Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 19 to 25 of 25

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

  1. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gold Coast


    One moment while I remove my blood from the boil and make a steaming cup of "what a load of [email protected]" tea...

    How dare they be allowed to publish such unsubtantiated bullsh$#t.. I guess this was the article a lady I work with mentioned to me the other day when I was talking about home birth.. She is now of the opinion that it's dangerous and went on to mention that her DIL had to have an emergency C/S because her cervix swelled up after 19 hours of labour.. My guess.. (didn't ask though, that would've been insensative) epidural and pushing before fully dialated.. But lucky she was in the hospital..

    I don't judge that she had a hospital birth as that is her choice (and what's pushed on us) but heaven help those of us that are informed of our choices but still have to fight the bias and misinformation from the medical profession and the pathetic reporting of an imbicile that has no concept of the proper "F" word.. FACT..

    My bet is that he has plenty of experience with the other.. and I'd be happy to aim a tirade of abuse at this sad and disgusting person.. Makes me more determined though.. (PS: this is not an attack on anyone who has chosen a hospital birth.. From my point of view it is about allowing choice)

    So angry

  2. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Snacks View Post
    I think the most upsetting thing about this article is the open ridicule of the woman's account of her c/s, and the fact that she felt violated by her birth trauma. Regardless of your beliefs on home birth, how dare anyone make fun of someone's traumatic experience? While I find it hard to excuse poor professionalism from a journalist by not presenting fact, just hype, I find it completely impossible to excuse the outright sarcasm directed towards this woman's experience on a human level.
    here here snacks!

  3. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2006


    You have to wonder at the motivation behind such animosity. I don't believe that genuine concern for the well being of Australian women and their babies is driving this.

    The fact that midwives were appealing for insurance so that their practice won't be outlawed next year has a lot more to do with the current furore than 'safety'/

    I agree Devine's unethical and intellectually dishonest reporting is beyond the pale. I hope women in society will realise the manipulation, the scare tactics, the control and greed driving this unwarranted attack on midwives, and women desiring to access continuity of care from a self-chosen midwife.

    They are going through this in USA, too.

    This media frenzy has promted me to carefully examine some recent research and articles. As I organize them, I'll share them here. All consumers have a right to know how scandalous and unscrupulous powerful lobby groups and their media puppets are being on this issue.

    I'll share some interesting links for now, happy reading!

    Feb. 11, 2003.
    Obstetricians Use Dubious Method In Attempt to Discredit Homebirth—Motives Questioned by Parents, Midwives, and Public Health Researchers

    Meta-analysis of the safety of home birth. Oleson, BIRTH 24:1, March 1997
    Conclusion: Home birth is an acceptable alternative to hospital confinement for selected pregnant women, and leads to reduced medical interventions. The meta-analysis of the best observational studies revealed no significant difference in peri-natal mortality between home and hospital birth. Thus, no empirical evidence supports the claim that hospital births are a safer option than planned home birth backed up by a modern hospital system.

    Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America.
    Johnson & Davis, BMJ 2005, 330; 1416
    Participants: 5418 women supported by certified midwives who planned to give birth at home when labour began.
    Results: Transfer rate: 12.1% C/S rate: 3.7% Episiotomy rate: 2.1% Epidural: 4.7% infant deaths (intra-partum & neo-natal): 1.7 per 1000
    Conclusion: Planned homebirth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intra-partum and neo-natal mortality to that of low-risk hospital births in the USA.

    PDF file: Understanding Birth Better: Answers to Questions about: Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ 330, 1416. June 18th, 2005. Quote from page 8 of 10: "The Stanford PHD is an important complement to our study, finding similar intra-partum and neo-natal death rates as the CPM2000 study did for more than 3000 planned home births and 800,000 low risk hospital births... when the author compared 3385 planned home births with 806, 402 low risk hospital births, he consistently found a non-significantly lower perinatal mortality rate in the home birth group.

    Recent studies show homebirth is safe, episiotomy is harmful.

    Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in the Netherlands
    Wiegers, Keirse, van der Zee, Berghs. BMJ 1996;313:1309-1313
    Subjects: 97 midwives and 1836 women with low risk pregnancies who had planned to give birth at home or in hospital.
    Results: There was no relation between the planned place of birth and perinatal outcome in primiparous women when controlling for a favourable or less favourable background. In multiparous women, perinatal outcome was significantly better for planned home births than for planned hospital births, with or without control for background variables.
    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.

    Feminism and birth in Australia: moving from stat-wrangling towards a reproductive choice perspectiveby Lauredhel on April 11, 2009
    I’ve been looking for the most recent official stats on homebirth and hospital birth mortality in Australia. I can’t find 2007 or 2008 figures, but there are 2006 figures available.
    Australia’s mothers and babies 2006. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Perinatal Statistics Unit, Published December 2008.
    Most births in Australia occur in hospitals, in conventional labour-ward settings. There were 269,835 women who gave birth in hospitals (97.3%) in 2006. A further 5,460 women gave birth in birth centres (2.0%). Planned homebirths and other births, such as those occurring unexpectedly before arrival in hospital or in other settings, were the two categories accounting for the smallest proportion of women who gave birth (2,053 women, 0.7%).

    In 2006, 708 planned homebirths, representing 0.3% of all women who gave birth, were reported nationally. The highest proportion of homebirths occurred in the Northern Territory.

    Of babies born at home in 2006, all were liveborn. The mean birthweight of these liveborn babies was 3,687 grams (Table 3.34). The proportion of liveborn babies of low birthweight born at home was 0.8%, and the proportion of babies born at home that were preterm was 0.7%
    There were 2,091 stillbirths in Australian in 2006. 2,091 of these occurred in hospitals or birth centres. None occurred at home.

    Here are the statements by ACOG and RANZCOG on home births:


    Now compare this with UK's Royal College of Gynecologists:

    The summary reads:
    The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) support home birth for women with uncomplicated pregnancies. There is no reason why home birth should not be offered to women at low risk of complications and it may confer considerable benefits for them and their families. There is ample evidence showing that labouring at home increases a woman's likelihood of a birth that is both satisfying and safe, with implications for her health and that of her baby.
    Notice the emotive, condescending and persuasive language used in the ACOG statement versus the measured voice of reason in the RCOG statement. Now, which one will RANZCOG emulate?
    Last edited by Julie Doula; April 14th, 2009 at 07:53 PM.

  4. #22


    Thanks for some facts Alan!

  5. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gold Coast


    Thanks Heaps Alan and Julie Doula.. Some awsome info that I'm sifting through to add to my "If you don't like my choice read this.." file... Maybe one day we will actually have birth choices...

  6. #24


    I did read it, and my eyes nearly fell out of my head. I couldn't believe it. I know its in the 'opinion' section, thus journalistic ethics don't apply, but that was utterly insane! It was outright ridiculing women suffering trauma. Thats not on.

    I am sick of this "Wouldnt you want all that life saving equiptment there?" talk. Ask a woman whose baby died in a hospital for seemingly no reason if she felt better having all that equipment there.

    Ask the women with nicked bowels, infections and cut babies if they were glad there was a doctor there to cut them open because they didn't have the baby on time.

    Sigh. Ranting again. I don't object to ANYONES choice - be it home birth or elective c-section. I don't have to agree with it, but I will fight to the death their right to have it!

  7. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2006


    Oh, go, Justine! This is by Justine Caines of What Women Want. Well said.

    Homebirth advocate calls for a fair go - Croakey
    Homebirth advocate calls for a fair go
    April 17, 2009

    Justine Caines, Secretary of Homebirth Australia, has sent in the
    following critique of recent media coverage about the dangers of homebirth:
    “Feminism is a dirty word, especially if you are a pro-establishment
    columnist. Last week many media reports questioned the safety of homebirth.

    Doctors were outraged at the death of 4 babies, without revealing any case
    facts. Many have regarded women as incubators.

    Not one mainstream piece has explored why a number of women feel the need to
    give birth without any health professional, nor have they explored simple
    tested legal concepts of informed consent and right of refusal.

    It would seem far more sensible to herd all women into hospitals where they
    can be controlled. Women cannot be trusted, especially those who challenge
    the fierce medical domination of childbirth.

    As an owner of a female body, I have taken it for a test run seven times. As a healthy woman, I have chosen to use limited medical technologies, and resisted others. I took
    ultimate control of my body and became responsible for the life growing
    within me.

    As a parent I continue to tread that path of rights and responsibilities.

    I paid a price, however. My decision to give birth at home with a
    registered midwife was not respected or funded. At the same time my taxes
    paid for a system controlled by medicine. A system with virtually no
    accountability, as illustrated by the case involving Dr Graeme

    This case was extreme but lower level violence continues in maternity
    wards every day. The prominent columnist Miranda Devine mocked this
    violence. How can this be tolerated?

    With this environment how could a woman previously damaged by the system
    feel safe?

    We have a maternity health system that leaves one in 4 women experiencing
    birth as a ‘battlefield’ and suffering debilitating post natal depression or
    even post-traumatic stress disorder, usually reserved for soldiers and
    victims of crime.

    Whilst women cry out for a mainstream midwifery option that puts their needs
    first, the medical establishment remains largely unaccountable.

    Federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon put her toe in the water, by
    announcing a maternity services review. As expected, there were hundreds of
    submissons from the women who have been denied their rights and are funding
    services for others.

    Yet pro-establishment columnists denounce them as a ‘vocal minority’ and
    continue to deny them equity.

    As a woman and lawyer, Nicola Roxon is well placed to design a maternity
    system with the established principles of informed consent and right of
    refusal at the centre.

    Medical lobby groups use arguments about women’s “safety and wellbeing” in
    order to tightly hold power and control. They have no track record of
    respecting women’s rights. Instead they engage in shroud waving and cripple
    women with unnecessary fear.

    Neither the church nor the state has the right to control a woman’s body.
    Maternity reform must be based on the 3 R’s: rights, responsibilities and

    Consumers have the right to a funded registered health professional in any
    setting, and the responsibility to demonstrate they have made informed
    decisions. They deserve these decisions be respected.

    Health professionals have the right to funding and to give clinical advice
    based on evidence. They have a responsibility to be satisfied that
    consent/refusal was informed. They deserve the respect of the woman as an
    educated professional but ultimately this respect must be reciprocated to
    provide healthcare according to woman’s intent.”

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts