So they say it is not safe. Yeah, of what I know they are basing that on studies of high-risk HB compared to low risk hospital birth. That is stupid, and inaccurate.
And what is the difference between a homebirth and a freestanding birth center birth? Not much in my opinion, all the "emergencies" can just as easily be taken care of at home, with pitocin, oxygen, and other medical supplies a midwife brings, so why say a BC is ok, but not a HB?
VBAC, come on, please, the reason VBAC is SOOOO risky according to ACOG is because they looked at ONE study in which most moms were induced with cytotec, and or Pitocin and, because of that, rupture rate was over 3%. In every study with no induction or augmentation, it's less than 1%, usually around .5%. IF this uterine rupture DOES happen, how is a birthing center going to provide a cesarean?
The cesarean rate is very high (31% here) and this "emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes." is bolonga!!! It has been proven over and over again, that these contributors are NOT what is causing the raise in rates.
and then there is this "there is no scientific way to recommend an 'ideal' national cesarean rate as a target goal." Oh yeah, the WHO, they don't know what they are doing, or saying, and they of course were in no way "scientific". 15%, it's that simple, stop cutting women open unnecessarily, it's not a zipper!
"The availability of an obstetrician-gynecologist to provide expertise and intervention in an emergency during labor and/or delivery may be life-saving for the mother or newborn and lower the likelihood of a bad outcome" Yeah, according to the studies, all these interventions, they are not lifesaving, more women and babies die in hospitals. It's a fact.
"It should be emphasized that studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous. " Yes they have. The ones ACOG look at have not been scientifically rigorous.
"Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby." Right, like a a mom doesn't want to end up healthy, or her baby. When women say, 'I want a good birth experience' that INCLUDES a healthy mom and baby.
I'm so pissed of because the reason my insurance company is denying coverage for a homebirth is because of this article. It's still cheaper to go through a HB MW than to hosptial birth with insurance coverage, but I'm still pissed off, that some moms have to choose to birth in hospital because their insurance companies are as close minded and absent minded as mine.
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!
And what is the difference between a homebirth and a freestanding birth center birth? Not much in my opinion, all the "emergencies" can just as easily be taken care of at home, with pitocin, oxygen, and other medical supplies a midwife brings, so why say a BC is ok, but not a HB?
VBAC, come on, please, the reason VBAC is SOOOO risky according to ACOG is because they looked at ONE study in which most moms were induced with cytotec, and or Pitocin and, because of that, rupture rate was over 3%. In every study with no induction or augmentation, it's less than 1%, usually around .5%. IF this uterine rupture DOES happen, how is a birthing center going to provide a cesarean?
The cesarean rate is very high (31% here) and this "emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes." is bolonga!!! It has been proven over and over again, that these contributors are NOT what is causing the raise in rates.
and then there is this "there is no scientific way to recommend an 'ideal' national cesarean rate as a target goal." Oh yeah, the WHO, they don't know what they are doing, or saying, and they of course were in no way "scientific". 15%, it's that simple, stop cutting women open unnecessarily, it's not a zipper!
"The availability of an obstetrician-gynecologist to provide expertise and intervention in an emergency during labor and/or delivery may be life-saving for the mother or newborn and lower the likelihood of a bad outcome" Yeah, according to the studies, all these interventions, they are not lifesaving, more women and babies die in hospitals. It's a fact.
"It should be emphasized that studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous. " Yes they have. The ones ACOG look at have not been scientifically rigorous.
"Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby." Right, like a a mom doesn't want to end up healthy, or her baby. When women say, 'I want a good birth experience' that INCLUDES a healthy mom and baby.
I'm so pissed of because the reason my insurance company is denying coverage for a homebirth is because of this article. It's still cheaper to go through a HB MW than to hosptial birth with insurance coverage, but I'm still pissed off, that some moms have to choose to birth in hospital because their insurance companies are as close minded and absent minded as mine.
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!
hospital with a 34% CS rate - it is in a health system with two other hospitals who each sported CS rates OVER 40%.....my daughter was one of only 16 VBACS out of several thousand births in '08 at that hospital), and are choosing a HBAC this time, but the decision to come up with $4000 or not almost made us opt for another hospital birth. My insurance is fantastic for hospital births and our entire prenatal care, delivery and hospital stay would be virtually free. It is so unfair and illogical.
I've read some great posts in my tribal area. It's worth looking into.
