Originally Posted by Wugmama
I can't for the life of me understand why you would want to propose that having a hospital birth is an unethical choice. As a proponent of homebirths (as it sounds like you are) haven't you had that argument applied to you enough times to realize what a crock that kind of statement is? Do you REALLY feel justified in bringing that up, or are you just trying to start a, "How do you feel when it is applied to you" thread?
There are members here who have had a hospital birth and their babies DIED and now they are left to wonder what if.... There are members here who have had a homebirth and their babies DIED and they are left to wonder what if. So do you want to, or are you honestly inviting the rest of us, to tell some of these mothers that they made an unethical decision about where to birth their babies???
I just don't get it. Like there aren't enough people out there to tear mothers down for one thing or another. No one needs this kind of invitation.
This is what I meant when I said:
Originally Posted by Arwyn
I do think it would be an interesting tact to take with someone who used the "oh, I wouldn't take the risk!" line to disparage homebirth. But I also think it must be done with care, because it would be too easy for a woman choosing hospital birth to feel attacked by a turning of the tables of that statement (regardless that they basically just attacked the person chosing homebirth - more flies with honey, and whatnot).
Wugmama, I don't believe the original intent was to attack or shame mothers who choose hospital births. It is an interesting ethical question - what risks are acceptable to take? For someone who won't drink ANY tea in pregnancy (not even decaf) because of the "risk of caffeine" does it really make sense to take the risks of going into the hospital and accepting induction, narcotics, episiotomy? (That was my sister, by the way.) Why is one "risk" - truly minute, if not nonexistant, in the case of minor amounts of caffeine - less acceptable than other - giving birth in the hospital with the use of pitocin and narcotics, both with well documented, unnecessary side effects?
I do think the problem arises (and as you can see, I am guilty of it) in part from the use of "acceptable" or "ok" as though a choice deemed (by some) less ethical is "unacceptable" or "not ok" - what does that, then, mean? Does it mean no one should be allowed to choose the (deemed unethical) "unacceptable" risk? I would venture to say that no one here is of that position. I would hope everyone here believes that the rights of the individual (of self-determination, as I would put it) are vastly more important than what we, as outsiders (ie not the person choosing) would choose based on a judgment of "ethical" or "unethical".
It also relates to a broader question of "the system" (as in, the hospitals, OBs, some CNMs, HMOs, and others who deliberately work to make hospital birth not just the norm, but the only option). Is what "they" are doing ethical, by manipulating data and emotions to convince mothers that homebirth is an "unacceptable risk" (that's a direct quote from far too many
OBs)? What use might it serve if homebirth supporters turned the tables and proposed that, for the majority of women, it is hospital birth that is the "unacceptable risk"? I would guess, from your above post, that you would say it doesn't serve our purpose. I would like to hear more from you about these topics.
I really hope we can continue this conversation in a respectful, non-attacking, non-defensive manner.