or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Buzzbuzz

I thought this was a bit interesting.  Colorado requires its midwives to report homebirth outcomes.  In its discussion of their outcomes, the state midwifery association notes:   "Based on numerous studies already published comparing home and hospital births, it’s clear that two deaths in 600 or 700 births are not outside expected outcomes for planned homebirth of healthy low-risk women and babies attended by trained direct-entry...
Have you decided between CPM and CNM? I would think your question set would be a bit different depending on which route you go.   The navelgazing midwife have a 5 part series on interviewing a homebirth midwife.   This is a link to part 1:   http://navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2011/10/8/interviewing-a-homebirth-midwife-part-1.html
"I am, of course, not qualified in the slightest to look into these numbers all that well but it's an interesting thing to play around with for folks that like numbers."   Yes, amazing what happens when premature birth is included basically within the hospital numbers alone (as generally even the most vehement homebirth advocate will not deliver at home before 36 weeks) and the results of all homebirth transfers are included in the hospital numbers.
But I don't think that's relevant for the point I think MWHerbs is trying to make, since that is for all twin birth regardless of maturity, right?  The Oregon numbers are for term birth only.  Also, the CDC Wonder numbers include homebirth transfers as hospital births, while the Oregon numbers are based on planned place of birth.   Could perhaps mothercat ask Ms. Rooks to clarify what she is considering "term birth" (36 weeks and after or 40 weeks and after -- for...
I really have no understanding on the numbers you are getting.    I'm looking at CDC wonder that shows results in 2008 for twins born in the United States.   At 36 weeks, the rate is 4.35 per 1,000 for c-section and 4.87 for vaginal birth.  At 37 weeks, 5.53 per 1000 for vaginal and 4.13 per 1,000 for c-section.  At 38 weeks, its 5.54 per 1000 for vaginal and 4.51 per 1000 for c-section, etc., etc.   This is for all births, regardless of attendant.   How...
"Poop in the tub isn't an issue. If mom poops, we take a fishnet and discreetly scoop it out."   But the water remains fecally contaminated.  Always made me wonder if anyone has tried to chlorinate their birth pool!
"In short:  the data matters more than your opinion.  The data matters more than my opinion.  The data is what matters.  This thread is (if I understand IdentityCrisis Mama's point) about discussing the data.  Let's try to shed more light on that data, not cover it up with the fog of vague insinuations."   You know, I think birth is uniquely difficult on this point.  There is so much cultural baggage with birth that discussions become much more fraught...
"Knowing what increases the risk of harm and what decreases the risk of harm should be the evidence that guides professional midwifery practice."   Isn't the UK's Birthplace Study fairly good evidence on what decreases risk of harm?  I have viewed that study with a fairly skeptical eye (because I think it springs out of a policy in the UK that is about saving money -- one of the most idiotic places to try and save money being, of course, maternity services) but it...
"on a thread about a specific study that is already way off track."   Maybe we keep getting diverted because there is very little real data on the homebirth safety point.  Rooks states that the Oregon data is some of the best available in the US.   So for discussing homebirth safety within the United States we are left with:   Johnson & Daviss -- which has been heavily critiqued. Wax -- which has been heavily critiqued. Rooks -- the very new Oregon...
 "If that's all they got, I agree that its pretty weak."   I believe that very few midwifery advocates are speaking against the bill because of the very large carrot at the end of the process.  I think the midwifery community in Oregon has largely accepted that eligibility for insurance reimbursements are not going to happen without mandatory licensing.  Since the licensing requirements in the bill are very minimal and the potential benefit (insurance reimbursements)...
New Posts  All Forums: