support your claims.

Either there is evidence or there isn't. You just finally came around and said that there isn't any evidence. Why the charade?

Again, why this comment? What does it add to supporting your statements?

I shared the studies because people asked for scientific information.

In reading over the thread, I was told in no uncertain terms that:

A. NO information whatsoever exists to link violent birth to violence later in life.

I shared some links and quotes and they were dismissed.

B. NO doctors would use Cytotec for induction of labor because it is contra indicated in birth.

I shared links and quotes and they were again either ignored or dismissed

C. Birth drugs DO NOT lead to drug addiction later in life

I shared a study and a couple of links and you feel the need to completely dismiss what I have shared as not quite scientific enough for your own personal scientific standards.

I heckle and make fun of the American Obstetric trade union (ACOG) because they suffer from an alarming lack of curiosity and scientific inquiry and have no interest in doing long term studies about the way they deliver babies, and you say this is not part of the equation as to why women are choosing freebirth?

It is exactly the reason families are choosing freebirth.

And it is in fact the most educated women (knowledgeable about birth) who are choosing to give birth at home alone.

Have you read Henci Goers Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities?

I think it would satisfy your scientific mind to consider her words:

Quote:

This book is an attempt to make the medical literature on a variety of key obstetric issues accessible to people who lack the time, expertise, access, or proximity to a medical library to research concerns on their own. Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities is a compact reference, scholarly yet understandable to people without medical training, and organized so that readers can easily find the information they want.

Dr. Wagner has written a new book, Born in the USA

Quote:

The United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, despite the fact that it's one of the most expensive maternity care systems. Dr. Marsden Wagner is the former director of Women and Children's Health at the World Health Organization and he says the system is broken. Dr. Wagner joins host Bruce Gellerman to discuss his book “Born in the USA – How a Broken Maternity System Must Be Fixed to Put Women and Children First”.

Quote:

Well, the problem is that the obstetric profession 100 years ago decided to drive out the midwives because they were taking their patients. And they wanted the field to themselves. So they started campaigns in many states, witch-hunts essentially, to claim that midwives don't know what they're doing. They're killing babies and so forth. And they succeeded in driving midwifery out of our country. They didn't do that in any other country. And in every country in the world, except ours, highly trained midwives catch the vast majority of babies except for the 10 or 15 percent where there's a serious medical problem. But in our country the obstetricians try to catch all the babies and get all the money and all the credit. And this is a very broken way to do things. We have good scientific data showing that doing it this way means many more dead women and many more dead babies.

I said I did not have any scientific studies on Freebirth, because none have been done, but some studies that have shown linkage between drugged birth and later drug addiction have been conducted and when various people were throwing out ugly epithets towards me about how I was so full of it, I just wanted to share the little bit of research that has been done. I think we need a couple dozen more, paid for by Big Pharma.

The American People should demand it.

As for unscientific studies, Judy Rall over at Unhindered living has been collecting statistics for a couple of years on UC Birth.

And I conducted an online survery for my book Elijah Birth in 1999 and included the stats in the book. Judys very small study shows we have a remarkably low C-section rate of 2 per 201 and a remarkably high rate of success with .99% failed UC attempts.

But I am not a researcher, a scientist, or a doctor. I have two years of musical theatre training at the university level.

Almost all, 99% of our information on the internet, in our books, newsletters, conferences, movies is anecdotal.

I know the information is easy to dismiss if you are a scientist.

But sometimes the best things in life come when you step out of the realm of what "seems" normal and take a quantum faith leap into something completely different.

I would have to define Freebirth as one of the best choices I have ever made in my life.

Joy, pure unadulterated JOY when I give birth.

Jenny Hatch

analog · 07-03-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

I agree that much of the FreeBirth movement is built on emotion and mothers intuition... [...] ...and very few professionals support our choice for birth. We have had no scientific studies to back up our claims...

Oh thank God, now I don't have to read the rest of that post. Thank you for putting that first.

telekinetic · 07-03-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

Oh thank God, now I don't have to read the rest of this thread

+1, with slight alteration. I was skimming the whole thread before going back to dive into Jenny's intimidatingly dense posts and try to understand them. This saved me the trouble.

Never before in the history of TFP have I seen so many respected members, weighing in on both sides of an arguement, attempt so many times to wrangle intelligent debate out of someone clearly set out spewing large volumes of VERY thinly disguised propoganda.

It speaks volumes about the maturity of the forum that we keep trying to bring this back to ingelligent discourse, but, good grief...unless we've decided to sit back and enjoy the carnage, isn't it time to throw in the locking towel?

Again...wow.

highthief · 07-03-2007, 04:59 PM

As the thread starter, I'm amazed anyone has the energy left to argue with Ms. Hatch.

It's like arguing for democracy and apple pie to bin Laden or trying to convince the Pope that the Baptists have got it right.

She obviously holds deep rooted, faith driven beliefs that are incompatible with scientific evidence.

Jenny Hatch · 07-03-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

As the thread starter, I'm amazed anyone has the energy left to argue with Ms. Hatch.

It's like arguing for democracy and apple pie to bin Laden or trying to convince the Pope that the Baptists have got it right.

She obviously holds deep rooted, faith driven beliefs that are incompatible with scientific evidence.

Personal attacks?

I have not attacked any of you personally. Yet you three who just posted, didn't even bother to answer my claims, links, quotes, etc...

Why Not?

Quote:

"Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

Quote:

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims."

The onus is on all of you to PROVE to me that Medicated Birth is better than Freebirth.

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

Go ahead, you are the ones with all the science on your side.

Prove it.

Jenny Hatch

The_Jazz · 07-03-2007, 06:11 PM

Jenny, perhaps you should reread both of my posts with the story of my nephew's birth. Both mother and child would have died without immediate medical intervention. As it was, my nephew was deprived of oxygen for a number of minutes, which could have been complete avoided had my sister-in-law had a trained professional on hand or, better yet, been in a hospital.

There's the quote you were looking for. One example of absolute proof that, in at least that case, you're absolutely wrong. You've ignored it up to now. Care to do it again?

As for the comments about personal attacks, please don't try to goad people into flaming you. Not only does it detract from your argument, but it makes you look both insincere and desperate for attention. We call people that do that "attention whores" or "trolls". Don't be either. The three members you've singled out are all highly thought of here, and they don't deserve your disrespect.

analog · 07-03-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

As the thread starter, I'm amazed anyone has the energy left to argue

An ex of mine once pointed out, after a lengthy discussion, that I would probably argue/debate until I passed out, rather than give up.

I talk in my sleep... I like to think that if I ever debated until I passed out, I'd continue to debate while sleeping.

lol

ngdawg · 07-03-2007, 06:49 PM

Fact #2(in the same vein as The_Jazz-personal testimony)
Twins conceived with medical science, in this case, GIFT. 31st week, premature labor, hospitalized in what I referred to as the "Not Ready for Primetime Motherhood" ward, administered magnesium drip and checked several times a day for bleeding. Sent home with 4 week supply of Brethine(sp?) to stall onset of labor.
Sonograms every 4 weeks to chart progress.
40th week, no sign of beginnings of labor. Doctor decides to induce due to overextension of uterus coupled with no dilation. Baby A had been shown effaced, baby B breech. Doctor says he will birth A, turn B.
After 24 hours of Pitocin drip with no progress, Dr. breaks water-labor begins. Epidural administered at 7 centimeters.
While seeking to place fontel monitor on Baby A, assisting intern can't find her head. Sonogram ordered. Baby A had gone back up, pushing Baby B, still breech into birth canal. Subsequent labor pushes Baby B dangerously downward, cord around neck. Caesarian section is imminent. Baby B successfully born by C-section, 6.5lbs, 20.5 inches. Baby A, also breech, follows, 6.0 lbs, 19.75 inches. Both healthy. Mother had passed out from exhaustion during birth of Baby A.
*****
Looking up mortality rates is child's play, really, but let's have a look:
Taking NJ figures for 1900 and comparing to 2000:
Deaths by age, 1900. Under 1 month, 2252, rate 7.2%.
Deaths by age, 2000. Under 1 month, 499, rate .07%.
Of the 6,979 total infant deaths in 1900, 2,252 or 32% were neonatal. Total infant mortality rate-216.3 per 1,000 or over 1/5 before the first birthday.
Of the 723 total infant deaths in 2000, 499 or 69% were neonatal. Total infant mortality rate, though, was 6.3 per 1,000.
The drop of infant mortality rates from 1900-2000, 20% to .63%(less than 1%).

Some things that contributed to this large drop: Prenatal care. Vaccinations.
Surgical procedure improvements. Antibiotics. Improved pediatric and neonatal care and diagnoses techniques.
While argumentatively, one could look at the above figures and say "well, neonatal percentages went UP", one must look at how many in fact died in the two comparative years and deduce that the neonatal numbers went down 75%. Advancements in neonatal care can not be ignored or dismissed.

Jenny Hatch · 07-03-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

There's the quote you were looking for. One example of absolute proof that, in at least that case, you're absolutely wrong. You've ignored it up to now. Care to do it again?

As for the comments about personal attacks, please don't try to goad people into flaming you. Not only does it detract from your argument, but it makes you look both insincere and desperate for attention. We call people that do that "attention whores" or "trolls". Don't be either. The three members you've singled out are all highly thought of here, and they don't deserve your disrespect.

I am not a troll or a whore in any way shape or form.

I am someone whose lifestyle is being threatened by doctors who are calling for me to be prosecuted for manslaughter should something happen during my Freebirth.

I am not goading anyone about anything. Lots of poo has been flung in my direction the past two days.

I am asking for evidence that medical birth is better. Not personal anecdotes.

Infant mortality rates that are thrown around to disprove homebirth are usually from the height of the Industrial Revolution and compiled at some teaching hospital in a big city, where women were notoriously undernourished and overworked. The fact that they also gave birth in a hospital during that time of no hand washing and no infrastructure in hospital for proper hygiene, also makes the stats suspect. London during the industrial revolution was a very dangerous place to birth a child, yet those stats are often used to compare and contrast the "progress" of medicine the past hundred years.

A powerful personal study is to go look at your own geneological records. Go back two hundred years and just look at your own family. Baby after baby after baby being born. Mothers made it through birth number one and on to birth number sixteen, over and over again. No doctors in sight.

Doctors have been in control of birth in America, especially on the east coast for TWO HUNDRED years, not a hundred, as many people think. To get true stats for birth go look at the geneological records from the families who lived in America during the revolution. During that time it felt like every patriot came from an unusually large family, or went on to father one. What did they know with the lack of doctors, modern hospitals, and no anti-biotics or chemical vaccines in sight that allowed them to give birth to those huge babies. I've read the midwives diaries...those women were consistently birthing eleven pound babies, the midwives tended to be amazed at a thirteen or fourteen pounder, but eleven pounds seemed to be the norm.

When mothers are well nourished, rested, and armed with some good birthing information, they are fully capable of giving birth all by themselves. Most of them, most of the time.

I also asked about economics, emotional, spiritual, and hormonal proof that hospital birth is better.

All you have to do to know that women are not being served in birth is look at the post partum depression rates. Traumatic birth is a huge trigger for depression and anxiety.

Jenny

ngdawg · 07-03-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

I am not a troll or a whore in any way shape or form.

I am someone whose lifestyle is being threatened by doctors who are calling for me to be prosecuted for manslaughter should something happen during my Freebirth.

ONE doctor. Drama is not discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

I am not goading anyone about anything. Lots of poo has been flung in my direction the past two days.

I am asking for evidence that medical birth is better. Not personal anecdotes.

But why are yours ok? Fact is, personal anecdotes ARE evidence, good or bad. No one has flung anything but queries. Each gets a defensive comeback and obscure 'studies' done by individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

Infant mortality rates that are thrown around to disprove homebirth are usually from the height of the Industrial Revolution and compiled at some teaching hospital in a big city, where women were notoriously undernourished and overworked. The fact that they also gave birth in a hospital during that time of no hand washing and no infrastructure in hospital for proper hygiene, also makes the stats suspect. London during the industrial revolution was a very dangerous place to birth a child, yet those stats are often used to compare and contrast the "progress" of medicine the past hundred years.

EVERY place 100 to 200 years ago was a dangerous place to give birth!!!
Doctors now wash their hands....among other things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

A powerful personal study is to go look at your own geneological records. Go back two hundred years and just look at your own family. Baby after baby after baby being born. Mothers made it through birth number one and on to birth number sixteen, over and over again. No doctors in sight.

Well, if you must know, I don't have any, personally, as they were all lost during the Holocaust. However, I do know my great-grandmother had 8 kids, including two sets of twins, but only 3 girls made it past the age of 5, one being my grandmother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

Doctors have been in control of birth in America, especially on the east coast for TWO HUNDRED years, not a hundred, as many people think. To get true stats for birth go look at the geneological records from the families who lived in America during the revolution. During that time it felt like every patriot came from an unusually large family, or went on to father one. What did they know with the lack of doctors, modern hospitals, and no anti-biotics or chemical vaccines in sight that allowed them to give birth to those huge babies. I've read the midwives diaries...those women were consistently birthing eleven pound babies, the midwives tended to be amazed at a thirteen or fourteen pounder, but eleven pounds seemed to be the norm.

When mothers are well nourished, rested, and armed with some good birthing information, they are fully capable of giving birth all by themselves. Most of them, most of the time.

I also asked about economics, emotional, spiritual, and hormonal proof that hospital birth is better.

All you have to do to know that women are not being served in birth is look at the post partum depression rates. Traumatic birth is a huge trigger for depression and anxiety.

Jenny

Post partum depression rates are not increasing, just the reporting and treatment of them. And why? Uh....improved medical practices. The same improvements that found that, unlike the medical belief of the Civil War that all that puss in wounds was actually beneficial, it meant disaster loomed....
Again, you have not proven anything you'd noted. Anecdotal evidence is evidence until proven otherwise; no less than 3 here have stated unequivocably that it was medical intervention that saved their newborns' lives. I'd go so far as to say that medical interference(as you would believe it to be) did NOT harm anyone's life in your own case, just left whatever sour taste you got from it and, in fact, allowed you to spend MORE time with the one child you had by C-section. Just saying....

analog · 07-03-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

I am someone whose lifestyle is being threatened by doctors who are calling for me to be prosecuted for manslaughter should something happen during my Freebirth.

Would you expect everyone to be fine with it if one of your children fell ill, and you simply decided that medical intervention was "too corporate" or somesuch other personal opinion, resulting in their death? That would be child neglect.

It seems like it's a terrible neglect to have the means to seek proper medical prenatal care/prevention and actively deny it. Wanting to have birth naturally is one thing, and very doable, but insisting that you not see any doctors for prenatal care, and then give birth without any medical supervision on standby, is just careless.

Hypothetical...

A child falls ill... a "doctors are corporate bullshit" opinion kills the child because the mother doesn't seek any medical attention for the child. That mother is guilty of child neglect.

An unborn child receives no prenatal care by a medical professional, and is not monitored for complications of development. That child dies at birth due to factors that normal medical care would have foreseen and been able to correct...

...and that's NOT neglectful?

You deny medical care to your unborn child, and that child dies due to medically foreseeable and correctable complications... and you think it's NOT your fault?

And not for nothing, but if I was the husband of such a woman, and that woman killed MY baby because SHE had some insane vendetta against doctors, and the child died because it was given no proper medical attention, that woman would no longer be my wife. You will have killed the child for no reason. None whatsoever.

You'd look really silly burying that tiny body and telling people at the funeral that the kid is dead because of your extreme anti-doctor stance.

Cynthetiq · 07-03-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

The onus is on all of you to PROVE to me that Medicated Birth is better than Freebirth.

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

Go ahead, you are the ones with all the science on your side.

Prove it.

Jenny Hatch

More tu quoque? Again, you are the one asserting your beliefs here, and people challenged you to it. You easily could have stated up fron that it was your emotional and religious beliefs that bring you to where you are today. It would have stood as it is. But to insinuate flawed statistics as supportive of your choices, many of us will double check that. Many of us will do the due diligence to understand.

But I'll take the challenge because it keeps me honed on finding research and doublechecking someone else's facts. It also is a good way for me to verify my own beliefs with facts as opposed to taking that leap of faith that someone else who was credible to pass on their belief to me instead of me finding my own evidence.

I'll start with entries from wikipedia and work my way out:

Quote:

Infant mortality is the death of infants in the first year of life. The most common cause of infant mortality worldwide has traditionally been dehydration from diarrhea. Because of the success of spreading information about Oral Rehydration Solution (a mixture of salts, sugar, and water) to mothers around the world, the rate of children dying from dehydration has been decreasing and has become the second most common cause in the late 1990s. Currently the most common cause is pneumonia. Major causes of infant mortality in more developed countries include congenital malformation, infection and SIDS.

Infanticide, abuse, abandonment, and neglect may also contribute to infant mortality.

Related statistical categories:

Perinatal mortality only includes deaths between the foetal viability (28 weeks gestation) and the end of the 7th day after delivery.
Neonatal mortality only includes deaths in the first 27 days of life.
Post-neonatal death only includes deaths after 28 days of life but before one year.
Child mortality includes deaths within the first five years after birth.
Infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of newborns dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births during the year. The infant mortality rate is also called the infant death rate. In past times, infant mortality claimed a considerable percentage of children born, but the rates have significantly declined in the West in modern times, mainly due to improvements in basic health care, though high technology medical advances have also helped. Infant mortality rate is commonly included as a part of standard of living evaluations in economics.

Quote:

Perinatal Mortality Rate
The PNMR refers to the number of perinatal deaths per 1,000 total births. It is usually reported on an annual basis. It is a major marker to assess the quality of health care delivery. Comparisons between different rates may be hampered by varying definitions, registration bias, and differences in the underlying risks of the populations.

from Nationmaster.com

from Statemaster.com

PNMRs vary widely and may be below 10 for certain developed countries and more than 10 times higher in developing countries [1]. The WHO has not published contemporary data.

Quote:

WHO
Probability of dying (per 1000) under age five years (under-5 mortality rate)

Rationale for use
Under-5 mortality rate is a leading indicator of the level of child health and overall development in countries. It is also a MDG indicator.

Definition
Probability of a child born in a specific year or period dying before reaching the age of five, if subject to age-specific mortality rates of that period.

Associated terms
Under-5 mortality rate, is strictly speaking, not a rate (i.e. the number of deaths divided by the number of population at risk during a certain period of time) but a probability of death derived from a life table and expressed as rate per 1,000 live births.

Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.

Quote:

Global infant mortality trends
For the world, and for both Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and More Developed Countries (MDCs), IMR declined significantly between 1960 and 2001. World infant mortality rate declined from 198 in 1960 to 83 in 2001.

Infant mortality is inversely related to per capita GDP.However, IMR remained higher in LDCs. In 2001, the Infant Mortality Rate for Less Developed Countries (91) was about 10 times as large as it was for More Developed Countries (8). For Least Developed Countries, the Infant Mortality Rate is 17 times as high as it is for More Developed Countries. Also, while both LDCs and MDCs made dramatic reductions in infant mortality rates, reductions among less developed countries are much less than are reductions among the more developed countries, on average.

Now one would think that the freebirthing movement would be exactly what the poorer countries are doing naturally right? There is no presence of big hospitals? People being able to birth at home. Angola? Ethiopia? Bangladesh? High infant mortality.

Iceland with hospitals and midwives, very low infant mortality.

highthief · 07-04-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

A powerful personal study is to go look at your own geneological records. Go back two hundred years and just look at your own family. Baby after baby after baby being born. Mothers made it through birth number one and on to birth number sixteen, over and over again. No doctors in sight.

Excuse me but that is ... insane.

I have charted my own family tree for between 6 to 10 generations, depending on the branch. My family comes from rural areas of Cheshire and Wales in the UK, and from the city of Liverpool (the tough parts).

The genealogical record is littered with dead babies, still births, and dead mothers - it's the same for most people.

When I walk down to the pioneer cemetary here in town in Ontario, countless examples of gravestones with a mother and child who died at the same time. I guarantee there weren't many doctors about the town. And these women - my own family in the UK and the pioneers here in Ontario - they all would have had support from other women more experienced in childbirth than yourself or most any modern woman.

This is something that is easy for most anyone here to checkout at their local cemetary.

Or go to:

http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/

Or a similar site and check out the dead mothers and children.

You are way off base with you assertation.

abaya · 07-04-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so then p for trend = 0.002 means it "holds water"?

Well, I'm still waiting to hear what Jenny says is the standard p value in the field she's quoting. In anthropology, below 0.05 might be fine, but it varies for each field. That's the problem with statistics... you can prove that almost anything "holds water," if you want to.

ShaniFaye · 07-04-2007, 06:01 AM

You dont even want to get this genealogist started with your comments. I have been tracing families for over 25 years, I know just how many of the "16" children families I have researched had children even reach the age of 1.

Your trying to disclaim infant mortality before 1900 just because ngdawg picked the state she lived in is ludacris. The big problem is that most states didnt start doing death certificates until around 1913ish so there is no "government" proof of why these babies died.

All you have to do is look at a census report.

I added up on a 1910 census for a rural county in GA (this census shows how many births a woman had and how many of those children were living

in 1910 out of 307 women they had 1555 births....961 of those children lived, thats a little of 60% which means an average of a 38% mortality rate, in just ONE county. Granted some of these deaths were from accident/illness etc, still not one woman in that county that had 15+ children had more than 7 live

so dont come telling me that medical intervention in births isnt a plus

sapiens · 07-04-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Well, I'm still waiting to hear what Jenny says is the standard p value in the field she's quoting. In anthropology, below 0.05 might be fine, but it varies for each field. That's the problem with statistics... you can prove that almost anything "holds water," if you want to.

My understanding is that medicine has stricter standards than the social sciences. Even then, p=0.002 is a fairly strict standard. That said, p< whatever doesn't automatically make something "hold water". There are a variety of other factors to consider when evaluating a study independent of the field: effect size, experimental design, composition of the sample, etc.

Also, I disagree that you can prove that almost anything "holds water" with statistics (and that it's a problem with statistics):

1) You can't prove anything anywhere in science with or without statistics.

2)The strength of statistics (and peer-reviewed journal articles) is that everything is there on the page. You can read how statistics were used to evaluate a given study. You can come to the conclusion that they used the wrong analysis or that some other aspect of the study was lacking.

3) The explicit nature of the study and the accompanying description of the statistical analysis used is a recipe of sorts for others to use to replicate the study. Perhaps the authors hypotheses were supported in this study, but will not be supported in subsequent replication attempts.

In regard to the study being discussed, there are a variety of other factors to consider other than the p value:
1) How big was the effect size? From the study, it appears that barbituate usage during the birthing process increases the likelihood of later barbituate addiction 1-7x. But what is the base likelihood? A 1-7x increase in likelihood might not be that much.

2) Has the study been replicated?

3) Have similar studies been done using samples taken from populations other than Swedes?

4) Are opiate addicts and their siblings a representative sample?

5) Are there other factors that account for greater amounts of the variance in barbituate usage in adulthood?

6) Have other studies shown contradictory effects? At least one of the links provided by Jenny led to a study by the same authors suggesting that barbituate usage during delivery leads to a lower risk of suicide later in life.

7) What are the consequences of not administering drugs when medically necessary? Are those consequences worse than an increase in likelihood of barbituate use later in life?

8) What percentage of births actually involve barbituate administration? And to the degree necessary to produce the effect described in the study? In order to achieve the 7x increase in likelihood, three doses of barbituates must be administered.

9) Barbituate during delivery is only a very small part of the larger issue of free-birthing. I have clearly become sidetracked in this thread by this issue.

My last comment on the study: The authors conclude that obstetric pain relief methods are preferable that do not permit substantial passage of drugs through the placenta. I can agree with that.

Cynthetiq, thanks for the infant mortality data. It was informative.

ngdawg · 07-04-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

You dont even want to get this genealogist started with your comments. I have been tracing families for over 25 years, I know just how many of the "16" children families I have researched had children even reach the age of 1.

Your trying to disclaim infant mortality before 1900 just because ngdawg picked the state she lived in is ludacris. The big problem is that most states didnt start doing death certificates until around 1913ish so there is no "government" proof of why these babies died.

All you have to do is look at a census report.

I added up on a 1910 census for a rural county in GA (this census shows how many births a woman had and how many of those children were living

in 1910 out of 307 women they had 1555 births....961 of those children lived, thats a little of 60% which means an average of a 38% mortality rate, in just ONE county. Granted some of these deaths were from accident/illness etc, still not one woman in that county that had 15+ children had more than 7 live

so dont come telling me that medical intervention in births isnt a plus

Your county stats match the NJ ones. I'd be willing to bet any other county or state stats from c1900-1915 would show a similar mortality rate of 32%-38%, an alarming amount when you think about it, but not unrealisitic under the (then) circumstances. Taking into consideration the however modest improvements of living conditions and medical advancement from, say, c1850-1900, one might conclude that those rates probably were closer to 50% in those decades. I'll have to Google some more

Cyn: you rock! Great charts

Ok, I Googled more and found this very comprehensive PDF: http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/may-jun-04/ar050404.pdf

It states in part, that: In 1963, 31.1 out of every 1,000 babies born alive in NC died before their 1st birthday. There was no neonatal intensive care, no ventilators designed for preemies, no simple way to measure blood gases, and 'the role of continuous positive airway pressure and surfactant was not understood'. This was less than 50 years ago!!!!
The article goes on to address the advances in both medical and social services to pregnant women and their newborns.
I have to thank Ms. Hatch. We've all become much more educated on the impact of medical science and its role in keeping infant and mother mortality rates down as their overall health and longevity rates increase.

abaya · 07-04-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Also, I disagree that you can prove that almost anything "holds water" with statistics (and that it's a problem with statistics):

All points taken, and I've learned a lot from what you've said. My only point was that statistics is part math/science, part art... and the art (interpretation) part is where I get suspicious. You're right that in a peer-reviewing journal, at least it's all out there to be examined... but your average layperson is not going to know how to examine it. They are just going to say, "Look at this study, it says that this is true!" Hell, even though I've taken a few grad-level stats classes, clearly I'm still clueless about a lot of it!

Statistics aside, I was just reading about the small community in the Westman Islands of Iceland, where there was 80% infant mortality until the 1840s. They sent a woman abroad to be trained as a midwife, and infant mortality went down significantly after that point. 80%!! Yay for freebirthing.

Cynthetiq · 07-04-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Your county stats match the NJ ones. I'd be willing to bet any other county or state stats from c1900-1915 would show a similar mortality rate of 32%-38%, an alarming amount when you think about it, but not unrealisitic under the (then) circumstances. Taking into consideration the however modest improvements of living conditions and medical advancement from, say, c1850-1900, one might conclude that those rates probably were closer to 50% in those decades. I'll have to Google some more

Cyn: you rock! Great charts

Ok, I Googled more and found this very comprehensive PDF: http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/may-jun-04/ar050404.pdf

It states in part, that: In 1963, 31.1 out of every 1,000 babies born alive in NC died before their 1st birthday. There was no neonatal intensive care, no ventilators designed for preemies, no simple way to measure blood gases, and 'the role of continuous positive airway pressure and surfactant was not understood'. This was less than 50 years ago!!!!
The article goes on to address the advances in both medical and social services to pregnant women and their newborns.
I have to thank Ms. Hatch. We've all become much more educated on the impact of medical science and its role in keeping infant and mother mortality rates down as their overall health and longevity rates increase.

A great article, thanks ng.

Quote:

In 2002 there were 117,307 live births with 957 infant deaths for an infant mortality rate of 8.2, the lowest ever recorded in North Carolina. Clearly, the advances in medical knowledge and expertise, coupled with policy changes that made it easier to access prenatal care have helped to improve the state’s infant mortality rate. However, we cannot rest on these accomplishments. North Carolina still has a higher than average infant mortality rate. Nationally, there were seven infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2002. Further, while North Carolina’s infant mortality rate has improved for all races, the infant mortality rate is still more than two times higher for minorities (14.2 per 1,000 live births) than whites (7.0 per
1,000 live births).

This paragraph has alot going on there, but I do want to state that to Jenny's point, what I bolded is something as I understand her position. I just disagree in the response and methodology of how to address it via the standards and practices of the freebirth movement. The data shows that infant mortality is higher in places where hospitals and doctor access is less. I cannot add midwives into the mix since I have yet to see facts about midwifery in Angola, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, but as I understand the freebirth movement those are limited as well.

Quote:

Despite the advances in care and treatment, many questions remain only partially answered. What causes prematurity? What causes birth defects? What causes SIDS? What causes racial disparity? We do know that healthy lifestyles help prevent prematurity. We know that adequate folic acid prevents neural tube defects. We do know that placing infants on their backs to sleep reduces the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome. We know that lifetimes of poverty, stress, and subclinical infections may contribute to racial disparity in birth outcomes.

This is quite important. It is what we all want right? We all want healthy happy babies who then eventually become healthy happy adults. None of us know definitively what or how that happens. There are just too many factors to count.

Quote:

Infant mortality rates that are thrown around to disprove homebirth are usually from the height of the Industrial Revolution and compiled at some teaching hospital in a big city, where women were notoriously undernourished and overworked. The fact that they also gave birth in a hospital during that time of no hand washing and no infrastructure in hospital for proper hygiene, also makes the stats suspect. London during the industrial revolution was a very dangerous place to birth a child, yet those stats are often used to compare and contrast the "progress" of medicine the past hundred years.

I didn't specifically address this quote with my infant mortality post. But I have to point out again, that you are injecting your emotional response into the findings. I will admit that your statement "makes the stats suspect" is an important thing. One should ALWAYS be suspect of statistics because as a couple other posters sapiens and abaya have discussed the challenges of interpreting those statistics.

Somehow this morning as I was walking into the living room, I had a revelation as to how your position is framed. While I respect you are a woman of faith, and I mean no disrespect in my presenting and equating this point.

During teen years those that are ill informed to pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases come up with some hair brained reasons and schemes. They don't have any data or knowledge of data to back up their claims, but they believe them vigorously. It does not take into account actual biology and how it works alot of the time. So their points of view can be supported by some anecdotal evidence of friends and friends of friends. Even small samples of statistics can even prove their point. We can even interject faith and emotion into the mix with "She won't get pregnant because I pull out," and "condoms aren't natural", "it feels so much better" and "we feel so much closer without using condoms."

But what remains is the possibility of pregnancy or catching some disease being greater than zero, and that is what I believe is the crux of this discussion so far.

Infants can and will die during and just after childbirth. The infant mortality rates support that. What we all are responsible for is our decisions. How we bring or not bring a child into this world.

I think that Tecoyah, a respected community member here put it very simply in the beginning:

Quote:

I am well aware of the freebirth concept Jenny, but I must say fanaticism serves no movement well. Many people choose a hospital for good reason, and should not be criticized for doing so, any more than you and I for choosing not too.

While I personally might agree with much of what you profess, the extremism you project would make me want to leave the room and disassociate. Congratulations on your choice, and the beautiful experience natural birth can be (I speak from experience), But an equal Congrats to Dawg for the Birthing she created. To each their own....Just enjoy the Kids.

Sticky · 07-04-2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opus123

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

Please note that the article above is decribing events in Canada.
In Canada using a hospital for birth is free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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

Quote:

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

While I am sure that the study was objective and alot of those are good points the description (or summary) of the study is misleading in some areas.
- There was four times more infection among the newborn - this is misleading becuase if the mother is determined to have a certain type of common infection (I can't remember the name - *Remembered and came back to edit: Group B streptococcus) that can be passed to the baby during childbirth then her doctor suggests birht in a hospital becuase she will need to take antibiotics intraveneously during the delivery. In such cases the infection can still be passed on to the child. Becuase women's doctors will suggest hospital deliver in these cases for the reasons I described, this increases the number of women in these types of situation that are using the hopspital therby increasing the number of possible newborn infections. Does this account for the difference, probably not, but I am just trying to point out that it is a little misleading.
- The infant death rate of the study was low in both cases and essentially the same - in this case the sample size is too small to determine this. As mentioned above (first page) if birth death (oxymoron?) rate is 1 in 10,000 nowadays you can really judge with 1000 births in each sample. Maybe bot sample had 1 death. That again is a little misleading.

But yes, the rest is a little disturbing.

But as it says in the summary, there were trained attendants at the homebirths. The article at the begining of this therad is talking about births without any trained attendants.

snowy · 07-04-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Please note that the article above is decribing events in Canada.
In Canada using a hospital for birth is free.

In the United States, if a woman shows up in labor to a public hospital, and is unable to pay, Medicaid covers the costs. But the woman has to have broken water for the hospital to admit her under Medicaid's rules.

One of the things that has bothered me about some of Jenny's arguments were the associations with drug use during labor and drug use later in life.

The fact is, drug use is a much more complicated issue than all of that. Genetics and socio-economic status play key roles in determining whether or not someone will be a drug user. The addictive personality is known to be a heritable trait. A lot of the psychological issues Jenny attributed to medical births have been shown to be heritable traits. How we are born has little to do with how we'll turn out to be. It's honestly more important to make it safe for the baby and pleasant for the mother than to make it "less traumatizing."

Sticky · 07-04-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Sage

If birthing unassisted was so dangerous humans would never have made it this far.

This comment used with regards to other things as well drives me nuts.

It is not correct as a greater number of ppeople were not making it this far previously as opposed to in our generation.
Nobody ever said that unassisted births always resulted in a death.
Nobody even said that it results in death 50% of the time.

I have heard similar comments with regards to
- Seatbelts
- Eating Habits
- Putting a baby down in their crib one way or the other
- A few other things that I am not remembering

First
Use average life expectancy numbers to see

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdc.gov

From the turn of the 20th century through 2002, life
expectancy at birth increased from 48 to 75 years for men
and from 51 to 80 years for women (figure 26). Improvements
in nutrition, housing, hygiene, and medical care contributed to
decreases in death rates throughout the lifespan. Prevention
and control of infectious diseases had a profound impact on
life expectancy in the first half of the 20th century (2).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf

More people are living longer now becuase of, among many other things, increase in assisted births. Life expectancy at birth is much greater now than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

Second
Why take the chance?
I can understand people take chances with their own lives everyday. They shouldn't, but they do and that is their decision.
What I don't get is why people take chances with their children's lives.
Go to the hospital to give birth or have trained people around. Why would anyone take a chance with their childs life by doing this unassited.

Do you put your kids in carseats in the car? Most do. I don't understand parents that don't.
Do you make your kids wear a helmet when they ride a bike? Most do. I don't undestand parents who don't.
Do you leave your young children alone in the car while your run into the store to buy a few things. Most parents don't. I don't understand parents who do.

Do you leave your baby at home alone in their crib while you go out for the day? No? But what is the likely hood of something bad happening. probably close to nothing. But you don't do it.

The likelyhood of something happening during an unassited birth is low, however, it is still possible and more likely then in an assited birth - so why take the chance with your child's life.

Another thing:
Many people advocating assited births are suggesting that in addition to all the other jobs they perform, that the trained assistant is there in case anything goes wrong. This is not accurate and it can be argued that an untrained assitant can call an ambulance, drive a car or what-have-you in those circumstances as well.
What a trined assistant is there for, in addition to all the jobs they perform, is not to be there in case of a problem but to RECOGNIZE when there is a problem.
RECOGNIZING when there is a problem and KNOWING when more experienced help or medical technology is needed is the differentiating factor between a trained and untrained assistant.

sapiens · 07-04-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

One of the things that has bothered me about some of Jenny's arguments were the associations with drug use during labor and drug use later in life.

The fact is, drug use is a much more complicated issue than all of that. Genetics and socio-economic status play key roles in determining whether or not someone will be a drug user. The addictive personality is known to be a heritable trait. A lot of the psychological issues Jenny attributed to medical births have been shown to be heritable traits. How we are born has little to do with how we'll turn out to be. It's honestly more important to make it safe for the baby and pleasant for the mother than to make it "less traumatizing."

The comparison group used in the study cited by Jenny is composed of siblings of the drug addicts. This likely controls for SES (removes the variance in later drug use due to SES). The use of siblings as a comparison group also allows for some tentative conclusions independent of genetics. (Monozygotic twins would be ideal, but siblings as a comparison group is a better control for genetics than most studies I have seen). The study also controlled for "hospital of birth, order of birth, duration of labour, presentation other than vertex, surgical intervention, asphyxia, meconium stained amniotic fluid, and birth weight." I have seen heritability estimates for drug dependence ranging from .35 to .50. This leaves a lot of room for environmental factors (including gestation and delivery) to influence later drug use.

That said, the study that Jenny cited does not preclude the role of SES or genetics in later drug use. (And as I mentioned earlier, there may be other problems with the study cited).

Quote:

How we are born has little to do with how we'll turn out to be.

I think that freebirthing is very risky, far more risky than a hospital birth. However, it's inaccurate to state as fact that how we are born has little to do with how we'll turn out. How the birth process impacts "how we'll turn out to be" is an empirical question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

You're right that in a peer-reviewing journal, at least it's all out there to be examined... but your average layperson is not going to know how to examine it. They are just going to say, "Look at this study, it says that this is true!"

I see similar conclusions drawn from studies all the time (from family, students, media outlets, etc.) Most laypeople seem to have little knowledge of basic statistics and experimental design. The biggest error I often notice was cited earlier: "Correlation does not necessarily equal causation".

Jenny Hatch · 07-04-2007, 12:01 PM

WOW! I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my request that you prove that hospital birth is safer than Freebirth.

Now, just to clariy, I was asking that you use the current birthing statistics, from say 2002 on, to prove that Hospital birth is better for the mother and the child than freebirth. I'm well aware of the worlds infant mortality rates, but they don't have a whole heck of a lot to do with birth.

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

Infant mortality is just one very small portion of the birth scene. And because most babies die long after the birth is over (if I remember right it is up to a year after birth) many, many factors can contribute to a countrys infant mortality above and beyond birth practices - the most important being proper nutrition.

Current Maternal mortality statistics in America are also a bogus argument because only mothers who die on the table during an actual birth are included in those stats. The moms who died from childbirth complications the next day, week, month are not included in the maternal rates.

When was the last time you heard or read about an accidental freebirth? You know, those babes born in the taxi or at home but with an unplanned situation. The media response to those births is almost consistenly the same...."mother and baby are doing fine" Anyone here recently hear a story of an unplanned out of hospital birth where the reporter breathlessly exclaimed, The baby died from the cord being around its neck and the mother bled out her blood volumne all over the taxi and both are stone cold DEAD!

I know it is difficult to accept my premise that too much medicine and surgery is murdering and maiming more women and children than it is helping. And that many of those babes who were born in hospital and died from too many drugs or whatever, would have done just fine at home.

I am asking for evidence, scientific if possible, that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby than Freebirth. The only person who even attempted was sticky who shared some of the results from the Mehl homebirth study.

Let's assume that Judy Ralls statistics are somewhat indicative of what is happening on the freebirth scene.

One C-section out of a hundred. No maternal deaths. No infant deaths.

And just for giggles we will double that c-section rate, Two out of a hundred. A 2 % chance of having a section sounds pretty good to me. Actually doctors like Robert Bradley who actively taught couples how to give birth without drugs had a section rate of 3%. His drugged birth rate was 10% and after 17,000 births he never lost a mother. And he claimed that these amazing stats were because of his natural childbirth method, which was defined by NO INDUCTIONS and NO EPIDURALS.

If I as a birthing woman in labor walk into an American hospital my chance of having a section is one in three. Twenty Nine women out of a hundred in America give birth using major surgery.

2 out of a hundred? Or 29 out of a hundred? Hmmmmm I really have to think about that one.

Now, if you accept the fact that surgical delivery carries a much higher risk of death for mother and baby. And many compelling studies indeed make that case, Why would any sane woman walk into a hospital to give birth knowing that the odds, just the simple odds, were so stacked against her? Sounds a little like russian roulette.

Again, I know what the infant mortality rates around the world are. But please, using the hospitals own numbers, make the case for WHY I should go into the hospital to give birth. I would really like to know.

And, for the record, I am not anti-medicine. We have taken our children to the hospital for a variety of issues, mostly tied to sports injuries, and have gratefully used the services of these professionals for help with different things.

I choose to believe that birth is not a medical disaster waiting to happen. And that choice is based on much much more than just my spiritual beliefs or emotion.

I have intensively studied birth for 19 years.

Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse.

When professionals started interfering in birth with ethers and forceps (yes while still birthing at home in America), mommas were at higher risk for birth complications, one because they were not awake, and two because any intervention with a surgical instrument at a home birth increases the risk of bleeding out.

Please someone convince me, beyond all the hype and knee jerk emotional reacting that has gone on here, WHY I should give birth to my child in an american hospital in 2007.

And no, stats about women and children dying in the third world or at the height of the industrial revolution are not going to convince me. I need to know why, right now today, I should put myself and my child at risk for potential death and almost certain drugging and maiming during birth in a US Hospital.

Jenny Hatch

sapiens · 07-04-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

As others have suggested above, the null hypothesis (the generally accepted truth) is that hospital/midwife births is wiser than freebirthing. I would argue as others have that the onus is on you to demonstrate that a birth without the help of obstetricians, nurses, midwives or doulas is better "economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally" than hospital birth.

Quote:

Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse.

1) Is there any evidence that living in large, filthy cities and being on the move are primariliy responsible for babies and mothers dying during birth?
2) If you go back two hundred years, you will likely see the use of doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, etc. - not freebirthing.

highthief · 07-04-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse.

Didn't Shani and I already point out our own genealogical research going back beyond this random 200 year barrier you set up and the huge numbers of dead mothers and babies? Going back beyond your 2x great grandmother. I'm onto my 6x greats in some cases in rural England and Wales. Shani has gone just as far or further.

For every instance of someone in your family having a number of successful births, there are dozens which had no such happy outcomes.

I know, this won't convince you. The facts and figures others have offered won't convince you. I simply hope they will, however, serve to inform others contemplating having a child and will convince them of the benefits of modern medecine if they were thinking of "free-birthing".

Cynthetiq · 07-04-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

WOW! I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my request that you prove that hospital birth is safer than Freebirth.

Now, just to clariy, I was asking that you use the current birthing statistics, from say 2002 on, to prove that Hospital birth is better for the mother and the child than freebirth. I'm well aware of the worlds infant mortality rates, but they don't have a whole heck of a lot to do with birth.

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

Infant mortality is just one very small portion of the birth scene. And because most babies die long after the birth is over (if I remember right it is up to a year after birth) many, many factors can contribute to a countrys infant mortality above and beyond birth practices - the most important being proper nutrition.

Current Maternal mortality statistics in America are also a bogus argument because only mothers who die on the table during an actual birth are included in those stats. The moms who died from childbirth complications the next day, week, month are not included in the maternal rates.

When was the last time you heard or read about an accidental freebirth? You know, those babes born in the taxi or at home but with an unplanned situation. The media response to those births is almost consistenly the same...."mother and baby are doing fine" Anyone here recently hear a story of an unplanned out of hospital birth where the reporter breathlessly exclaimed, The baby died from the cord being around its neck and the mother bled out her blood volumne all over the taxi and both are stone cold DEAD!

I know it is difficult to accept my premise that too much medicine and surgery is murdering and maiming more women and children than it is helping. And that many of those babes who were born in hospital and died from too many drugs or whatever, would have done just fine at home.

I am asking for evidence, scientific if possible, that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby than Freebirth. The only person who even attempted was sticky who shared some of the results from the Mehl homebirth study.

Let's assume that Judy Ralls statistics are somewhat indicative of what is happening on the freebirth scene.

One C-section out of a hundred. No maternal deaths. No infant deaths.

And just for giggles we will double that c-section rate, Two out of a hundred. A 2 % chance of having a section sounds pretty good to me. Actually doctors like Robert Bradley who actively taught couples how to give birth without drugs had a section rate of 3%. His drugged birth rate was 10% and after 17,000 births he never lost a mother. And he claimed that these amazing stats were because of his natural childbirth method, which was defined by NO INDUCTIONS and NO EPIDURALS.

If I as a birthing woman in labor walk into an American hospital my chance of having a section is one in three. Twenty Nine women out of a hundred in America give birth using major surgery.

2 out of a hundred? Or 29 out of a hundred? Hmmmmm I really have to think about that one.

Now, if you accept the fact that surgical delivery carries a much higher risk of death for mother and baby. And many compelling studies indeed make that case, Why would any sane woman walk into a hospital to give birth knowing that the odds, just the simple odds, were so stacked against her? Sounds a little like russian roulette.

Again, I know what the infant mortality rates around the world are. But please, using the hospitals own numbers, make the case for WHY I should go into the hospital to give birth. I would really like to know.

And, for the record, I am not anti-medicine. We have taken our children to the hospital for a variety of issues, mostly tied to sports injuries, and have gratefully used the services of these professionals for help with different things.

I choose to believe that birth is not a medical disaster waiting to happen. And that choice is based on much much more than just my spiritual beliefs or emotion.

I have intensively studied birth for 19 years.

Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse.

When professionals started interfering in birth with ethers and forceps (yes while still birthing at home in America), mommas were at higher risk for birth complications, one because they were not awake, and two because any intervention with a surgical instrument at a home birth increases the risk of bleeding out.

Please someone convince me, beyond all the hype and knee jerk emotional reacting that has gone on here, WHY I should give birth to my child in an american hospital in 2007.

And no, stats about women and children dying in the third world or at the height of the industrial revolution are not going to convince me. I need to know why, right now today, I should put myself and my child at risk for potential death and almost certain drugging and maiming during birth in a US Hospital.

Jenny Hatch

Again, you are weakening your arugment by appealing to emotions. As I look at this thread there aren't any knee jerk emotional reactions except the ones that you post, and I have been calling you on them. They detract from your arguments, they don't add anything to the discussion. They debase what little ground you are standing on.

You may not see it in YOUR Colorado newspaper, but I see it all the time in my newspapers.

Quote:

NYTimes.com
Jamekia Brown, 22 and two months pregnant with her third child, lives next to the black people’s cemetery in the part of town called No Name, where multiple generations crowd into cheap clapboard houses and trailers.

So it took only a minute to walk to the graves of Ms. Brown’s first two children, marked with temporary metal signs because she cannot afford tombstones.

Her son, who was born with deformities in 2002, died in her arms a few months later, after surgery. Her daughter was stillborn the next year. Nearby is another green marker, for a son of Ms. Brown’s cousin who died at four months, apparently of pneumonia.

The main causes of infant death in poor Southern regions included premature and low-weight births; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, which is linked to parental smoking and unsafe sleeping positions as well as unknown causes; congenital defects; and, among poor black teenage mothers in particular, deaths from accidents and disease.

Dr. LeDon Langston, an obstetrician at the Mississippi Department of Health, said in a telephone interview that officials could not yet explain the sudden increase and were investigating. Dr. Langston said the state was working to extend prenatal care and was experimenting with new outreach programs. But, he added, “programs take money, and Mississippi is the poorest state in the nation.”

Doctors who treat poor women say they are not surprised by the reversal.

“I think the rise is real, and it’s going to get worse,” said Dr. Bouldin Marley, an obstetrician at a private clinic in Clarksdale since 1979. “The mothers in general, black or white, are not as healthy,” Dr. Marley said, calling obesity and its complications a main culprit.

Obesity makes it more difficult to do diagnostic tests like ultrasounds and can lead to hypertension and diabetes, which can cause the fetus to be undernourished, he said.

Another major problem, Dr. Marley said, is that some women arrive in labor having had little or no prenatal care. “I don’t think there’s a lack of providers or facilities,” he said. “Some women just don’t have the get up and go.”

But social workers say that the motivation of poor women is not so simply described, and it can be affected by cuts in social programs and a dearth of transportation as well as low self esteem.

“If you didn’t have a car and had to go 60 miles to see a doctor, would you go very often?” said Ramona Beardain, director of Delta Health Partners. The group runs a federally financed program, Healthy Start, that sends social workers and nurses to counsel pregnant teenagers and new mothers in seven counties of the Delta. “If they’re in school they miss the day; if they’re working they don’t get paid,” Ms. Beardain said.

Poverty has climbed in Mississippi in recent years, and things are tougher in other ways for poor women, with cuts in cash welfare and changes in the medical safety net.

Quote:

In the Bronx, Police Investigate The Death of a Newborn Girl
December 13, 2006, Wednesday
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - The body of a newborn girl, still bloody and with her umbilical cord attached, was discovered about 8 a.m. yesterday laying facedown on a patch of grass outside a Bronx housing development, the police said. The police received an anonymous 911 call indicating that a baby was on the ...

You are free to make your own choices based on the evidence provided, that is what makes free countries great. We are free to make decisions and choices. We may have to pay for those choices and decisions in some fashion depending on the outcome, but all in all we are free to choose.

Infant mortality rates are a great indicator, especially comparing Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and More Developed Countries (MDCs) where access to medical care is a factor. Again, it is YOU who is ignoring the facts placed before you. I believe that I have and others have refuted the ones you've presented, even just wildly claimed anecdotal evidence.

If you'd like I'll post what I have found on still births and their causes, those alone are good reasons to be near medical attention. But those you've dismissed out of hand, since those births like The Jazz and ngdawg explained.

Quote:

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Safer is considered by the fact that the child is not dead. If the child is dead it doesn't matter what safety precautions are/were taken since it it already too late.

You want to not include infant mortality rates which is the standard by which this is measured by all organizations including WHO. In my opinion it is like you are covering your ears and saying "la la la la, I don't see that."

ngdawg · 07-04-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

WOW! I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my request that you prove that hospital birth is safer than Freebirth.

Now, just to clariy, I was asking that you use the current birthing statistics, from say 2002 on, to prove that Hospital birth is better for the mother and the child than freebirth. I'm well aware of the worlds infant mortality rates, but they don't have a whole heck of a lot to do with birth.

You're joking, right? What DO they have to do with then? Luck?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.

Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth.

Well, they don't die as often. There's a start.....the stats have been given already and it'd serve you well to actually read them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

Infant mortality is just one very small portion of the birth scene. And because most babies die long after the birth is over (if I remember right it is up to a year after birth) many, many factors can contribute to a countrys infant mortality above and beyond birth practices - the most important being proper nutrition.

Current Maternal mortality statistics in America are also a bogus argument because only mothers who die on the table during an actual birth are included in those stats. The moms who died from childbirth complications the next day, week, month are not included in the maternal rates.

When was the last time you heard or read about an accidental freebirth? You know, those babes born in the taxi or at home but with an unplanned situation. The media response to those births is almost consistenly the same...."mother and baby are doing fine" Anyone here recently hear a story of an unplanned out of hospital birth where the reporter breathlessly exclaimed, The baby died from the cord being around its neck and the mother bled out her blood volumne all over the taxi and both are stone cold DEAD!

I know it is difficult to accept my premise that too much medicine and surgery is murdering and maiming more women and children than it is helping. And that many of those babes who were born in hospital and died from too many drugs or whatever, would have done just fine at home.

I am asking for evidence, scientific if possible, that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby than Freebirth. The only person who even attempted was sticky who shared some of the results from the Mehl homebirth study.

Let's assume that Judy Ralls statistics are somewhat indicative of what is happening on the freebirth scene.

One C-section out of a hundred. No maternal deaths. No infant deaths.

And just for giggles we will double that c-section rate, Two out of a hundred. A 2 % chance of having a section sounds pretty good to me. Actually doctors like Robert Bradley who actively taught couples how to give birth without drugs had a section rate of 3%. His drugged birth rate was 10% and after 17,000 births he never lost a mother. And he claimed that these amazing stats were because of his natural childbirth method, which was defined by NO INDUCTIONS and NO EPIDURALS.

If I as a birthing woman in labor walk into an American hospital my chance of having a section is one in three. Twenty Nine women out of a hundred in America give birth using major surgery.

2 out of a hundred? Or 29 out of a hundred? Hmmmmm I really have to think about that one.

Now, if you accept the fact that surgical delivery carries a much higher risk of death for mother and baby. And many compelling studies indeed make that case, Why would any sane woman walk into a hospital to give birth knowing that the odds, just the simple odds, were so stacked against her? Sounds a little like russian roulette.

Again, I know what the infant mortality rates around the world are. But please, using the hospitals own numbers, make the case for WHY I should go into the hospital to give birth. I would really like to know.

And, for the record, I am not anti-medicine. We have taken our children to the hospital for a variety of issues, mostly tied to sports injuries, and have gratefully used the services of these professionals for help with different things.

I choose to believe that birth is not a medical disaster waiting to happen. And that choice is based on much much more than just my spiritual beliefs or emotion.

I have intensively studied birth for 19 years.

Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse.

When professionals started interfering in birth with ethers and forceps (yes while still birthing at home in America), mommas were at higher risk for birth complications, one because they were not awake, and two because any intervention with a surgical instrument at a home birth increases the risk of bleeding out.

Please someone convince me, beyond all the hype and knee jerk emotional reacting that has gone on here, WHY I should give birth to my child in an american hospital in 2007.

And no, stats about women and children dying in the third world or at the height of the industrial revolution are not going to convince me. I need to know why, right now today, I should put myself and my child at risk for potential death and almost certain drugging and maiming during birth in a US Hospital.

Jenny Hatch

No, but you most definitely put both at risk when you deny any and ALL prenatal care, be it doctors or midwives.
Those mothers who give birth in taxies make news because they ARE news, ie; not common. By and large, 'mother and child are fine', would occur anyway because of odds. You obviously like gambling since you rejected all medical and midwivery knowledge in favor of 'going it alone'. You lucked out.
As Cyn said, it's been made abundantly clear what part medical advances have played in the last 100 years to infant health and mortality rates of both infants and mothers, but, like some kid on a playground in need of attention, you try and change the game to suit yourself. That's not debate, that's not even discussion.
No one has said you must or should have your kid in a hospital, but freebirth is not about only dismissing hospital births, it's about dismissing professional assistance.
"Knee-jerk reactions"? You've been accessed to some intense information that we've posted and yet still refer to it all as 'emotional'. Yea, ok. And, as I said, my great grandmother gave birth to 8, only 3 of whom survived to adulthood.
You stated you did not want anecdotal evidence, yet toss in Grandma?
WTF?

analog · 07-04-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

If I as a birthing woman in labor walk into an American hospital my chance of having a section is one in three.

In 2005, the rate of caesarean birth was 30.2% in the US (Preliminary Births for 2005: Infant and Maternal Health. National Center for Health Statistics). That does not mean that for every woman, her chance is 1 in 3 for having a c-section. That's not how statistics work. That means that for all births, c-sections account for 30.2%.

There are a variety of factors that either contribute to, or detract from, your personal likelihood of needing a caesarean birth. For some women, their chance of caesarean is extremely high, almost definite, and for some it's nearly zero.

Elective c-sections are on the rise, and medical malpractice for obstetrics is astronomical.

However... if you go into a medical facility of any kind and have a baby, you can request that they not go c-section unless the fetus is in immediate danger. Then, you should be fine and dandy, barring complications. You act as though it's not your choice. It is, up until the life of the fetus is at stake.

Quote:

Now, if you accept the fact that surgical delivery carries a much higher risk of death for mother and baby. And many compelling studies indeed make that case, Why would any sane woman walk into a hospital to give birth knowing that the odds, just the simple odds, were so stacked against her? Sounds a little like russian roulette.

Yes, any invasive surgery has its risks.
Like I said, though... if you tell the doc you will not allow a c-section unless the life of the fetus is in direct peril, you will not have a c-section.

You are essentially complaining about "all these c-sections" which account for c-sections that are planned by the mother, and in cases where it was not necessary and the mother didn't tell the doc "vaginal only unless the fetus is in direct peril".

You're complaining that c-sections get performed when many women elect to have them done, or don't spell out their wishes to the doctor. You're blaming the institution for the elective choice or ignorance of the mothers.

In that case, you should be complaining that mothers aren't educating themselves on preventing unnecessary c-sections.

Sticky · 07-04-2007, 01:46 PM

So far this is what I have found
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/stor...075395,00.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guardian

Because freebirth is such a fringe movement there have been no studies on it. However, a report in the magazine New Scientist recently quoted a survey undertaken in a religious community in the state of Indiana, where there were more than 300 unattended births in the 1980s. The neonatal death rate was calculated as 19 per 1,000 live births, compared with seven per 1,000 for the rest of Indiana.

From an anecdote from the same article:
The woman had a sucessful first freebirthing experience (including a weak moment where she called a midwife in temporarily)

Quote:

In my second pregnancy I avoided all contact with the NHS and had no antenatal care whatsoever. After 10 hours of extremely painful labour at home, alone throughout, I gave up and called an ambulance. Less than an hour later, on my back in hospital, I gave birth, vaginally, to premature twins. In terms of the amount of medical intervention I had to have, it was the opposite of my hopes and dreams, but I had never imagined having twins - and what a lovely surprise that was. Besides, dialling 999 was always my back-up plan, being only 10 minutes from the nearest hospital. The twins are now big and bonny.

Holy F$*#. She did not even know she was having twins. That could have been a huge disaster.

We did not even consider multiple birth scenarios.

I found the following on a blog written by a neonatologist from the U.S. who does not identify him/herself.
The blog post includes an anecdote of an unsucessful frebirthing experience but I am only going to quote the part that stuck out to me.
http://neonataldoc.blogspot.com/2006/04/home.html

Quote:

I think that most people who have a home delivery do it because they want a better "childbirth experience". I ask such people, why are you having a baby? What is the purpose of this pregnancy? If it's to have a good experience, skip the pregnancy and go out for dinner and a movie instead. But if it's to have a helathy child, go to a hospital and take advantage of the modern world. It wasn't that long ago that many women and babies died in childbirth. A lot can go wrong. Ten per cent of babies need some type of resuscitation at birth. A good childbirth experience won't make up for the loss of a child. (By the way, this is not a rant against midwives. I have nothing against them, as long as they are certified and deliver babies in the hospital.)

My thoughts exactly.
This is all about selfishness.

Note: By the way I feel the same way about elective c-sections.

07-02-2007, 07:21 PM	#121 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Not only asked, but told what I should be eating, drinking, etc.; what I should gain and look for as I gain; tested for diabetes and high BP. I don't know where you are coming up with these ideas, but as a child of the 50's and 60's and the oldest of 4, the last born in 1963, not one of us was a druggy, cutter, but my sister and I have tattoos. So? I was given Demoral-my 15 year olds are sickeningly normal. How do you explain the drugs of the 30's? 40's? 50's? One of the outcomes of the 'hippie' movement was the increase of natural chidlbirth, yet drug use hasn't gone down in kind. Methinks you are grasping at straws in an effort to use any reason to promote your agenda, one that goes far beyond a simple choice to do it at home. "Small studies" are just that and totally inconclusive when one takes in the bigger picture. Take 100 drug users and find out what their mothers were given, if anything, and dollars to donuts, there'd be an overwhelming ratio showing a false correlation. That's like saying those in prison had bad childhoods, then declaring all bad childhoods result in people going to prison. Part of debate, in order to make a valid point, is 'doing the homework for you'. If you are going to make claims, show why the claim is made. Otherwise, it's simply your opinion. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

07-03-2007, 04:59 PM	#134 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	As the thread starter, I'm amazed anyone has the energy left to argue with Ms. Hatch. It's like arguing for democracy and apple pie to bin Laden or trying to convince the Pope that the Baptists have got it right. She obviously holds deep rooted, faith driven beliefs that are incompatible with scientific evidence. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

07-03-2007, 06:11 PM	#136 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Jenny, perhaps you should reread both of my posts with the story of my nephew's birth. Both mother and child would have died without immediate medical intervention. As it was, my nephew was deprived of oxygen for a number of minutes, which could have been complete avoided had my sister-in-law had a trained professional on hand or, better yet, been in a hospital. There's the quote you were looking for. One example of absolute proof that, in at least that case, you're absolutely wrong. You've ignored it up to now. Care to do it again? As for the comments about personal attacks, please don't try to goad people into flaming you. Not only does it detract from your argument, but it makes you look both insincere and desperate for attention. We call people that do that "attention whores" or "trolls". Don't be either. The three members you've singled out are all highly thought of here, and they don't deserve your disrespect. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

07-03-2007, 06:49 PM	#138 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Fact #2(in the same vein as The_Jazz-personal testimony) Twins conceived with medical science, in this case, GIFT. 31st week, premature labor, hospitalized in what I referred to as the "Not Ready for Primetime Motherhood" ward, administered magnesium drip and checked several times a day for bleeding. Sent home with 4 week supply of Brethine(sp?) to stall onset of labor. Sonograms every 4 weeks to chart progress. 40th week, no sign of beginnings of labor. Doctor decides to induce due to overextension of uterus coupled with no dilation. Baby A had been shown effaced, baby B breech. Doctor says he will birth A, turn B. After 24 hours of Pitocin drip with no progress, Dr. breaks water-labor begins. Epidural administered at 7 centimeters. While seeking to place fontel monitor on Baby A, assisting intern can't find her head. Sonogram ordered. Baby A had gone back up, pushing Baby B, still breech into birth canal. Subsequent labor pushes Baby B dangerously downward, cord around neck. Caesarian section is imminent. Baby B successfully born by C-section, 6.5lbs, 20.5 inches. Baby A, also breech, follows, 6.0 lbs, 19.75 inches. Both healthy. Mother had passed out from exhaustion during birth of Baby A. ***** Looking up mortality rates is child's play, really, but let's have a look: Taking NJ figures for 1900 and comparing to 2000: Deaths by age, 1900. Under 1 month, 2252, rate 7.2%. Deaths by age, 2000. Under 1 month, 499, rate .07%. Of the 6,979 total infant deaths in 1900, 2,252 or 32% were neonatal. Total infant mortality rate-216.3 per 1,000 or over 1/5 before the first birthday. Of the 723 total infant deaths in 2000, 499 or 69% were neonatal. Total infant mortality rate, though, was 6.3 per 1,000. The drop of infant mortality rates from 1900-2000, 20% to .63%(less than 1%). Some things that contributed to this large drop: Prenatal care. Vaccinations. Surgical procedure improvements. Antibiotics. Improved pediatric and neonatal care and diagnoses techniques. While argumentatively, one could look at the above figures and say "well, neonatal percentages went UP", one must look at how many in fact died in the two comparative years and deduce that the neonatal numbers went down 75%. Advancements in neonatal care can not be ignored or dismissed. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

07-04-2007, 06:01 AM	#145 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	You dont even want to get this genealogist started with your comments. I have been tracing families for over 25 years, I know just how many of the "16" children families I have researched had children even reach the age of 1. Your trying to disclaim infant mortality before 1900 just because ngdawg picked the state she lived in is ludacris. The big problem is that most states didnt start doing death certificates until around 1913ish so there is no "government" proof of why these babies died. All you have to do is look at a census report. I added up on a 1910 census for a rural county in GA (this census shows how many births a woman had and how many of those children were living in 1910 out of 307 women they had 1555 births....961 of those children lived, thats a little of 60% which means an average of a 38% mortality rate, in just ONE county. Granted some of these deaths were from accident/illness etc, still not one woman in that county that had 15+ children had more than 7 live so dont come telling me that medical intervention in births isnt a plus __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

07-02-2007, 09:02 PM	#123 (permalink)
analog Banned	Jenny: You make wild claims with no evidence. You make crazy assertions with no data. You make emotional appeals out of statements which should be intellectual processes. And you'd think this thread was farmland for the amount of strawmen I'm tripping over. Your rhetoric, on the whole, is reminiscent of old-time horse-and-buggy street-corner tonic salesmen. "Cures what ails you. Why? It says so right here on the bottle, that's why!" I say all this because I'm at a loss as to how I can have a discussion here. It definitely seems as though you want us to swallow whole all that you'd desire to feed us, and skip the intellectual processes altogether. That, unfortunately, doesn't really work for me.

07-04-2007, 12:01 PM	#154 (permalink)
Jenny Hatch Upright	WOW! I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my request that you prove that hospital birth is safer than Freebirth. Now, just to clariy, I was asking that you use the current birthing statistics, from say 2002 on, to prove that Hospital birth is better for the mother and the child than freebirth. I'm well aware of the worlds infant mortality rates, but they don't have a whole heck of a lot to do with birth. Prove to me with links, quotes, studies, etc etc...that medical birth is SAFER FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE BABY. Please share scientific evidence that PROVES families are better served economically, socially, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and hormonally by Hospital Birth. Infant mortality is just one very small portion of the birth scene. And because most babies die long after the birth is over (if I remember right it is up to a year after birth) many, many factors can contribute to a countrys infant mortality above and beyond birth practices - the most important being proper nutrition. Current Maternal mortality statistics in America are also a bogus argument because only mothers who die on the table during an actual birth are included in those stats. The moms who died from childbirth complications the next day, week, month are not included in the maternal rates. When was the last time you heard or read about an accidental freebirth? You know, those babes born in the taxi or at home but with an unplanned situation. The media response to those births is almost consistenly the same...."mother and baby are doing fine" Anyone here recently hear a story of an unplanned out of hospital birth where the reporter breathlessly exclaimed, The baby died from the cord being around its neck and the mother bled out her blood volumne all over the taxi and both are stone cold DEAD! I know it is difficult to accept my premise that too much medicine and surgery is murdering and maiming more women and children than it is helping. And that many of those babes who were born in hospital and died from too many drugs or whatever, would have done just fine at home. I am asking for evidence, scientific if possible, that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby than Freebirth. The only person who even attempted was sticky who shared some of the results from the Mehl homebirth study. Let's assume that Judy Ralls statistics are somewhat indicative of what is happening on the freebirth scene. One C-section out of a hundred. No maternal deaths. No infant deaths. And just for giggles we will double that c-section rate, Two out of a hundred. A 2 % chance of having a section sounds pretty good to me. Actually doctors like Robert Bradley who actively taught couples how to give birth without drugs had a section rate of 3%. His drugged birth rate was 10% and after 17,000 births he never lost a mother. And he claimed that these amazing stats were because of his natural childbirth method, which was defined by NO INDUCTIONS and NO EPIDURALS. If I as a birthing woman in labor walk into an American hospital my chance of having a section is one in three. Twenty Nine women out of a hundred in America give birth using major surgery. 2 out of a hundred? Or 29 out of a hundred? Hmmmmm I really have to think about that one. Now, if you accept the fact that surgical delivery carries a much higher risk of death for mother and baby. And many compelling studies indeed make that case, Why would any sane woman walk into a hospital to give birth knowing that the odds, just the simple odds, were so stacked against her? Sounds a little like russian roulette. Again, I know what the infant mortality rates around the world are. But please, using the hospitals own numbers, make the case for WHY I should go into the hospital to give birth. I would really like to know. And, for the record, I am not anti-medicine. We have taken our children to the hospital for a variety of issues, mostly tied to sports injuries, and have gratefully used the services of these professionals for help with different things. I choose to believe that birth is not a medical disaster waiting to happen. And that choice is based on much much more than just my spiritual beliefs or emotion. I have intensively studied birth for 19 years. Oh and for the geneologists out there, as I said, I believe modernity (Living in large, filthy cities and being on the move) are some of the main reasons babies and mothers have died during births. As I said, go back two hundred years, and just look at your own family. My great, great grandmother in Michigan gave birth to fourteen children in her farmhouse. When professionals started interfering in birth with ethers and forceps (yes while still birthing at home in America), mommas were at higher risk for birth complications, one because they were not awake, and two because any intervention with a surgical instrument at a home birth increases the risk of bleeding out. Please someone convince me, beyond all the hype and knee jerk emotional reacting that has gone on here, WHY I should give birth to my child in an american hospital in 2007. And no, stats about women and children dying in the third world or at the height of the industrial revolution are not going to convince me. I need to know why, right now today, I should put myself and my child at risk for potential death and almost certain drugging and maiming during birth in a US Hospital. Jenny Hatch