Conflicting Reasoning of Homebirth and Anti Vaccination

[meow]

I agree with HotI on the above point.

So based on that would not the desire to homebirth and the low chance of maternal/perinatal mortality be viewed in the same light as the desire to vaccinate with the low chance of lasting side effects/allergic reactions?

I'm confused by your argument to be honest. Based on "that"? What, the way you raised points and discarded them as not meaningful?

For example, your distaste for the term "birth rape" does not discount the fact that some women are assaulted, intimidated, treated with disrespect (the list goes on) during birth. These do create lasting traumatic experiences and oftentimes PTSD so I don't think you can wipe that out of the equation simply because of the term "birth rape".

[spenceee]

@ HotI - I see your point, i understand the Foetal monitoring in hospital leads to decisions being made regarding intervention however the relative outcomes of live birth do not seem to be effected by this from what I have found so far in my trawl of the web. The Zurich study recorder 2.3/1000 deaths for both hospital and home and the Birthday Trust found 1/1000 vs 0.8/1000 slightly favouring hospital birth.

@meow Please understand that I recognise that many families have experienced traumatic births and I do not seek to marginalise these people. Quite the opposite, I was speaking more to the delicate emotions of expectant mothers being bombarded from both sides of the spectrum with conflicting information that warns of terrible outcomes or experiences. Im trying to find the moderate voice in this discussion which I recognise is a very delicate one.

[BellyBelly]

Comparing continuous electronic monitoring of the baby's heartbeat in labour using cardiotocography (CTG, sometimes known as EFM) with intermittent monitoring (intermittent auscultation, IA) | Cochrane Summaries

There was no difference in the number of babies who died during or shortly after labour (about 1 in 300). Fits (neonatal seizures) in babies were rare (about 1 in 500 births), but they occurred significantly less often when continuous CTG was used to monitor fetal heart rate. There was no difference in the incidence of cerebral palsy, although other possible long-term effects have not been fully assessed and need further study. Continuous monitoring was associated with a significant increase in caesarean section and instrumental vaginal births.

EFM does not occur at home.

[onthefly]

Mate, you are conflating two completely different things.
And, unless you want to sound patronising, I suggest you concern yourself less with the 'delicate emotions' of expectant mothers.

[spenceee]

And, unless you want to sound patronising, I suggest you concern yourself less with the 'delicate emotions' of expectant mothers.

Please - Im merely recognising that pregnancy is a time of high emotion and hope and fear and everything else. Our parents only had their immediate family and friends to share their information and knowledge about birth and parenting wheras our generation faces an overload of information regarding the "best" things to do to have the healthiest and happiest children which in the end is what all loving parents want regardless of the path taken. Further to that, any supportive partner would and should absolutely be concerned with the emotional health of their pregnant wife/girlfriend as the alternative is ignorance and complacency.

[meow]

Okay, so from what I understand your focus is whether an action results in you living or dying. I think that is possibly the first issue that wont make these points of view match well as the focus of home birthers and non-vaxers is generally not just surviving, but thriving.

Looking purely from a survival standpoint though, medicalised birth still doesn't have good outcomes. As you say, in an emergency, hospital care can be life saving. Surgery is beyond the scope of the resources available at home so if it was needed then it could be more quickly accessed if at a hospital. However, these life threatening situations happen more often in hospitals due to the interventions in birth. A home birth has less risk of needing emergency surgical care given that the birth is unhindered. And then there's the fact that homebirths can actually transfer to a hospital if the birth isn't progressing well. Perhaps you may like to look more into US data showing the high level of birth intervention, high c-section rate, high level of access to medical care and yet a very high rate of maternal mortality.

Emotional trauma is a very important aspect of birth. Suicide is the highest cause of maternal mortality so we do need to include the effect that birth care has on mothers. This isn't just a new phenomenon with wider access to information. There are women today, our mothers and grandmothers, who STILL cannot speak of their birth experiences because they are so traumatised. When we consider thriving and not just surviving, these aspects also become important to the discussion.

The second area I think you are focused on is evidence based information. We need to consider how we frame our pursuit of evidence though. Why should birth with a skilled midwife outside of a hospital and non-vaccination need to prove themselves as safe? These are the historical and biological norms of the human race. Would it not make more sense for the new technology to be proven safe?

I know that many people feel medicalised birth is proven safe by the fact that maternal mortality has declined, but could this not be a result of increased maternal health and nutrition? How does the high maternal mortality rate in the US factor into this argument? The studies do find vaccinations to be safe in terms of their immediate effect on mortality (people rarely instantly die from vaccination), but again the issue of looking beyond surviving comes into play. Whether vaccinations impede a person's ability to thrive really hasn't been well researched. We still don't fully understand the effect they have on long-term health outcomes.