|Additionally, who's to say that everyone has a good outcome with accreta - even if they ARE in the hospital? In your case, they were doing everything they could, yet it wasn't working so it still seems that it is only through the grace of god/luck/whatever you want to call it, that got you through it alive. Wouldn't you say?"
no, and i'm not saying that - please read my post carefully. 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.
I *did* read your post carefully. Looking back on my post, I realize I wasn't totally clear, but I was asking "wouldn't you say" to the part about them doing everything they could with you.
Yes, you did say that in case of a few, extremely rare, extremely serious, emergencies, you are better off in a hospital, but that ultimately there is no guarantee. I think pretty much everyone here would agree with that. I also think that many of us here would say, "because of a few rare and extremely serious situations, which are actually caused by being in the hospital, you are much better off at home."
I am truly sorry for your experience, and I'm glad there are posters like aileen who can really say something kind and beautiful. However, to me your story does not mean hospitals are safer for giving birth; it just doesn't. It's all about the risk that any individual woman is willing to take. Obviously, as you were getting at in your post, the ideal would be to have a birth place where no risk is introduced, yet extreme emergency care is readily available. Personally, I just don't think this is possible - something close to it, maybe, and I do fantasize about this very thing sometimes! But in the meantime, I'll take the risk and continue to have my kids out of hospital.