or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › This Dr. Amy Tuteur woman drives me crazy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This Dr. Amy Tuteur woman drives me crazy. - Page 2  

post #21 of 168
Women could still have a homebirth with a midwife of her choice. She would just be called a direct entry midwife, rather than a CPM, which is confusingly similar to CNM.
post #22 of 168
I think it's pretty disingenuous to argue that Dr Amy suggests homebirth in any circumstance - she doesn't. I've had the privilege of corresponding with her directly on this and she would never admit that homebirth is preferable. Maybe she's since changed her position. If you can find an article where she supports homebirth and women's choices, by all means post it here! I'd love to read that.
post #23 of 168

Dated 2014.

 

Quote:
 Homebirth is a choice that every women is entitled to make and I would never ban the choice even if I could.

http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/01/homebirth-hater-no-but-heres-what-i-do-hate.html

post #24 of 168
Oh yes, the towing the line I don't hate homebirth but really I kind of do and I don't wish homebirth was illegal but I wish no one would do it becaue "dead baby, dead baby..."

It's not at all surprising that she's an OB, is it? Perfect match for her.

She doesn't want it banned (or so she says) but ask her if there's ever a situation where she would support a woman's choice to birth at home. Unless something has changed dramatically in her views in the recent past her answer will be no. And her blog is a forum that she uses to spread her ideology that homebirth is never a wise choice.
post #25 of 168
I mean, no one here is seriously arguing that Dr Amy is a champion for women's rights in childbirth or that she advocates homebirth, right?
post #26 of 168
An yes, dated 2014, apparently after several years she finally realized sometime in the last month or so that saying pregnant women should have less choice than everyone else in society is generally not acceptable. Better late than never.
post #27 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola P View Post

Oh yes, the towing the line I don't hate homebirth but really I kind of do and I don't wish homebirth was illegal but I wish no one would do it becaue "dead baby, dead baby..."

It's not at all surprising that she's an OB, is it? Perfect match for her.

She doesn't want it banned (or so she says) but ask her if there's ever a situation where she would support a woman's choice to birth at home. Unless something has changed dramatically in her views in the recent past her answer will be no. And her blog is a forum that she uses to spread her ideology that homebirth is never a wise choice.


I'm okay with her thinking it isn't a great choice.

post #28 of 168
I guess of we carp about Dr Amy's character we can avoid discussing some of the more concerning details of the paper recently published by the MANA stats folks.

OK, then, Dr Amy is mean and rude, and I don't really care for her tone.

BUT - I do share some of her concerns regarding the safety - or lack thereof - of OOH birth in the US.

And I didn't see anything in the recent study that supports the claim of safety --- not really. Is it as bad as Dr Amy says ? 500% higher or whatever? Not sure, but doesn't anyone want to find out?
post #29 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by krst234 View Post

I'm not so interested in discussing Dr Amy as I am in discussing the article published by the MANAstats folks.

Has anyone read it? What did you think?

I'm working my way through it but was kind of alarmed, especially given that it was voluntary self-reporting, so one has to assume that some bad outcomes were left out, right? fWIW, I'm very pro-home birth (attempted one last time that ended in non-emergent transfer) but these numbers are not reassuring.

Has anyone seen a good discussion of the statistics?
post #30 of 168
Quote:
 Has anyone seen a good discussion of the statistics?

 

You mean a critical, open discussion regarding the MANA stats findings? Not yet.

 

A while ago Evidence Based Birth had an 'impartial 3rd party' review the infamous Wax study.

I would like to see a 3rd party evaluate the recent MANA paper. That might start a good discussion. If that is what you mean by a 'good discussion.'

 

I would like that as well.

post #31 of 168
The title of this thread is "This Dr. Amy Tutuer woman drives me crazy" and the original post was expressing frustration about dr Amy in general and her post on the mana study in particular.

I think it's totally valid if you want to discuss the mana study but maybe a new thread is warranted.
post #32 of 168

She doesn't discourage home birth, she discourages people choosing homebirth without the correct information about risks. That's all. 

 

I thought she was pretty awful before I had my baby, but since then I've found some really good stuff about her, too. Everyone has good or bad things to them. I actually made a page about it on my blog. http://exhomebirthers.wordpress.com/hate-dr-amy-teuter-click-here/ 

post #33 of 168
In my direct experience she did discourage homebirth even for low risk.

It's really weird to me that people are suggesting that she's ok with home birth. This is characteristic of our current culture - constant confusion where up is down, bad is good. It's so Orwellian.

I'm pretty bored with arguing that 2 + 2 does indeed = 4 so I think I'm going to humbly remove myself from this conversation.
post #34 of 168

So what if she is not enthusiastic about home birth?  That doesn't make her analysis of the MANA stats wrong.

post #35 of 168

When playing with the CDC numbers, I found a hospital death rate more than double what she found for her blog when using criteria of white, full term, all states, etc. I tried to make it as low risk as possible while choosing hospital as the location, but the numbers I got were .8something vs. .38 that is being talked about in the blog post. (and I hesitate to even write this because I am certain it is going to lead to me being called all sorts of names, having my brain called into question, having my mathematical skills ridiculed, and even maybe getting some hate mail.... has happened in the past when I have participated in such discussions.... so I am just saying what happened when I played with the numbers) Also, in the past when I was in a discussion about this sort of thing with some people who were extremely anti-homebirth and we were all playing with that database of numbers and I found that the homebirth death rate with doctors was super high, I was told that I couldn't make any assumptions based on such raw numbers, that information can only be gained through studies that examine and explain the numbers. So, I am keeping that in mind now. I would love to see more discussion of the MANA numbers, but I think another thread might be the best place for that. 

 

And someone also mentioned above about how concerning it is that it is voluntary reporting and so midwives probably aren't reporting the bad outcomes, so I would love to address that real quick. I participate in MANA stats for every birth, if my clients give me permission to do so. They are enrolled during their pregnancy, you cannot enroll them after the pregnancy is over. So, they are in the database and then I must fill out their birth information. If anything was fishy with the information that I sent in, MANA has the contact information for myself and the woman (she writes down her contact information on the consent form), so there could always be follow-up. I have always found this to be an important project, so I have always been completely honest in filling out those records. 

post #36 of 168

One more thing that dawned on me while playing with the CDC wonder numbers..... intrapartum fetal deaths are not included in the infant death numbers. Is there somewhere else on that site that has that number? 

post #37 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by krst234 View Post

I'm not so interested in discussing Dr Amy as I am in discussing the article published by the MANAstats folks.

Has anyone read it? What did you think?

I was particularly alarmed by this: only ~52% of women in the study with EBL >500mL were treated with anti-hemorrhagic agents.
So, is this saying that some subset of MANAstats contributors don't treat PPH? There are many little details in this study that are ... concerning..... to say the least.

The breech mortality rate is alarming - as well as the fact as about 1/2 of the attempted breech home births were not vaginal births. Is this conveyed to clients attempting breech birth at home with a midwife? That there is increased risk of death, as well as a 50/50 chance of a c-section? Wouldn't/shouldn't this be included in proper informed consent?

We can bellyache about Dr Amy, or we can discuss the findings reported in this article. I'm all for informed consent - let's talk about what women deserve to know before they plan an OOH birth with a midwife.

The research article discussed the blood loss issue. They mentioned that visual assessment is not an accurate indicator of blood volume, and that perhaps 500 ml is not a good number to judge pph by. This makes sense to me. Average blood loss in a C Section is 600-800 mls with no blood products required. Or at least, in the C/S I attend.
post #38 of 168
Also, my homebirth mw does not do breech births. She transfers in if baby has shifted in labor. And since breech birth is rarely attempted vaginally in hospital, of course the C/S rate is going to be high. The hospital rate of breech birth must be nearly 100%... Although I have attended one breech birth in hospital. And was told I would probably never again see it in my career.
post #39 of 168
"And someone also mentioned above about how concerning it is that it is voluntary reporting and so midwives probably aren't reporting the bad outcomes, so I would love to address that real quick. I participate in MANA stats for every birth, if my clients give me permission to do so. They are enrolled during their pregnancy, you cannot enroll them after the pregnancy is over."

Not according to Barb Herrera at navelgazingmidwife.com:

"The study says they enrolled the clients before they knew the outcome of the births, but I beg to differ. They may do that now, but back when I was doing them (2004-2009), we didn’t even fill out the paperwork until the woman was past six weeks postpartum. In fact, we used to sit with a pile of charts in our laps and fill out stat sheet after stat sheet, some women even a year (or more) postpartum. At that time, the stats were filled out on paper and sent in, so I know we weren’t supposed to send in any statistics before the woman was six weeks postpartum. I can’t imagine we were the only ones that did it that way."
post #40 of 168
If you go to evidence based birth's Facebook page, Rebecca dekker has written a reply/response to the MANA stats paper.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › This Dr. Amy Tuteur woman drives me crazy.