HAVE YOU READ THIS?????? herald articale..."home birth is not a safe birth"

[LimeSlice]

"The trouble is we take safety for granted now and are arguing about quality issues, like maternal satisfaction, which is important. But I'm sorry, as a clinician, survival is the most important thing." Amen to that.

I think this s the problem.

As a CLINICIAN. Not a Healer. There is no holistic approach in western modern medicine, I dont care how alternative your doctor likes to think he is and how many tell you to do Accupuncture to help your cycles.

The very fact that this 'healthcare professional' dismisses maternal satisfaction, comfort and security as un-related to survival illustrates the essence of the problem with the modern medical situation.
The notions of holistic approach and balanced healing are forgotten and replaced by studies and drugs and the assumption that because someone bled out after a PPH at home, with a midwife, that that couldnt possibly happen in a control environment like the petri dish of a hospital with an OB.

I don't get angry about the disregarding of maternal desire anymore, I get angry about the fact that society as a whole refuse to acknowledge that western medicine is incomplete and in no way shape or form begins to go close to understanding the human body and how one interacts with another, especially in a birthing situation. Only when people understand that they don't have the answers will we understand that a clinicians view is not the only view in childbrith worth considering.

[Kamarine]

I don't get angry about the disregarding of maternal desire anymore, I get angry about the fact that society as a whole refuse to acknowledge that western medicine is incomplete and in no way shape or form begins to go close to understanding the human body and how one interacts with another, especially in a birthing situation. Only when people understand that they don't have the answers will we understand that a clinicians view is not the only view in childbrith worth considering.

I agree with you. I'm pretty sure alot of 'medical' cures/advice have been incorporated from holistic sources over the year. I could be wrong, but stuff like ginger for nausea is something alot of medical people recommend, which I consider holistic. Yet the same people will shake their head at similiar remedies etc.

The other thing I forgot to mention is, while they're slandering the whole topic and making the poor womens grief public news, they fail to mention cause of death. (If I missed, I'm sorry, I was really mad reading it!)
Im sorry if it sounds heartless, but I've heard so many stories of babies dying at/during birth. And in my experience its been a mostly at hospital. I find place irrelevant to all of the situations that were presented.

Basing a whole arguement on that situation as a turning point without all the facts, it leads to misinforming people. Theres going to a whole fistful of people out there that now think of homebirths as dangerous. All because the poor woman had a homebirth and her baby died, but no why, or what happened, just its bad and dangerous!

[Kazbah]

You might also want to check out the other thread - https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums...tragedies.html

*sighs*

[Roryrory]

Typical Herald-Sun drivel - I am so glad I ever buy it!

[Alan]

Here are some research articles that they did not bother to consider

by T A Wiegers, M J N C Keirse, J van der Zee, and G A H Berghs
BMJ 23 November 1996; 313: 1309-1313.
'Conclusions: The outcome of planned home births is at least as good as that of planned hospital births in women at low risk receiving midwifery care in the Netherlands.'
'In multiparous women, perinatal outcome was significantly better for planned home births than for planned hospital births, with or without control for background variables.'

Ursula Ackermann-Liebrich, Thomas Voegeli, Kathrin Gunter-Witt, Isabelle Kunz, Maja Zullig, Christian Schindler, Margrit Maurer, and Zurich Study Team
BMJ 23 November 1996; 313: 1313-1318
'During delivery the home birth group needed significantly less medication and fewer interventions whereas no differences were found in durations of labour, occurrence of severe perineal lesions, and maternal blood loss. Perinatal death was recorded in one planned hospital delivery and one planned home delivery (overall perinatal mortality 2.3/1000). There was no difference between home and hospital delivered babies in birth weight, gestational age, or clinical condition. Apgar scores were slightly higher and umbilical cord pH lower in home births, but these differences may have been due to differences in clamping and the time of transportation'.
Conclusion: 'Healthy low risk women who wish to deliver at home have no increased risk either to themselves or to their babies.'

Howe KA
Med J Aust 1988 Sep 19;149(6):296-7, 300, 302
This study covered 165 women planning a home birth with a registered midwife. 31% of the women were first-time mothers. 16% of the study group transferred to hospital, 5% of the group had an assisted delivery, and 1% had caesareans. One baby died, from congenital abnormalities.
'The conclusion is drawn that women who choose to have a home birth in the south-west of Western Australia may do so with a high degree of safety.'

By Wood**** HC, Read AW, Bower C, Stanley FJ, Moore DJ
Midwifery 1994 Sep;10(3):125-35
976 women who booked a home birth were compared with a matched group of 2,928 women planning a hospital birth. Women in the home birth group had longer labours (presumably because they would not have been accelerated with drugs or other interventions), but were less likely to have induction, caesarean, or other operative delivery, and were less likely to have complications of labour overall. However, the home birth group was more likely to have third stage problems such as heavy bleeding or retained placenta (perhaps because home birth mothers were more likely to specify a natural third stage? For example, I chose to have a physiological third stage to avoid side-effects of the drugs involved - often nausea - and early cord clamping, even though I was aware that heavy blood loss was more likely).
Babies in the home birth group were in better condition at birth - hospital group babies were more likely to take a while to start breathing, to need resuscitation, and to have Apgar scores under 8. Perinatal mortality was slightly higher overall in the home birth group - no explanation for this is given, but the authors of the study state that the increase was not (statistically) significant. However, neonatal mortality (after birth) was significantly higher in the hospital group. The authors note that more research is needed.
'KEY CONCLUSIONS: Planned home births in Western Australia appear to be associated with less overall maternal and neonatal morbidity and less intervention than hospital births.'

Also Western Australia are planning to increase their funding of homebirth. I don?t think that the Western Australian Government would consider putting more money into home births if they did not believe it was safe

[Alan]

Forgot to add
In the UK where homebirth is fully funded by the Government, they are trying to encourage more women to birth at home

[bon]

more quality journalism from the The Herald...I feel sorry for all those so called "gullible" women who will be brainwashed by the home birth lobby into endangering themselves and their babies...because of course everybody knows that pregnant mothers are stupid and incapable of making informed decisions, because being pregnant automatically means our intelligence goes out the window and we need to be treated like children. Because a woman who is convinced by her doctor to have an induction or a c/s because her baby is "too big" and it is "safer" is not being brainwashed at all...no no because when a doctor says it it must be true because they are superhuman and never wrong about anything.