[trauerweidchen]

Sometimes it seems as though the information we get through mainstream media sources always portray home birth as dangerous and something that no one in their right mind would consider, so it's a real relief to occasionally see a mainstream source report positively on home birth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7998417.stm

Obviously, since this is a BBC article it is written from a British/European perspective, but we can only hope that this study and the mindset filter over to the US and Canada too. I haven't checked newspapers here in the US yet to see if/how they are approaching this study, but I'll have my fingers crossed...

 

[DahliaRW]

Gotta love how polar opposite RCOG is of ACOG. Maybe UHC makes a difference in doing things evidence based.

 

[dogmom327]

Such a great study! Hope it makes the news here!

 

[Quindin]

One could get the impression that the medical community is very positive towards HB here in the UK after reading the article...

: The grief they give me when I tell them I WILL have a homebirth, sometimes makes me think I am talking to a mainstream American Obgyn! They often try to find anything to say you are not low risk: too young or too old, no previous kids or too many, too thin of too fat, etc etc Then they try to scare you by playing the dead baby card *sigh*

The saving grace of this country is that the law is on the side of HB mamas because women have the right to give birth wherever they please and they must be offer the care they require - even at home. Sadly, many women don't know their rights so it is very common for hospitals and doctors to say "we don't let women in your situation have a HB" or "we won't send you a midwife because we are short staffed" One needs to really
stand up for their rights sometimes...

 

[Juvysen]

Umm... ok... so let me know if this logic works...

Homebirth = hospital birth (uh, in holland)

Hospital birth in holland is safer than hospital birth in the US

um... so doesn't that make homebirth safer than hospital birth in the US (assuming homebirth is similar in either place)?

 

[tracymom1]

Oh I just saw this article and was going to post it! What a nice step in the right direction!

 

[trauerweidchen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quindin One could get the impression that the medical community is very positive towards HB here in the UK after reading the article... : The grief they give me when I tell them I WILL have a homebirth, sometimes makes me think I am talking to a mainstream American Obgyn! They often try to find anything to say you are not low risk: too young or too old, no previous kids or too many, too thin of too fat, etc etc Then they try to scare you by playing the dead baby card *sigh* The saving grace of this country is that the law is on the side of HB mamas because women have the right to give birth wherever they please and they must be offer the care they require - even at home. Sadly, many women don't know their rights so it is very common for hospitals and doctors to say "we don't let women in your situation have a HB" or "we won't send you a midwife because we are short staffed" One needs to really stand up for their rights sometimes...

I've heard this before about the UK, so I try to take the whole situation with a grain of salt. I find it encouraging, though, that there's at least a dialog and legal protection, even if it isn't well-publicized.

I think that the major point in favor of midwives and/or home births as far as UHC is concerned is cost. Knee-jerk MD care for all pregnancies is quite pricey.

As far as home births in Holland being safer than hospital births in the U.S., I suspect this is a fair conclusion for many cases. I personally am of the opinion that for low-risk pregnancies, home birth (even in the U.S.) is usually safer than hospital birth for the simple reason that you can avoid unnecessary and dangerous interventions much more easily. Statistics about the risks of induction, chemical "management" of labor, and especially epidural and C-section risks to mother and baby tend to be glossed over in many U.S. hospital settings. (My disclaimer here is that I've never personally had to deal with a hospital birth; both my brother and I were born at home, and my first baby will be born at home barring unforeseen circumstances. I've read far too much about hospital vs. home and midwifery in general...

)

 

[GoldmanBaby09]

I personally am of the opinion that for low-risk pregnancies, home birth (even in the U.S.) is usually safer than hospital birth for the simple reason that you can avoid unnecessary and dangerous interventions much more easily. Statistics about the risks of induction, chemical "management" of labor, and especially epidural and C-section risks to mother and baby tend to be glossed over in many U.S. hospital settings. (My disclaimer here is that I've never personally had to deal with a hospital birth; both my brother and I were born at home, and my first baby will be born at home barring unforeseen circumstances. I've read far too much about hospital vs. home and midwifery in general...

)[/QUOTE

: Definitely this! People want to argue that home birth can be "as safe" as a hospital birth, but there is usually little mention of how UNSAFE a hospital birth can be for the exact reasons listed here. I feel 1000X more safe with the idea of giving birth at home. Giving birth in a hospital is what truly scares me.

 

[KikaKika]

Tank you for posting this! It is nice to finally see a positive story on homebirth in media.

 

[ShwarmaQueen]

Perhaps insurance companies dont control the RCOG (like they do the ACOG)??

Geez what a difference...

 

[Talula Fairie]

Not surprising since the British have been using midwives as their main care providers for pregnant women for years. You can even have a homebirth with a midwife covered by the national insurance plan they have over there.

I sometimes fantasize about moving there or to a country in Europe just for the free homebirths