Mothering Forum banner

used to feel homebirth was best... but not anymore

17K views 245 replies 88 participants last post by  UnassistedMomma 
#1 ·
i realize what i'm about to say is against the mdc prevailing thought .. and i have great respect for mdc and learned more here than anywhere else, been supported more here than anywhere else. i've wanted to post for months but always chickened out because i'm sure someone will get angry and i don't feel strong enough right now after what happened. but i think it's important that i say this. it might save a life.

all my life - well since 14 when i saw my first h/b - i've thought h/b is the way to go, avoiding all the bad things that can happen in hospitals, the cascade of interventions, the fights over 'it's our policy do do this and that' and so on.

so when i was pregnant i devoured ina may's books, michael odent, websites on homebirth, practised hypnobirthing, planned to use water and tubs in labor, read everything about relaxation, normal course of labor, complications, scientific studies on safety and so on (i'm married to a doc,) found a midwife i thought i gelled with - a very experienced woman for sure. paid out of pocket for her services as my insurance wouldn't cover it. i felt with every inch of my body that i did not want interventions and that i wanted to be left alone to find my own rhythm of birth, without being told 'you must do this or that, it's been X hours, yadayada' i also strongly strongly felt i did not want any drugs in my baby and as you know, labor drugs pass the placenta and we don't know the long term effects of this.

so this is what happened and why i don't feel having a baby outside a hospital is worth the risk if you want to have the best chance to go home alive and with a healthy baby..BUT hear me out and read why and what i think the solution is.. until we have a third choice.

i had a completely normal pregnancy. labor started with one intense excruciating contraction that went on and on, then stopped for a few minutes then started again. i was in terrible pain, couldn't speak, tried to crawl to the shower, hypnotherapy didn't work, nothing did. i was 1cm dil. i said i had to go to the hospital as i felt something was wrong. the m/w said i was acting as though i had the pain of transition. but i was 1cm.

we went to the hospital, a 15 min car ride, and to cut a long story short i had an epidural shortly after as morphine didn't work. pain was off the charts. yes i know older studies suggested early epidurals increase the chance of c section. newer studies have refuted this.

the rest of labor was uneventful, apart from me feeling a bit of a failure. after 24 hours of so of labor, eventually had pitocin because stalled at 4, a well placed epidural that allowed me to walk around so i could try to make him descend. no progression. eventually talk of c section as the baby's heart was slowing periodically (yes a known cause of pit augmentation but that could not have caused what happened next.. so don't jump at me :)

c section, baby was apgar 9/9 and in excellent health and weight

as soon as he was out i started hemorrhaging. badly. within seconds. the docs were not tugging on the placenta, (i.e. they didn't cause it.. my husband was watching) but the blood was gushing out from around where the placenta was and the plac was partly stuck too deeply and partly coming off in chunks as they watched. i lost 4 (i think) liters of blood (some of the stuff they put in me came right out) had many units of tranfused blood and other assorted stuff, by a miracle they saved the uterus (ask me how if you're interested), i passed out from lack of blood (bp was something like 50/30 at one point) for a few secs. this bleeding happened in the space of 5 minutes immediately after birth, all from where the placenta was attached.

i was taken to the ICU and didn't see my son till day 2 - though i'm happy to report that breastfeeding was great when i started and it continued till he was a year. no probs with that at all. i had further transfusions and was sent home after a week. my diagnosis was formally 'placenta accreta', meaning the placenta was embedded too deeply into the uterus. (necessarily a clinical diagnosis i.e. from what they saw and what happened, as i still had my uterus so they could not slice that up to look at the structure of it. however the placental side strongly suggested accreta because of cellular abnormalities and other things (ask if interested)

most women lose their uterus with this, about 10-20% die (check the stats, i'm doing this from memory). you can lose most of the blood in your body in 5-10 minutes. so it was a blessing that i was in an OR when this happened and that i had insisted on going to the hospital. i can't claim great foresight.. i just felt that labors do not start with excruciating pain at 1cm dilation.

i was VERY lucky. i am very lucky to be alive. i can say with all honesty that if he had been born at home i would likely be dead because of how quickly i lost so much blood. accreta is happening more and more as women have more c sections and thus have more scar tissue where the placenta can dig in too deep, but i'd never had a c section.

my point is this.. there are some obstetric emergencies that can kill you wherever you are but you stand a much better chance in the hospital. one of these is accreta, another is amniotic fluid embolism (the biggest killer of women in birth. i had a mild form of this too), another is a ruptured uterus (yes you have warning sometimes that this is happening, but sometimes it's sudden and the baby would die before you were able to get to the hospital.) and that's not to mention sudden problems with the baby that can happen.

these things are RARE, very rare, incredibly rare (i think accreta is something like 1/60,000 births) BUT if you are in a hospital you have a greater chance of living and to my mind it's just not worth the risk to stay home.

in the complications i listed above there's sadly nothing you can do at a homebirth - manually compressing the uterus to stop bleeding would not have stopped it in my case (the docs had the whole uterus in their hands and squeezing like crazy.. nothing..), in the case of amniotic fluid embolism you need massive interventions, will prob go into cardiac arrest in seconds and even in a hospital some 60-70% of women die. it happens randomly, no way of knowing if it'll be you.

now, having said that.. i think what is lacking in most cities is a 'third way', a place run by midwives (san francisco had st lukes'..futon on floor, candles, tubs etc) in a hospital but allowing a homebirth birth with all the best that a midwife can provide, the emotional support, handholding, experience with normal births and so on, BUT with emergency life support measures in the building if needed in those rare rare cases. (but it could be you remember)

so where does that leave most women who don't want to sign up for a medicalized birth in a hospital yet have nowhere else to do this but home.

i think for now.. until there are more 'homebirth in hospital' type places, the safest choice is hospital BUT i believe it's also the responsibility of every woman to prepare herself by reading and studying and asking questions about all the things a hospital will want to do and how you can refuse those you don't think are necessary, and by having a doula or support person who can be firm about what you want and don't want, thus allowing you to focus on birthing as naturally as you can.

we don't need to choose the hospital and just throw up our hands and be helpless and feel that the process is out of our hands. it isn't - WE are still in control and making decisions, or at least we should be.

i think we should spend more time learning and thinking about birth than choosing a car.. yet it seems the opposite at times.

i think if hospitals weren't so pushy with routine things, if they provided more choice in the things that can make a difference between a relaxed, happy mom managing her own birth and a woman who is 'delivered of a baby' as the victorians used to say, then we wouldn't see the high c section rates and all the birth interventions that are often neither necessary nor helpful. (i suspect liability fears are at the base of many interventions.. you'll get sued for not doing something but not for doing it) but there's no reason we have to have any of these things done to us.

there's no real reason why midwives shouldn't work in hospitals as they would in a woman's home, why hospitals shouldn't have all the things that make for a good safe birth. i believe that birth is a natural, normal event and that is should be supported by people who know the natural event best - midwives - but that the safety net should be there, just as you probably would choose to use safety measures in any other activity in life, if they were available.

well i'm an idealist and i also know that birth is a business.. it costs more to have more nurses looking after a women 1:1 rather than one nurse at the nurses' station monitoring contractions of 15 women via electronic fetal monitoring. sure - and that's probably why my ideal solution isn't happening in many places. BUT we can get as close as possible by bringing in our own doula and/or midwife who does give us 1:1 care and knows what to look out for and knows the type of encouragement we need. we can do this. we can also visit hospitals in advance and know the layout, ask questions, decide if hosp A or B is best, lobby for this 'third choice' when talking with our Obs or with the hospital authorities themselves. it's a business remember, so they would hopefully respond to market demand :)

we can say no to routine interventions we believe are unnecessary, but we have to be informed, know what we are saying no to and realize that life is fragile and it is, in my opinion, not worth risking the life of one mother when such a risk is not necessary.

a mom.
 
See less See more
#27 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
or b/ you're drawn to birthing in your home, in your nest, like you might be drawn to chocolate and cheese as a pregnancy craving.
That would be me. The situation in Denmark doesn't sound much different from Norway. I'm sure I'd be fine in a hospital, and if, for example, my mother or husband started to throw a last-minute hissy fit about staying at home, I'd probably rather go to the hospital than argue about it. I just feel relaxed and comfortable in my home in a way that I won't be anywhere else. I can probably get comfortable somewhere else, but I already am comfortable here, kwim?
 
#28 ·
I am truly sorry that you had such a traumatic birth experience.


I agree with you that we definitely need some hospital reform, to make birth more normal in the hospital (midwives for all low risk births, with OB's around to take the high risk births and emergencies, like many European countries do).

I still think that homebirth with well qualified DEM's should be an option for women who are well informed and still make that choice.

I am glad that you and your baby are OK now.
 
#29 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
i love your 'i love this thread i think i'm going to live here..' tag line.. made me laugh..

i find all the responses interesting too but the whole topic is scary too.. i kind of posted originally as a kind of 'public service' message - (kind of read this as another opinion while you decide what birth you want) i'm just an average mom and not important except as an flesh n blood example of that scary 1%


now i'm really off to bed..

ok i'm trying to do smiley's the other way round as suggested.. :)
1%??? i dont think thats accurate. can someone w/ stats readily available chime in on this.

i dont think anyone here has some euphoric belief that nothing will happen if they have a homebirth. i would hope that MOST, if not ALL, moms to be read read read about the dangers of not having trained surgeons on site..but the stats are weighed AGAINST hospital births. The mortality rates of hospital births are HIGHER than homebirths (and probably even worse than we know b/c many homebirths arent reported as such, but "accidents").

i for one want to know my chances of risk in a homebirth. I wanted to have a trained MW present, etc. etc. I am pretty confident that is something is wrong (which you figured out rather quickly) that we will be transferring.

but to simply suggest that women go to hospitals and fight w/ OBs and nurses while in labor to avoid unnecessary routine procedures is simply not realistic. Most women in labor can NOT fight well for themselves and many doulas and husbands will back down and not fight enough for them...resulting in stalled labor.... etc. etc. etc.
 
#30 ·
Call me dumb, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Moms and babies die while birthing at home. Moms and babies die while birthing in a hospital. Statistically though, homebirth is safer if you are low risk. So while for you personally a hospital is a better choice due to your history, statistically speaking the rest of us are better off at home. You did the right thing, you knew something wasn't right and you went to the hospital. You had the warning signs and you listened. The rest of us (hopefully) will do the same thing. If we get a warning sign, we'll go to the hospital. If not, we stay home where statistically speaking our chances of a successful birth are better.

Because you didn't have an ideal birth at home, and required a hospital birth, doesn't mean the rest of us should. We know the risks. We've read the stories. We know what can happen. We also know all of that for the other side, and for healthy low risk women, it sways to homebirth.
 
#31 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
in the case of sudden rare emergencies, home birth is riskier than hospital birth, i don't think that's up for discussion. i'm not disputing that hospital interventions *cause* many complications, but that's another topic
Yes. So statistically, what are the odds of developing a complication caused by hospital interventions versus an unforeseen life-threatening emergency at home. Seriously, do you have that statistic? I don't, but I have the statistics from all the other studies of outcomes of planned home births and they do not agree with you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm sorry that such a tragedy occurred to you. I don't think many homebirthing families are ignorant that sometimes bad things do happen at home that could be prevented in the hospital. But, as you yourself pointed out, there are risks to either decision.
 
#32 ·
For me, it comes down to refusing to live in fear. Women die in childbirth all the time, whether it is at home or in the hospital. As you mentioned, mortality rate from placenta accreta and amniotic fluid embolism are high, even with hospital care (which is where almost all of them take place). If I thought that way, I would never leave my house. Do you know what the chances are that you will be injured or killed in a serious car accident? When I think about it, driving terrifies me. But I've got places to go, and if I dwell on the possibility of every bad thing that could happen to me I would be immobilized by fear. At some point you've just got to accept that everything in life has risk and go on with your life. Some people find it more acceptable to take the risks of birth in a hospital. Some people find it more acceptable to take those risks at home. We are each entitled to our opinions. It was very brave of you to share your opinion, but the actions you are urging other women to take it based only on your opinion.
 
#33 ·
I, too, am sorry for what happened to you. Thank goodness everything turned out fine.

Nashvillemidwife hit the nail on the head for me, though. I refuse to live in fear. I ended up passing out after my homebirth from blood loss. My skilled and experienced midwife stopped the blood and everything was fine. That's why I hired her, after all. I felt most comfortable hiring someone to come to me when I was ready. She arrived when I was in transition because that's when I wanted her here. Had I felt more comfortable in a hospital I would have birthed there again, but my experience there was torturous and terrible. I was willing to take my chances if that meant that I could birth on my terms and not on someone else's turf. Even with a birthing center environment availible to me, I wanted to be on MY TURF.

I read a ton of books, dozens of studies and articles, and looked at what could really happen to me during and after my labor. I was 100% comfortable with my choice. I had a very normal pregnancy, labor, and birth. Homebirth was the right choice for me. Had something been wrong I would have transfered, but since nothing was outside the scope of what the Midwife could take care of, we didn't have to.
 
#34 ·
Please, ladies, site your sources that show that home birth is safer, reduces mortality, please.

I have never seen any sources that say this with any kind of certainty.

Statistics, in the case of home birth, really cannot prove anything. This happens for various reasons. "Safety" is a relative and poorly defined term. It is virtually impossible to collect an accurate population sample of home birthing women in the United States, and it is even more impossible to find an adequate hospital control group to compare them too. The data that exists now (In the BMJ study, for example) can be (and has been) manipulated to show that either way is safer.

This is something that we should accept, that good statistics do not exist, instead of pretending like they show us what we want them to show us.

Just a friendly reminder.

Home birth will never be about "the statistics show us it's safer," anyway. Even if the statistics made a very good case against home birth, most of us would still do it. Why do we even bother to spout these mistruths at people? Reassurance? From what? What monster living under our beds has forced us to recede to believing this nonsense?
 
#36 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by holothuroidea View Post
Please, ladies, site your sources that show that home birth is safer, reduces mortality, please. I have never seen any sources that say this with any kind of certainty.
The Lewis Mehl study is the most comprehensive, scientific to date and has been cited here 1000s of times.

To the OP:

Veteran of four homebirth; no flames here. You did your research.

I am sorry your homebirth did not workout. You did the right thing when you transferred with the awful pain. Your body told you something was wrong and you did the appropriate thing. I doubt if you had planned on a hospital birth from the git-go things would have been different, except now, you know what happened and are better informed. I am sure that having educated yourself that you truly know your surgery was necessary, which is not always the case with most women who have had a surgical birth.

As for placenta accreta, many surgeries are done on nulliparas now without informing women of the full risks of the surgeries.

1. If you ever had your fallopian tubes blown out for infertility, that can introduce bacteria into your uterus and tubes and cause the very thing it is looking for - scar tissue.

2. Cervical biopsies can be extensive and introduce bacteria into the uterus, causing scar tissue and set the stage for placenta accreta and previa.

3. If you ever had an IUD, these act by irritating the uterine lining, causing a low grade infection and can cause, not necessarily, but can cause scar tissue.

4. A previous D&C can cause scar tissue also to form in the uterus. So even if you have not had a caesarean section there are other opportunities to cause scar tissue in the uterus and set up a condition for placenta accreta even before a woman is a mother.

If you want a reference or source for this information, read the consent forms for them.

So a previous caesarean section or myomectomy are not necessarily the only way to get scar tissue growing in the uterus or to have a minor infection.

Did you have a hysterectomy?
 
#37 ·
I'm glad you survived that horrible situation. It sounds very scary


However, I agree with many pp who say that it was your intuition that was of utmost value to you. I believe that your case is actually pro-homebirth, as you planned it, researched it, and then when you realized something was wrong, you went to the hospital and received appropriate medical care. Had you been ignorant to the signs/symptoms of medical emergencies, you might have died at home.

I think it's the women who choose homebirth who do the research; women who blindly give birth in hospitals without even giving it a thought are often ignorant of the reality of giving birth.

I think you are prescribing that every woman give birth in a medical facility because of your experience, which is dangerous. Just because you had a very rare complication, does not negate the statistics which state that homebirth is AS safe as hospital for low-risk women. (cite: JMB study)

I had a pph with my homebirth. It sucks, but it's a risk and I knew it was a risk when I chose to homebirth. I transferred after the baby was born for appropriate medical care. But I didn't go until I knew I needed more than what could be done at home. And even having had a pph, I will give birth at home again (if we have more kids), fully knowing the risks.
 
#38 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
ok let me ask something i've been thinking about..

if such a place - totally homebirth like place - existed *within* a hospital (same floor as regular L&D), staffed by midwives, with tubs, showers, soft lighting, family members allowed, birth balls, massage, music, no compulsory limits on stages of labor, no 'routine ivs' no ban on food and drink etc ..whatever you would have at homebirth you have it here..just not in the 4 walls of your home

would you birth there?

getting back to my earlier question do most of you choose h/b because
a/ you want to avoid the bad things associated with hospitals

or b/ you're drawn to birthing in your home, in your nest, like you might be drawn to chocolate and cheese as a pregnancy craving.
No I wouldn't. In this country, they almost don't exist. Especially if you are a VBACer or you are like most of us who have doctors who find it more convenient to cut you. Just b/c you don't require an IV or can eat doesn't mean you won't be forced into lithotomy with your baby taken from you for 3 hours under the warming lights and given unnecessary shots and interventions while you have your placenta pulled out of you.

Of course h/b is better for the reasons hospitals are not good. That's the point, isn't it? It is a place you can be comfortable and safe. You needn't worry about random strangers coming in to observe your coochie while you are laboring. You don't have to beg people not to invade your body.

I think what you propose is honestly pretty offensive. It suggests that people who choose homebirth all do it out of fear and know nothing of the risks to ANY birth. There are *always* risks with everything. Heck, you can die from drinking too much water!! While you also are ignoring the studies on homebirth saying they aren't "recent" whatever that means. God knows when it comes to giving birth only the studies from the past couple years matter? Not the whole biological fact that it is a normal process and it's very rare for things to actually go wrong.

Why go to a hospital for a normal delivery where you face a higher chance of c-section, infections, and non-necessary interventions???

I suggest you read these reports and studies before you assume we all don't know anything about rare risks in homebirth. If it makes anyone feel better, I saw some from 2005 on there. :
http://www.gentlebirth.org/ronnie/homesafe.html

On that page from BMJ:

Quote:
Neonatal Outcomes:

In the hospital, 3.7 times as many babies required resuscitation.
Infection rates of newborns were 4 times higher in the hospital.
There was 2.5 times as many cases of meconium aspiration pneumonia in the hospital group.
There were 6 cases of neonatal lungwater syndrome in the hospital and none at home.
There were 30 birth injuries (mostly due to forceps) in the hospital group, and none at home.
The incidence of respiratory distress among newborns was 17 times greater in the hospital than in the home.
While neonatal and perinatal death rates were statistically the same for both groups, Apgar scores (a measure of physical well being of the newborn) were significantly worse in the hospital.
And since all of the people pushing that hospital birth is the only acceptable way because they lurve to use scare tactics against women going through a normal, natural process, here are just a couple reasons hospital births are not the way to go for almost every woman:
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1619.htm
http://www.gentlebirth.org/ronnie/mederrors.html
http://www.childbirthconnection.org/...e.asp?ck=10166

Quote:

Originally Posted by holothuroidea View Post
Please, ladies, site your sources that show that home birth is safer, reduces mortality, please.

I have never seen any sources that say this with any kind of certainty.

Statistics, in the case of home birth, really cannot prove anything. This happens for various reasons. "Safety" is a relative and poorly defined term. It is virtually impossible to collect an accurate population sample of home birthing women in the United States, and it is even more impossible to find an adequate hospital control group to compare them too. The data that exists now (In the BMJ study, for example) can be (and has been) manipulated to show that either way is safer.

This is something that we should accept, that good statistics do not exist, instead of pretending like they show us what we want them to show us.

Just a friendly reminder.

Home birth will never be about "the statistics show us it's safer," anyway. Even if the statistics made a very good case against home birth, most of us would still do it. Why do we even bother to spout these mistruths at people? Reassurance? From what? What monster living under our beds has forced us to recede to believing this nonsense?
My pleasure. And FWIW since my dh was a chemist in pharma and I have taken way too many stats classes for my own sanity, there are NO good 100% unbiased studies. EVER. Seriously. All data can be manipulated. So you are right about that. But that also unhinges the view that hospital birth is safer.
The AMA definitely has something to lose with that. Just ask all us Illinoisians.

So if you are convinced that stats never matter because they aren't infallible...why ask for studies?

Studies and reports:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1416?ehom
http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/nat...omebirth01.htm
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...nder-fire.html
http://www.homebirth.org.nz/articles...irthsafety.pdf
http://www.yin-yang.com/vbfree/docs/schlenzka.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...?dopt=Abstract
http://www.gentlebirth.org/ronnie/isleMan.html
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/whoplace.html
http://www.globalmidwives.org/files/...rth-safety.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7068pr4.htm
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7068pr4.htm
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7068pr4.htm
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7068pr1.htm
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7068pr1.htm
http://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/homebirth.html

From a World Health Organization (WHO) report - subsection on Place of Birth:

Quote:
It has never been scientifically proven that the hospital is a safer place than home for a woman who has had an uncomplicated pregnancy to have her baby. Studies of planned home births in developed countries with women who have had uncomplicated pregnancies have shown sickness and death rates for mother and baby equal to or better than hospital birth statistics for women with uncomplicated pregnancies.
http://www.collegeofmidwives.org/leg...1/synopsis.htm
http://www.collegeofmidwives.org/leg...1/synopsis.htm

From http://www.gentlebirth.org/ronnie/homesafe.html

Quote:
From a report on homebirth in England:

More recently, the 1992 House of Commons Select Committee on Maternity Services, now known as the Winterton report, went to the heart of the issue in the first of more than 100 recommendations and conclusions on pregnancy, labour and postnatal care.
On the basis of what we have heard, this Committee must draw the conclusion that the policy of encouraging all women to give birth in hospitals cannot be justified on grounds of safety.

Elsewhere the report went further. "There is no convincing or compelling evidence that hospitals give a better guarantee of the safety of the majority of mothers and babies. It is possible, but not proven, that the contrary may be the case."

BTW your chance of your infant dying during a c-section is three times as high for elective c-sections. So you are right:

Quote:

Originally Posted by holothuroidea View Post
Reassurance? From what? What monster living under our beds has forced us to recede to believing this nonsense?
What reassurance does elective c-sections give us? What reassurance does a hospital birth give us? That if we are one of the vast minority a hospital may help us yet very well may kill us with an unnecessary c-section or MRSA or even more likely, medical mistake? What has forced us to believe THAT nonsense? Do people really believe that even though women have given birth since time immemorial that we are somehow incapable of doing it without a full hospital backup any more? And of course women died during childbirth. They still do! Now most often b/c of anesthesia or c-section complications or infections. Surely if anyone used to know anything about germ theory and how it wasn't actually a good idea to stick a dirty hand up into a birthing woman then less would have died from childbirthing fever, right?

Nashvillemidwife
 
#39 ·
I'm sorry you had a bad experience.

That being said, you planned on a homebirth, listened to your body, and knew you needed medical intervention. That does not mean homebirth is unsafe. It means that for this particular pregnancy YOU needed a hospital birth.

You had a bad experience but statisics show that by far homebirth is safer. Don't denigrate women who intelligently choose homebirth because YOU needed to birth in a hospital.
 
#40 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
ok let me ask something i've been thinking about..

if such a place - totally homebirth like place - existed *within* a hospital (same floor as regular L&D), staffed by midwives, with tubs, showers, soft lighting, family members allowed, birth balls, massage, music, no compulsory limits on stages of labor, no 'routine ivs' no ban on food and drink etc ..whatever you would have at homebirth you have it here..just not in the 4 walls of your home

would you birth there?

.

No, not unless I needed to be there.
 
#42 ·
Quote:
All data can be manipulated. So you are right about that. But that also unhinges the view that hospital birth is safer. The AMA definitely has something to lose with that. Just ask all us Illinoisians.

So if you are convinced that stats never matter because they aren't infallible...why ask for studies?
I agree, and I never ask for studies about this stuff for my own information. People really believe whatever they hear when it follows "Studies show..." and I think that is very dangerous. Studies can be set up to show anything you want them too, to get the general public to believe it. I don't trust it.

My point is, who cares anyway? Who cares about someone else's definition of "saftey" and how that relates to what number of people die where? It all seems so irrelevant to me. My question is, why do we even bother with this stuff?

Me and my husband are both chemists, we spend a lot of time thinking about science. We've come to the conclusion that obstetrics is the LEAST scientific of any of the medicinal sciences, which tend not to be all that scientific anyway. You cannot apply science to the human condition, just ask Einstein.
 
#43 ·
I almost forgot. Pretty recently there was an article in Mothering about homebirth in Holland, right? I would highly suggest reading that article. It was very good and that will give a good perspective on the safety of homebirth for all those who doubt it.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...n-holland.html
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...homebirth.html
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articl...irthissues.asp
http://www.gentlebirth.org/format/my...t.html#Studies

I would also suggest the books Pushed, Born In the USA, and The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth.
 
#44 ·
I'm glad you felt "safe" enough to tell your story on MDC. Often times we need to talk about our birth experience and I'm glad you were able to here.

Although what happened to you is rare, it does happen and can have tragic consequences. But I would ask you to see it from a different perspective. Homebirth is still a wonderfully safe option for most women and here's why - you listened to your INSTINCTS early on in labor and honored them. I think that is absolutely amazing!! How great was it that your body alerted you that something wasn't "right" and that you listened w/no questions (or so it seems in your post - leaving in 15 min. of the pain). Being in tune, trusting ourselves is part of hbing and I think your story is one of triumph b/c you did it! I am not at all trying to downplay the medical interventions that were required and what kind of toll they took on your body and birth experience. We are all hoping to avoid complications.

Oddly enough, I found your story to be a comfort. It proves to me that, even during labor, even experiencing pain, even with the many influences from drs./mw./societal birthing fears, your inner voice got through and said "Go." You did. You did an amazing thing.

I'm glad your recovery went well. Best wishes.

April - happy homebirther
 
#45 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by holothuroidea View Post
I agree, and I never ask for studies about this stuff for my own information. People really believe whatever they hear when it follows "Studies show..." and I think that is very dangerous. Studies can be set up to show anything you want them too, to get the general public to believe it. I don't trust it.

My point is, who cares anyway? Who cares about someone else's definition of "saftey" and how that relates to what number of people die where? It all seems so irrelevant to me. My question is, why do we even bother with this stuff?

Me and my husband are both chemists. Obstetrics is the LEAST scientific of any of the medicinal sciences, which tend not to be all that scientific anyway. You cannot apply science to the human condition, just ask Einstein.


I agree. Is there anyway you can use the Quote function to say who you are quoting, though? I often forget what I say so I feel senile if I respond to something that wasn't me.
 
#46 ·
I am very sorry for your experience.

I am one of those 6 in 1,000 (in America) whose baby was born still. Of course, there are times when I think of all the woulda, coulda, shouldas. But in reality, it happened so quickly (shoulder dystocia w/ cord compression) tha I know there was nothing I could do. I thought about condemning homebirth for it, but I know it wasn't the fact that she was born at home. When I was looking for online support I came across a mother who lost her baby the same way in a hospital.
I am very glad that you had enough warning signs of your condition to take appropriate action. Some of us aren't so lucky.
But I still do not believe that hospital birth should be default, of even you "ideal place". Bad things can happen anywhere. It's a scary thing to think about, but it is life. We need not blame our situations for these outcomes. Just realize that some things just *are*.
 
#47 ·
My story is similar to yours on a few counts. I had a totally normal pg (my obgyn said it was textbook), pitocin very very early (before 2cm), early epidural at 2cm or so (because ds's heartrate went WAY down). I was in labor for 8 hours, I think, and he was born vaginally. (I did not know that pitocin can cause baby's heart rate to lower- thanks for that info).
After he was born, he was perfectly fine, but I started hemhorraging. They ended up giving me 5 pints of blood, and gave me an option as to the 6th and I decided no. They never told me why I hemhorraged, and I'm not sure they know. They reached in to feel for placenta, didn't find any, took me to the OR, and ended up stuffing my uterus with gauze to stop the bleeding.
They had me sign a consent form for a hysterectomy, in case the bleeding didn't stop when they took the gauze out. Thankfully, it worked.
I was in the hospital for 6 days.
(lucky for us too, bf'ing worked out well. Dp did all the work for the first few days.)

I'm fairly certain that THEY caused my hemhorraging. But I'll never know for sure. If they didn't cause it, and I'd been at home, I very easily could have died. That's why I never want to get pg again. And if I do, I'll have the baby in a hospital.

My SIL is pg, and it sounds like they have the right idea here in BC (not sure if its the same in all of Canada or not). You can choose a midwife or a doctor, and both have rights to the hospital.

Thanks for sharing your story. It's hard to have a difficult birth like that. It takes a lot of processing, at least it does for me. You never really know the "what ifs" yk?
 
#48 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the story. This is a story that supports homebirth. OP, you felt something was wrong and you transferred. In fact, your body gave you good clues that something was wrong. How does this make homebirth any less safe?

Quote:
because some things happen *without warning*.


But you had warning - that pain was not normal. It was a warning that you needed medical help.

Quote:
i'm saying you would have a better chance in a hospital in the case of sudden serious problems. i'm not saying being in a hospital guarantees your survival.
Well, sure...but then what? I could live at the hospital for my entire pregnancy just in case something went suddenly, seriously wrong, too, but most would think that to be a little over the top.

Quote:
BUT.. in the case of an emergency you want the hospital there.
Of course - and that's what the hospital is for - for emergency situations. Just like your emergency situation. That's why any midwife worth a grain of salt will have a mom transfer at the first sign of serious trouble. And that's why it's very important to screen one's midwives carefully.

My 3rd pregancy ended at 32 weeks with a complete placental abruption. I was warned by an excrutiating contaction that didn't subside. We went to the hospital and when they didn't find a heartbeat on ultrasound, put me under general anaesthesia for an emergency c-section. I lost so much blood that I was told that if I had shown up even 10 minutes later, we both would have died. It had been a perfectly normal pregnancy up to that point, and there was absolutely no reason for my placenta to abrupt. Things happen.

BUT, I will not say that because of that, ALL my births should be in the hospital, because I understand that it was an anomaly.

My 4th baby was born at home. My midwife knew my history, and was prepared to transfer if we needed to. A known high risk pregnancy should not be done at home - I will say that forever. But, being in a hospital "just in case" is a step backwards, especially in this day and age where we can have reliable, quick transport available to us in case of an emergency.
 
#49 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
ok let me ask something i've been thinking about..

if such a place - totally homebirth like place - existed *within* a hospital (same floor as regular L&D), staffed by midwives, with tubs, showers, soft lighting, family members allowed, birth balls, massage, music, no compulsory limits on stages of labor, no 'routine ivs' no ban on food and drink etc ..whatever you would have at homebirth you have it here..just not in the 4 walls of your home

would you birth there?

getting back to my earlier question do most of you choose h/b because
a/ you want to avoid the bad things associated with hospitals

or b/ you're drawn to birthing in your home, in your nest, like you might be drawn to chocolate and cheese as a pregnancy craving.
Having had this experience and THEN choosing homebirth after, yes, I would still have a homebirth. Honestly, I had a great birth experience w/a hospital midwife who was a big supporter of natural birth (she's actually close friends w/one of my homebirth midwives). Labor is labor... mine were about the same, honestly. Even in the hospital, I was allowed to eat and drink, etc, Walk, use the tub, use the birth ball. The big difference was being HOME afer vs. being in a cheap imitation of home after. There's no way I would want to give that up unless there was an emergency that necessitated a ride to the hospital (most likely in an ambulance). This is where your story supports homebirth, really... you listened to your body, knew something was VERY wrong and made the best decision for yourself and your child. I'm betting your midwife won't make the mistake of trying to talk someone out of listening to her body again. You've actually made homebirth that much safer by helping your midwife remember that the body knows when something's so wrong.
 
#50 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybyrd View Post
A known high risk pregnancy should not be done at home - I will say that forever. But, being in a hospital "just in case" is a step backwards, especially in this day and age where we can have reliable, quick transport available to us in case of an emergency.
Exactly, and there are risks to hospital births too.
 
#51 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pannacotta View Post
ok let me ask something i've been thinking about..

if such a place - totally homebirth like place - existed *within* a hospital (same floor as regular L&D), staffed by midwives, with tubs, showers, soft lighting, family members allowed, birth balls, massage, music, no compulsory limits on stages of labor, no 'routine ivs' no ban on food and drink etc ..whatever you would have at homebirth you have it here..just not in the 4 walls of your home

would you birth there?
No. In the US the closest thing (besides home itself) to what you describe would be birth centers, free standing or in-hospital. The criteria is often strict - you have to be what they consider low-risk, you have to be between 37-40 weeks, the baby can't be "too big" (and we know how accurate sonos are), you can't be a VBAC, and on and on.

When I first was pregnant with my second, I thought, perhaps a change of scenery would improve my birth experience. I aimed for the hospital's BC (same one I had my first birth in). They ruled me out at 34/35 weeks because of what they did to my son. My over managed labor sent ds into distress, when he was born they clamped his cord right away and so naturally he aspirated some old mec. During deep suctioning they punctured his lung. He developed pulmonary hypotension and was a gravely ill baby for the first week of his life. He's snuggled up with me now, I feel so blessed and lucky to have him here.

By the time I was about 35 weeks along, I had done a lot more research and realized that what happened to us wasn't some random occurrence, it wasn't "just one of those things we can't control", it wasn't fate. It was quite sadly typical. I was being denied what I thought I wanted (BC birth, after that I tried to "quit" hospital's care, and well that's a really long story) because the typical medical model of 'care' is dangerous. Talk about not fair.

So, after all that, I had no desire to look into any kind of BC ever again. I did more soul searching, and more research into homebirth and UC, and felt that UC was truly right for me (which I suspected was right for me evenwhile pregnant with ds2 but you don't just make that kind of paradigm shift in a short time). My second hospital birth, uneventful by medical standards at least, was what sealed the deal. I was not going deal with the pressure to be induced again with horror stories and threats of CPS and them being in a panic that I was a "disaster waiting to happen" at 39 weeks because of "pre-eclampsia" they suddenly discovered. I was not going to spend my whole labor fighting for what I had wanted even though I had a clear signed birth plan and copies that the nurses didn't even bother to look at, asking for an hour to get off the machines and into a tub, having my Dh throw himself between cord and Dr holding the clamp because she "forgot" about delayed cord clamping (he succeeded), getting 'standard' post partum pitocin without my prior knowledge..I could go on.

I'm not going to chance going through all of that based on the slight likely hood that something beyond anyone's control and no one's fault could happen.

My experiences have obviously helped to shape my opinion, likewise have yours. You're no longer comfortable with home birth, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, though I disagree with your conclusion that because there's a slight risk of something going wrong in a low risk preg, period, it's better to suggest the blanket solution of "hospital is the place to be".

Again, I do wish women had more options available. The sad truth is informed women are still rare, think hospital birth is the norm and were brought up to believe that birth is a scary event to be saved from. I sense changes happening and more women being informed, but the climate is more volatile I think. Just look at the climbing c-section rate in the USA.

Quote:
getting back to my earlier question do most of you choose h/b because
a/ you want to avoid the bad things associated with hospitals

or b/ you're drawn to birthing in your home, in your nest, like you might be drawn to chocolate and cheese as a pregnancy craving.
Honestly, both for me. Bad things associated with hospitals happened to me, and when the pressure was on me during my second pregnancy, I meditated one night to try to relieve the extreme mental and in turn physical stress I was under, and it became clearer and clearer that I wanted to be alone. Thinking about being alone in labor brought me an inner peace that I had never felt before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomaYula View Post
I had a pph with my homebirth. It sucks, but it's a risk and I knew it was a risk when I chose to homebirth. I transferred after the baby was born for appropriate medical care. But I didn't go until I knew I needed more than what could be done at home. And even having had a pph, I will give birth at home again (if we have more kids), fully knowing the risks.
I had a mild PPH with my last birth. research and listening to my intuition and my body's signals (I also suspect that taking alfalfa prenatally played a part) is what kept it mild. I knew what to do, I didn't pass out, and I got through it. It was sort of "funny", I went into total take charge objective mode when I realized I was feeling dizzy.

Just a side note, because I disagree with you, the OP, doesn't mean I am attacking you. I think it's brave of you to share your story here, and hey, I'm glad you did.


Ok my kids are hungry, have to stop rambling!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top