used to feel homebirth was best... but not anymore - Page 4

[pannacotta]

i'm glad it turned out ok and you did have a supportive place. maybe the change in place caused the stall, (and so it might not have happened if you'd been there form the start) maybe it would have happened anyway. we just can't know that. but either way by being in the hospital you were somewhere ready for an unexpected bad event.

i'm sure the mind has a lot to do with it...women who feel they can't push the baby out cos they are so tired.. then they see the doc approaching with forceps and they push the baby out.. but we can't prove these things.

and i think you're lucky to live in an area where you did have a friendly sounding hospital environment, so many women don't have that choice and have to fight for what they want, and that's the last thing you have energy for when you're in labor!

[pannacotta]

but wouldn't you say that every mother who dies at home (or as a result of having been at home when this happened) of hemorrhage or AFE or every baby who dies of abrupted placenta (can't do a c section at home) would have a better chance in a hospital.

i'm the first to recognize that hospitals CAUSE lots of problems and most obs have never seen a normal birth BUT..

the stats of homebirth vs hospital birth are comparing 'routine hospital births' (with all the bells and whistles) with homebirths.

they aren't comparing 'hospital birth with no routine intervention just like h/b' with homebirth.

that's a hard study to do.

i don't have a list of cause of death following homebirth (and cause of death is tricky, some studies count death of mom or baby in the first month after birth or other longish time interval) and i'd love to find one but it seems to me that some homebirth deaths could be preventable if the mom was in a hospital.

but i'm not advocating the 'procedure happy' hospital approach. far from it, i'm saying an option is to just be in the building and proceed as though we are at home, however we manage to do that.

yes the mom needs to make her wishes very clear before she goes in and when she goes in, maybe tacking a note on the door as my friend did saying 'do not come in, knock once if absolutely necessary' and her husband would go out and deal with whatever it was.

yes she will be distracted at times, but distractions happen at home too, kids crying, doorbells, and so on.

[Arwyn]

Thank you for sharing your story. I understand your feelings and your conclusions, but I do not share them.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

in the case of sudden rare emergencies, home birth is riskier than hospital birth, i don't think that's up for discussion. i'm not disputing that hospital interventions *cause* many complications, but that's another topic

No, it's really not a different topic. There are deaths that happen outside the hospital that would have been prevented in the hospital, that is true. What is ALSO true, and the reason that isn't a different topic, is that there are deaths that take place in the hospital that would have been avoided at home. Deaths from iatrogenic infections, hemorrhage, surgical error, rupture from previous surgeries, etc, etc. We simply cannot predict ahead of time which women will be which - "Oh, you're going to die of an infection, you should stay home" "You're going to abrupt, head to the hospital" It doesn't work like that. We cannot prevent all birth related deaths. It's just not possible, even in an ideal world. One of the big differences in philosophy between hospital birth proponents and homebirth proponents is whether we understand and accept that. Hospital proponents, in general, believe that if we just do enough, interfere enough, sacrifice our babies' health and our mental wellbeing, our breastfeeding relationships, our power and autonomy, we can have a guarantee. We can have a symbolic talisman that will protect us. But it's not true - we introduce more risks that way, trade one type of death risk for another. Of course we can and should (and DO) reduce those risks, with prenatal screening, appropriate use of hospitals and medicine, etc. The US as a whole has a LONG way to go in that department. Homebirthers, in general, recognize that there are no guarantees, and we work to maximize our health and wellbeing and minimize our risks, and we refuse to sacrifice real safety and health for a chimera of protection from the rarest and worst consequences.

The risks are too small and the statistics not clear enough to say which is "safer" in terms of pure maternal mortality, but in terms of infant morbidity they are crystal clear: homebirth is safer for most families.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

i think another important question is

is a woman giving birth at home because she wants to avoid the fights over 'routine procedures' she might encounter at the hospital

(because with preparation you can avoid those fights and have someone help you.

No. You can't. There are many, many birth stories posted here where women believed that they could, that if they were just educated enough, strong enough, prepared enough, had enough support, they could avoid all the problems with hospitals. They wouldn't be bullied, they wouldn't be cut, they would be strong and birth their way - but they were wrong. (There are also birth stories of beautiful, strong hospital births - but those are, I would wager, in the minority - but even if "only" 40% of women had hospital births that were traumatic, interventionist, etc, that would be far, far too many.) It is naive to believe that simply because you know what's best, you can avoid all the problems within a large institutional system. Try putting your child in public school, but demanding a class size of 14, all the newest, best textbooks, a lack of bullies or peer pressure or troubled students, full involvement from the parents, the curriculum you want and approve of, etc, etc. It simply won't happen, and it's ridiculous to think you can make it. Of course there are things you can do to improve your odds and your environment in an unfriendly, unscientific, unsupported by the evidence institution, but you simply can't go into McDonald's and get a filet mignon.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

if such a place - totally homebirth like place - existed *within* a hospital (same floor as regular L&D), staffed by midwives, with tubs, showers, soft lighting, family members allowed, birth balls, massage, music, no compulsory limits on stages of labor, no 'routine ivs' no ban on food and drink etc ..whatever you would have at homebirth you have it here..just not in the 4 walls of your home

would you birth there?

No. I would love to see such a place - I think every woman has the right to access to such a place, but it would not be safer or better than homebirth. The first intervention is birth is stepping outside your home. For some women, that intervention is well worth it - their home, for whatever reason, is not the place they feel most comfortable giving birth, and may not be safest, and they have the right to a safe, evidenced-based, women-centered, baby-friendly place to birth. But simply leaving your house introduces risks. Driving is risky in and of itself - I would wager that the odds of getting into an accident while driving, especially if your driver is in an anxious state because of your labor, is as high as your risk of catastrophic, unforeseeable problems. In addition, driving in labor is INCREDIBLY uncomfortable, and can interfere with the birth process, positioning the baby in an unfavorable way, stalling or halting labor, stressing out and wearing out the woman, etc. There are also the risks, that will never be avoided, of infection from unfamiliar bacteria or viruses (risks which can be reduced in hospital based locations, but can be avoided entirely by staying home). And it is simply not possible to be observed, to have access to high technology, without interfering, and increasing its use, which introduces its own risks, and has led us to the horrific state of birth in the US today.

So no, I would not use such a place, because there is no reason for me to, and several reasons not to.

Originally Posted by holothuroidea

Home birth will never be about "the statistics show us it's safer," anyway. Even if the statistics made a very good case against home birth, most of us would still do it. Why do we even bother to spout these mistruths at people? Reassurance? From what? What monster living under our beds has forced us to recede to believing this nonsense?

I disagree. For me, homebirth is in large part because it is safer, possibly not for me, but definitely for my baby, and for our relationship. I agree with what you say about the manipulatability of statistics, but I disagree that to state what I believe to be the best interpretation of the statistics available is "spouting a mistruth".

[bri276]

I am sorry for what happened to you.

I am trying to find the right way to phrase this, it's hard to convey the right tone when you're typing sometimes, so let me just say up front I mean this in a respectful and gentle tone; the idea that a life-threatening situation could occur during homebirth and that emergency medical care will not be available fast enough is not exactly a new, or unheard of argument against homebirth. I'm assuming (and I could be wrong) that you, yourself, considered this possibility before attempting a HB and somehow came to peace with it, but that those feelings changed once it actually happened to you and the small chance became a big reality.

I get that, and I understand it, but I think what you may not realize is that many/most of us who are proponents of HB (thought I personally had a necessary hospital birth)- the risks are simply worth the benefits. In other words, we're more willing to take our chances with an unforeseen but life-threatening or fatal complication due to being at home, rather than choosing to enter the hospital and fight, or trust our partner/doula to fight, every intervention from beginning to end with the possibility of simply being in the hospital leading to maternal or fetal death (and this DOES happen, especially with unnecessary c-sections). You said no, and the nurse listened, and that's good, but it doesn't happen that way all the time by a long shot.

The hospital is not a safety net. It's a tangled net that's often more like an obstacle course to a safe delivery. It's great that you were there when you needed to be. There are others who have experienced the opposite.

If you want to be in the hospital next time, that's understandable and fine for you- but to warn everyone else to go there "just in case" really doesn't take into consideration the millions of complications that occur because of the OB industry.

[homewithtwinsmama]

Originally Posted by pannacotta

ok let me ask something i've been thinking about..

if such a place - totally homebirth like place - existed *within* a hospital (same floor as regular L&D), staffed by midwives, with tubs, showers, soft lighting, family members allowed, birth balls, massage, music, no compulsory limits on stages of labor, no 'routine ivs' no ban on food and drink etc ..whatever you would have at homebirth you have it here..just not in the 4 walls of your home

would you birth there?

getting back to my earlier question do most of you choose h/b because
a/ you want to avoid the bad things associated with hospitals

or b/ you're drawn to birthing in your home, in your nest, like you might be drawn to chocolate and cheese as a pregnancy craving.

I have birthed twice in hosp and twice at home. In this order: Hosp., home, Hosp., home. I will never birth in a hospital by choice. I was only there when I was because things were not safe for being at home two of the times (pre-eclamsia once, and once very preemie twins). It is not about the tub or the birth ball. It is about protocol. Midwives in hospitals do not have the RIGHT to act like midwives in the way I believe midwifery should be practiced. I feel safe and labor effectively at home. At the hosp. I found the pain was much worse and my fear made me panicky. I HATE the strangers that come in and out at will. I also had my only infant loss in the hospital. There is no magic at the hospital and as Ina May Gaskin has been drawing attention to--far too many women are dying IN hospital as a result of mistakes and unnecessary intervention. I have had a few bad complications at home births I have assisted, but we knew how to handle them, got mama to the hospital and got her the emergency care she needed. To me the percentage of risk of the very rare complications of which you speak are much smaller than the percentage of risk of a hosp. doing potentially harmful interventions. Nothing in life is without risk, but each mother has to weigh what risks make her the most fearful and which she will take. For me, unless clearly required in a given circumstance, the risks of being in the hosp far outweigh being at home. Right now in my area we have an increasing epidemic of MRSA infections on the OB wards in a certain area. Would I risk that for myself and my baby if I had no other risk factors - no way! I support your right to be at the hosp if that is where you feel safe. Do you support my right to be where I feel safe?

[DoomaYula]

Originally Posted by pannacotta

again, you can *manage* what is done to you in a hospital. you can say no to anything, you can literally have no one touch you from the minute you get in.

WHERE does such a hospital exist? I mean, seriously?!?!?!?

IME, as a hospital birther AND as a hospital doula, a laboring mom in a hospital can't *manage* jackpoop. We're talking about a woman who is experiencing a profound physical and mental and emotional experience -- and some women are not assertive by nature during the easiest of times! -- and, if she says NO NO NO, there's the possibility of getting the authorities involved, threats can be made to her about her child's health, well-being...

A doula is not the answer! We can't make decisions for the mom. We can't argue with the staff. We can't say NO. And it's not our job anyway.

I realize the op had a traumatic experience but let's quit pretending the hospital birth in the USA is a benign democracy, shall we?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by pannacotta

my diagnosis was formally 'placenta accreta', meaning the placenta was embedded too deeply into the uterus.
<snip>
most women lose their uterus with this, about 10-20% die (check the stats, i'm doing this from memory). you can lose most of the blood in your body in 5-10 minutes.
<snip>
accreta is happening more and more as women have more c sections and thus have more scar tissue where the placenta can dig in too deep, but i'd never had a c section.

This part alone makes me really wonder about your stance on homebirth. More and more women are experiencing accretas, due to surgeries performed on them at the hospital. You cite a death rate from this of 10-20% (I haven't researched it recently myself). That means - flat out - that doctors are killing women by performing c-sections for medically "prudent" and/or completely unwarranted reasons...yet we're safer in the hospital?? I've had four c-sections, and my risk for placenta accreta in my next pregnancy is now considerably greater than 1 in 60,000...because of what's been done to my body in the hospital. If I suffer an accreta next time, and I go through what you did, then that's 1 to 1. Birth isn't safe - not 100% safe - no matter where you do it. (Of course, nothing is 100% safe.)

My last section was done because of the condition of the baby in utero (he died). My first three were all done, because the doctors were afraid of what might happen in labour (1 & 2 - both breech) or before labour (3 - "overdue"). None of those babies were in any distress of any kind, yet I have a drastically increased risk of dying because they were "saved" in the fashion they were.

my point is this.. there are some obstetric emergencies that can kill you wherever you are but you stand a much better chance in the hospital. one of these is accreta, another is amniotic fluid embolism (the biggest killer of women in birth. i had a mild form of this too), another is a ruptured uterus (yes you have warning sometimes that this is happening, but sometimes it's sudden and the baby would die before you were able to get to the hospital.)

And, oddly enough, these problem are all more likely to occur after a c-section, which is more likely to happen in the first place if you start out at the hospital.

these things are RARE, very rare, incredibly rare (i think accreta is something like 1/60,000 births)

I wish my risk of accreta was 1/60,000. It was, once upon a time.

in the complications i listed above there's sadly nothing you can do at a homebirth - manually compressing the uterus to stop bleeding would not have stopped it in my case (the docs had the whole uterus in their hands and squeezing like crazy.. nothing..),

I'm still a little confused, as you had planned a homebirth, and you did transfer, and you did make it. I haven't met anybody, here or IRL, who thinks women should never transfer if things don't feel right (although I do know that if things had turned out well for you, there are plenty would Monday morning quarterback, which sucks).

BUT i believe it's also the responsibility of every woman to prepare herself by reading and studying and asking questions about all the things a hospital will want to do and how you can refuse those you don't think are necessary
<snip>
we don't need to choose the hospital and just throw up our hands and be helpless and feel that the process is out of our hands. it isn't - WE are still in control and making decisions, or at least we should be.

Yes, we should be.
When I was in labour with Aaron, I was in a lot of pain. His heart stopped beating, and the OB went and got a new monitor. I thought she was going to take me for a c-section, but instead, she got an ultrasound machine, and started using that. I was trying to tell her to do a section, but she was pushing down on my belly with the ultrasound and I couldn't talk - I could only moan/scream with pain. After some period of time (I have no idea how long), she screamed in my face that we needed to do a section NOW - as she'd finally stopped stabbing me (that's how it felt), I was able to get out "do it"...and was wheeled off to OR for an emergency section, and got to hold my baby's corpse shortly afterwards. Sure - I "should" have been in control, but when someone is performing procedures on you that feel like you are being stabbed in the stomach, it's a little hard to talk, yk?

Oh - and my first cesarean was performed while I said, "no, I don't want a c-section - NO - NO - I don't want one" over and over again. It was also an "emergency", but there was actually no urgency...baby was doing well, and my waters hadn't even broken. So, yeah - I could have asked all the questions I wanted. I couldt refuse, but it didn't mean much, because they ignored it.

In an ideal world, I agree with you that it would be great to have the emergency equipment available in a non-abusive environment, just in case. That's not the way it is in the hospital, though, and comparing what hospital birth could be to what a homebirth is makes for an apples vs. oranges comparison.

I'll be scheduling a repeat next time. I'm not happy about it, but that's just the way it is. I'm more terrified than I've ever been in my life.

[Ladybyrd]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

No, it's really not a different topic. There are deaths that happen outside the hospital that would have been prevented in the hospital, that is true. What is ALSO true, and the reason that isn't a different topic, is that there are deaths that take place in the hospital that would have been avoided at home. Deaths from iatrogenic infections, hemorrhage, surgical error, rupture from previous surgeries, etc, etc. We simply cannot predict ahead of time which women will be which - "Oh, you're going to die of an infection, you should stay home" "You're going to abrupt, head to the hospital" It doesn't work like that. We cannot prevent all birth related deaths.

This. Also, as far as this:

but i'm not advocating the 'procedure happy' hospital approach. far from it, i'm saying an option is to just be in the building and proceed as though we are at home, however we manage to do that.

yes the mom needs to make her wishes very clear before she goes in and when she goes in, maybe tacking a note on the door as my friend did saying 'do not come in, knock once if absolutely necessary' and her husband would go out and deal with whatever it was.

It's a nice thought, but it just doesn't play out in the real world. My first birth I refused AROM - or tried to, and they just held me down and did it anyway, with my husband right there. Because it "had to be done". They cut my episiotomy while I was screaming "DON'T CUT ME!!" for my 6 lb. baby.

There is no way to walk in and have a birth proceed just as if you were at home - firstly, because you are NOT at home. They have their administrative procedures and their standard medical procedures, and they will push them, even if you refuse. And they'll be only too happy to whip out the 'dead baby' card if you refuse to vehemently.

I cannot tell you how stressful my hospital births were - even the one where I thought my OB was on board with refused procedures still required me to argue with the staff and have them call her to verify. That is a hassle no laboring woman needs.

[GooeyRN]

pannacotta,

You are really brave for posting this here! I do have to agree with you, although I am a minority here. I don't think home births should be outlawed by any means, though. Women should have a choice. I feel there are way too many "what if's" when it comes to delivery. If you live across the street from a hospital, a homebirth is most likely safe. For others, like me, who live in the boonies, there is no way I would chance it. My dd would have died if she were not born in the hospital. I had a textbook perfect pregnancy. I am glad I was there. Laboring in the hospital sucked, though. I am obviously glad I was in the hospital or I would not have my dd. My experience made me choose another hospital birth when I became pregnant with my ds. Although I was not dealing with laboring in the hospital again. I walked around the hospital all day in labor without going near the OB unit. I never called the midwife to tell her I was in labor. I walked from waiting room to waiting room watching TV and reading magazines. I showed up to the OB unit about 15 minutes before it was time to push. There wasn't time for any interventions of any kind. Not an IV, nothing. Just a quick cervical exam. Get the room ready, get a gown on, and get to business. It was great. I was physically in the hospital if I suspected a problem, but I didn't have to deal with any of the issues women complain about with having a hospital birth. If I have another child, I plan on doing that again. What I did worked well for me, but I understand that others wouldn't be happy to sit in a waiting room or walk the halls while in transition. I feel I didn't have a wonderful relaxing labor with candles and hot showers and massages, but it would have been more stressful if I were admitted earlier. But I had the peace of mind that if there were a problem with me or my ds there would be no waiting involved. Thankfully, other than a nuchal cord, neither of us required intervention this time.

[Aura_Kitten]

Hmm ... yeah this girl has some cajones ...


I had an unassisted homebirth. I would do so again, as long as I felt - as I did last time - that things were going right. I think everything non-UAV'ing has already been said really ... but I want to add that, no, to answer your question, if there was a birth center that was "just like home" would I deliver there... if I thought I was high-risk ~ maybe. But the point is that when you deliver at home you deliver on your own terms, surrounded by your own personal set of germs to which you've developed an immunity ~ an immunity which is passed through the mama's milk... you're giving your baby the best shot at life! When you birth in any other area, you are doing so on other authority's terms, surrounded by other germs, which compromises not only your baby's health but your own. And that to me is not worth it.

What you said is, admittedly, extremely rare. Which means to me that this is no reason whatsoever that women should choose to birth in any other place than their home.

[so_blessed]

Thanks for posting this. I have GD, so always have hospital births, and have had good experience with MWs delivering in the hospital. I do like the assurance that if something happens to me or the baby, I have access to emergency medical care there. I still think homebirths are so great for those who can have them.....that would be my ideal if I had a choice.

[Daniel's Kitty]

You went to the hospital when you felt you needed, and it was the right thing to do.
But
I am also not sure how it would help a lot of women. I had a hospital birth, I saw my nurse a few times during my entire labor, I was on pitocin and I had an epidural. When I was throwing up on myself and couldn't control it I couldn't get my nurse no matter my paging. I finally got another nurse about five minutes later, so if something had been wrong at that time how would it have helped?

And if someone is having a vaginal birth in the hospital there would be no way to get them into the Or in time to stop the bleeding. There are risks with birth and when we get pregnant we have to accept that there are risks with it.

[nashvillemidwife]

Originally Posted by pannacotta

but in the case of birth we can *lower* our risk by going somewhere where there's a safety net

You have already stated that going to the hospital means being exposed to interventions. Are you saying that those interventions can never put you at risk for life-threatening complications?

[nashvillemidwife]

Sorry, for some reason it's not letting me edit that last post.

(And now it has)

[Luv2Skydive]

The only thing the OP proved to me is that if we listen to our bodies, they won't steer us wrong! They are smarter and know more than any doctor out there and bless you for listening to it when it was screaming: "WARNING: Something isn't RIGHT!". I'm glad you shared your experience, because it could help someone in the future, but I didn't get from it that hospitals are safer, only that women's intuition (which we all have) is the BEST birth tool we have at our disposal, no matter where we give birth.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Daniel's Kitty

And if someone is having a vaginal birth in the hospital there would be no way to get them into the Or in time to stop the bleeding. There are risks with birth and when we get pregnant we have to accept that there are risks with it.

:

Aaron died inside me, and once they got him out, the OR team spent 15 minutes trying to resuscitate him. It didn't work. I was in a hospital and had been for a couple of hours (although that part seems to be forgotten by those who didn't like my choices). My baby still died. They got me in there fast - really fast. I thought my first c/s was an insane, panic-stricken, chaotic event, and it was a leisurely stroll in the park compared to my fourth one. It was still too late. I doubt they could have saved me if I'd hemorrhaged badly.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Luv2Skydive

The only thing the OP proved to me is that if we listen to our bodies, they won't steer us wrong! They are smarter and know more than any doctor out there and bless you for listening to it when it was screaming: "WARNING: Something isn't RIGHT!".

I have to say that I truly believed that would be the case with me, and it wasn't. I had no feeling that something was wrong at all, until after we got to the hospital, and that was more tension and fear about being there than it was intuition.

[applejuice]

Storm Bride, s I remember.

[kittywitty]

Arwyn

Originally Posted by pannacotta

yes i believe most countries in europe have i believe better birth outcomes in general (this may be too broad a statement) and this is probably due to socialize medicine more than anything else. by this i mean healthcare is free for all, so women get care throughout their pregnancies from midwives (with ob's if unusual probs), there are midwives at births. holland i believe has the best outcomes anywhere, with 30&#37; or so of women birthing at home with midwives.

Actually I think it's higher. I have to do some research. I saw it, just need to figure out where...

Either way, the US has a horrid infant and maternal death rate and yet we are one of the only countries where midwives are not regularly used. Corrolation?

Originally Posted by pannacotta

there's also a feeling that birth is a natural process, it's a rite of passage and so on. (which i support). the flip side is in many countries in europe you must request an epidural ahead of time, have a little interview on why you want it because many hospitals don't have 24/7 epidurals available.

Good. Epidurals carry many side effects and serious issues that are best avoided. And yes, I had one (intrathecal) with all those glorious issues. I believe they should be more limited. Not having a doctor or nurse bully you into one.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

if you don't accept routine interventions in hospitals then all they are saving you from is existing problems that manifest themselves within those 4 walls. you don't have to accept routine vaginal exams (which can track infection up and cause fever in the mother and danger to the baby), you don't have to lie in a certain position, or accept iv fluids and pitocin and you can certainly say no to cytotec induction which esp in women who've had c-sections can cause uterine ruptures..

i mean you can can say no and they must respect that, but because you will be in labor i think you need a person to advocate for you while you sit there wearing earplugs or music and don't get distracted from what you're there to do.

This is where you are so very, very wrong. Most people can not do this. You are being very idealistic. Ask the population even here on MDC that have had hospital births to see if they allow you to refuse services or bully you into it or get court orders. An alarming amount I can guarantee you.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

but in the case of birth we can *lower* our risk by going somewhere where there's a safety net (until my utopian 'birthing homes run by midwives in hospitals' is established (: ) and in something so important as birth i think we should consider if the risk of voluntarily doing without a safety net is worth it.

the complications that hit you without warning are rare - look at the Farm outcomes - they have been in business for decades (i seriously thought of going there actually, have incredible respect for ina may) and they have never had a maternal death. they have been lucky and i hope they continue to be, they are very skilled and experienced but they can't predict everything sadly.

i believe the higher risk of death at home in the case of rare unpredictable complications has such horrible consequences for a family - motherless baby, sad partner, other siblings etc - that it's not worth it. you can manage what is done to you in a hospital. by law you can say no to anything if you're consicous, but you can't manage the outcomes in the case of a rare problem that may kill you anyway whether home or hospital, but less likely to kill you if intensive medical help is right there. it's no guarantee, but i believe it lowers the risk and this is such a great even in anyone's life.

Those risks are there no matter WHERE you are. Period. Having worked in infertility and also in the hospital on the floor, let me tell you that just b/c that fancy equipment is there does NOT mean you are safer. Sure once in a blue moon they are truly needed and truly do save a life. But how many are sacrificed before then for the name of convenience or just irresponsibility? The rates of medical malpractice deaths alone should tell you that one. Every woman has a right to decide where she will give birth. Every.single.one. Your body is yours. Noone can or should make that decision for you but yourself. You can spend your life in a bubble in the hospital and desperately pray that you don't get MRSA or another hospital-driven infection, but that doesn't make life any safer.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

again, you can *manage* what is done to you in a hospital. you can say no to anything, you can literally have no one touch you from the minute you get in. you have to consent to anything - though it's not always made clear.. (:

you can't manage your chances of an emergency- a real one i mean, not something that gives you time to transfer.

How very wrong you are again. Why will noone (a broad noone) listen to the numbers of women who have had CPS called on them? Been held down, birthraped, assaulted... I know we don't want to believe it but it is a common experience.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

but wouldn't you say that every mother who dies at home (or as a result of having been at home when this happened) of hemorrhage or AFE or every baby who dies of abrupted placenta (can't do a c section at home) would have a better chance in a hospital.

What if...that is the question, isn't it? What if I didn't listen to my doctor who insisted my baby was too big so they induced me and he was premature with long lasting health issues? What if I would have given birth at home instead of having my placenta literally ripped out of me so that I wouldn't go into shock and have seizures? What if...my cousin didn't go to work that day and get into a car accident??

Life is never predictable. That's life. Plain and simple you can't predict everything. Hospitals are there for emergencies. Not for just in cases. And isn't AFE actually more common with women who have been induced? Specifically with Cytotec? Your baby could die from your abrupted placenta even in the hospital. They are not always known until after the fact.

Originally Posted by pannacotta

i don't have a list of cause of death following homebirth (and cause of death is tricky, some studies count death of mom or baby in the first month after birth or other longish time interval) and i'd love to find one but it seems to me that some homebirth deaths could be preventable if the mom was in a hospital.

And more could have lived if they weren't in the hospital. Be fair.

[Luv2Skydive]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I have to say that I truly believed that would be the case with me, and it wasn't. I had no feeling that something was wrong at all, until after we got to the hospital, and that was more tension and fear about being there than it was intuition.

I'm sorry......sometimes I doubt my own ability to act on my intuition and pray it's there for me (and that I'm able to really HEAR it) when it counts.