Time article: "Giving Birth at Home"

[liberal_chick]

Didn't know if anyone had posted this for discussion, yet.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...830388,00.html

[annanicole]

I think that was a well written article. It seemed to give valid input on both sides. I like articles like that. That speak fairly on both sides :-)

[JesseMomme]

It's balanced enough but did dislike the jab at UC as "the Xtreme Sport of Homebirthing!":

Most planned home births are assisted by a midwife, although some extremists favor so-called free birthing, with no attendant.

[annanicole]

Originally Posted by JesseMomme

It's balanced enough but I hate did dislike the jab at UC as "the Xtreme Sport of Homebirthing!":

agreed. honestly I wish they would leave UC out of the homebirth debate. It really has no point in being there, and it also fuels the more conservative hospital only AMA's fire.

[honeybee]

Well, it was more balanced than most, but the part about the statistics bothers me. They did mention the 2000 MANA study, but then followed up with other unnamed "studies" that mentioned a 2-3 fold increase in deaths, with no discussion about study methodology, or whether that included planned hb attended by a mw, vs. unplanned homebirths without attendants.

[Port Orchard CBE]

Honeybee, I thought the same. Yes, the article was better than most. I loved that home birth got exposure in such a big name magazine but would have appreciated more facts. Facts on both sides that made a more balanced picture.
I hope they'll run a follow-up with the story too.

Kendra in WA

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by JesseMomme

It's balanced enough but did dislike the jab at UC as "the Xtreme Sport of Homebirthing!":

That bothered me as well.

[~*~MamaJava~*~]

I felt that they should have talked about infant mortality in a more global sense; yes, it's down in the US from the olden days, but that's still a fairly high rate, isn't it?
I didn't like the quote they chose from the OB, about 'we've all since situations where there has been excessive blood loss' etc...come on. Just adds to people's idea that homebirthers regularly bleed to death.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Well, it was more balanced than most, but the part about the statistics bothers me. They did mention the 2000 MANA study, but then followed up with other unnamed "studies" that mentioned a 2-3 fold increase in deaths, with no discussion about study methodology, or whether that included planned hb attended by a mw, vs. unplanned homebirths without attendants.

The author most likely had this study in mind.

The problem is that the methodology is weak enough to make it a farce. To validate what you said, the authors base their data on 1989 birth certificates, which do not distinguish planned v. unplanned or specify who, if anybody, attended the birth.

Citizens for Midwifery has this to say about the article, including tips on writing a letter to Time.

[roadfamily6now]

not a bad article but every time someone talks about the mortality rate no one mentions that there are NUMEROUS reasons why the mortality rate went down and it does not have to do with being in a hospital!
In fact, the mortatlity rate INCREASED at first, because of the hospital!

[rockportmama]

How to contact TIME Magazine

FYI:

[e-mail] They ask for no attachments, please.

TIME Magazine Letters, Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, N.Y. 10020

"Letters should include the writer's full name, address and home telephone and may be edited for purposes of clarity and space."

I figure the more pro-homebirth letters they get, the more likely one will be printed instead of just some crackpot saying that all mamas who so endanger their children should be thrown in jail!!

Also, they neglected to mention the US has higher mortality/morbidity rates than countries that have embraced the midwife/homebirth model. Do they have blinders on? Can this really be the only country on earth with good ideas? Sorry, I'll jump off the soapbox now.

Please put up any and all links to accurate stats! Thanks!