Conflicting Reasoning of Homebirth and Anti Vaccination

[spenceee]

Hi All,

I am not sure if I have chosen the right area to post this thread as I couldn't see it neatly fitting into either the birth or Vacc sections. Mods please move this thread if you know of a more suitable place.

Please let me start by saying that I am going to raise a question that could be controversial but I am doing so to begin a objective conversation and I am not trying to troll or specifically offend anybody on this forum. I fully respect everyone's private right to choice and honestly believe that nobody here would actively chose to do anything harmful/potentially harmful to their child.

The subject I raise is what I see to be the conflicting reasoning of Homebirth activism and Anti-vaccination activism which seem to go hand in hand for many (but not as a rule for all)

So here goes.

The anti-vaccination movement moves on motivations of it being somewhat uneccesary for some things (like mumps vacc for girls as they wont go sterile if they catch mumps like a boy could) to the fear of Autism caused by the MMR which I believe to have been sufficiently dis-proven (My opinion, I know that this debate still rages) through to the fact that there are cases in which the child can have severe allergic reactions.

Boiled down it seems that there is a general acceptance that the majority of people who are vaccinated have no lasting side effects but regardless of how statistically small the potential risk of causing harm is considered unnaceptable. This is the point I will come back to.

Compared with the Home birth movement which essentially encourages mothers to allow the body to tell you what is going on and relies on the simple fact that we have only very recently considered pregnancy to be a medical condion. At it's extreme edge shuns almost all medical intervention and monitoring bar a birthing partner/s.

It is known that we are our most fragile at the time of our birth and it is a source of great fear for all expecting parents (I myself have never felt so fragile in the moments between placing my newborn son on his mothers chest and hearing his first cries, a space of maybe 15 seconds that felt like an eternity).

I wont go into the whole birth rape thing but I do find that phrase a bit sensationalist in the same way that I find telling a mother if she does not take a specific course of action that she will kill her unborn baby (outside of true emergency situations of course) a method of fear-mongering.

I couldnt find any specifically statistically significant data that either paragons or demonises either choice in any way other than showing that the great majority of the population are still going to hospital to birth so lets for the sake of this argument place both options on an equal plane of "assumed safety" up to the point of a serious complication such as prolapsed cord or rapid decrease in fetal heartbeat etc.

100% of babies that tragically do not survive birth at hospital would share the same fate were they birthed at home but some of the babies who tracially do not survive at home could possibly have been saved with rapid emergency medical intervention (definitely not all but some). Same goes for the low chances of serious complications for the mother (post natal haemorraging etc..)

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?

Again, I hope to start a discussion about this mindset and I am not trying to troll or upset anyone. If I have upset you with this post I unreservedly apologise

Ta,
Spence

[Phteven]

Moved. If you are unsure about where to put a thread please PM a mod.

[spenceee]

thanks for moving this to the right spot

[Three Graces]

I was just talking to my DH yesterday about vaccs as our 4 yr old just had his and got a really large red mark on his arm. It's the first time he's had any reaction and you just start thinking 'what if he has a really bad reaction?' Anyway, I can see what you're saying about weighing up risks etc and the argument that you put forward. I guess everybody has free will to decide what they want to do. The only comment I was making with my DH was that given the majority of our pop'n immunise, it's generally quite safe not to immunise in our country. Something that a lot of other countries don't have, so I guess it's a bit of a luxury here to even be deciding whether to immunise or not!

[HotI]

100% of babies that tragically do not survive birth at hospital would share the same fate were they birthed at home but some of the babies who tracially do not survive at home could possibly have been saved with rapid emergency medical intervention (definitely not all but some). Same goes for the low chances of serious complications for the mother (post natal haemorraging etc..)

THERE is much in your post to discuss, but i only have a little time right now. I disagree with this statement. Many procedures conducted in hospital cause problems that lead to further interventions that have the potential to increase disability and death in mother and child. constant fetal monitoring and induction of labour are just 2 such procedures.

[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.

[PumpkinZulu]

Changed my mind. I've not the energy this morning.

[Jellyfish]

Based on this everyone should be skydiving because the risk of death is so small but evaluting choices is a little more complicated than that; the risk is not the only factor and the further reasoning involved also helps determine the relative weighting of the risk in the decision making process. And just because you dismiss these other concerns does not mean they are irrelevant to everyone else.

In simple terms (and this doesn't really begin to investigate the actual complexities of any issue) 1/1000 risk is small if the benefit is really high, 1/1000 is huge if the benefit is tiny.

[Arcadia]

I think your argument is slightly confusing and would welcome some clarification.

The way I see it is hospital birth and vaccination are both interventions pushed by mainstream medicine as being for the 'greater good', in that none of us know what the future holds (illness, complications at birth etc) so let's take a preventative step by birthing with a medical team, in a hospital setting, and then vaccinate the child 'just in case' (hep b is a true indication of this, since few newborns use needles or have sex, but they can be exposed to heb b in a hospital setting and vaxxing at birth ticks the box of having 'fixed that')


Those that are anti vax and home birth generally subscribe to a philosophy of trust in the bodies ability to both birth and the child's protect itself from illness. They see interventions as actually prohibitive to optimal health and care, and question the expectation we, as consumers, should just accept the info given to us by mainstream medicine. Most research the issues thoroughly and come up with their own health care model (birth with midwives, delayed or partial vax, optimal food for health and nutrition, long term breastfeeding etc).

To reduce both birth and vax down to adverse reactions is seemingly naive of both arguments for home birth and anti vax. As meow says, it's about thriving not just surviving.

And on the issue of birth rape, how would you describe the forced insertion of instruments into someone's vagina while they scream no? If it was happening anywhere else it would be rape, but we have this idea that in a hospital we say goodbye to bodily autonomy, and our body is subjected to medicine, while we become passive recipients. Women's bodies are not objects, and just because many of us cannot speak in labour, doesn't mean we're not thinking and feeling. Women deserve to birth how ever the **** they choose, and really it's no one else's business. Even discussions about best outcomes for the baby often negate the mothers wishes and bodily autonomy.

Trust that no mother wants to put her child in harm, but we should not assume that the baby's needs are of greater importance than the mothers bodily rights. We should always keep mothers rights in our mind, while negotiating the best outcome for both mother and baby. And with vaxxing, we must assume parents are doing the best for their child as they see it. The risks of side effects aren't the only reason people choose not to vaccinate, some believe vaccinating actually compromises the child's own immunity, and lulls the community into a false sense of security about illness (and so go out when sick and spread diseases).

I have no doubt vaxxing is beneficial to society, and to our overall ability to fight diseases, but I still made a choice about how to do it on my own terms (ie delayed and partial vaxxing). I think philosophically home birth and anti vax subscribe to the same philosophy which is reactionary to mainstream medicine and their interventionist, preventative health model.

[Tegam]

I think that the fact that your argument in only a few paragraphs long indicates that you don't have a very good argument to begin with.

You ask any parent that homebirths or doesn't vaxx to pen their arguments for such and I promise it would be 100x more thorough than your flippant and grossly generalised statements!

[Maruschke]

The way I see it is hospital birth and vaccination are both interventions pushed by mainstream medicine as being for the 'greater good', in that none of us know what the future holds (illness, complications at birth etc) so let's take a preventative step by birthing with a medical team, in a hospital setting, and then vaccinate the child 'just in case' (hep b is a true indication of this, since few newborns use needles or have sex, but they can be exposed to heb b in a hospital setting and vaxxing at birth ticks the box of having 'fixed that')


Those that are anti vax and home birth generally subscribe to a philosophy of trust in the bodies ability to both birth and the child's protect itself from illness. They see interventions as actually prohibitive to optimal health and care, and question the expectation we, as consumers, should just accept the info given to us by mainstream medicine. Most research the issues thoroughly and come up with their own health care model (birth with midwives, delayed or partial vax, optimal food for health and nutrition, long term breastfeeding etc).

Even discussions about best outcomes for the baby often negate the mothers wishes and bodily autonomy. Trust that no mother wants to put her child in harm, but we should not assume that the baby's needs are of greater importance than the mothers bodily rights.

That is interesting. I've never really had a home birther explain that to me before. I now understand where you are coming from.

But, can you explain why you have faith in your body? It's not a trick question, I'm really curious. We all die, historically death rates in labour were higher for mother and baby. Diseases spread. Miscarriages occur at alarming rate. Why do we have faith in a body that eventually fails permanently with many small temporary failures in between? Having been a person who has been sick, had miscarriages, infertility, had a complicated birth, fairly extreme BF issues etc, these are all realistic reasons for me to NOT have faith in my body.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that some of us seem to come at this issue from a vastly different angle to others.

I also think we come at this from a very different angle on the issue of bodily autonomy v's baby needs. My personal opinion, that I'm not going to lay on anyone else, is that my baby's needs get 100% at any cost at all to my bodily autonomy. That is, if my baby needs it at a cost that is somehow physical for me, I will pay it. I do put the baby's needs at greater importance than my bodily rights. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is impossible to have both (fulfil all of the baby's needs AND retain your bodily autonomy) but if the choice needs to be made, I know which way I am going.

I'm obviously a hospital birthing vaxxer. The above is why I make the choices I do. I guess in the end, we all have our own reasons for doing what we do, each of us is genuinely acting in what we consider to be the best interest of us and our child, and that is what matters. So long as home birthers and delayed or anti-vaxxers are making informed decisions with a genuine heart for both mother and child, I support their right to birth and vaccinate as they choose. So I don't oppose you, I just think very differently about these issues.

[HotI]

But, can you explain why you have faith in your body? It's not a trick question, I'm really curious. We all die, historically death rates in labour were higher for mother and baby. Diseases spread. Miscarriages occur at alarming rate. Why do we have faith in a body that eventually fails permanently with many small temporary failures in between? Having been a person who has been sick, had miscarriages, infertility, had a complicated birth, fairly extreme BF issues etc, these are all realistic reasons for me to NOT have faith in my body.

I have greater faith in my ability to read my body than in someone who doesn't live in it. My body is not perfect, i have a neuro condition, my feet aren't straight, i have had a miscarriage but i don't feel safe in the current hospital system that they will even listen to my analysis/ponderings of what is happening in my body let alone be more likely to detect an issue than the combination of myself and my midwife who i saw regularly, respected me and was focussed on me.

I also think we come at this from a very different angle on the issue of bodily autonomy v's baby needs. My personal opinion, that I'm not going to lay on anyone else, is that my baby's needs get 100% at any cost at all to my bodily autonomy. That is, if my baby needs it at a cost that is somehow physical for me, I will pay it. I do put the baby's needs at greater importance than my bodily rights. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is impossible to have both (fulfil all of the baby's needs AND retain your bodily autonomy) but if the choice needs to be made, I know which way I am going.

If there is a need to put my child's needs before my own, i also wouldn't hesitate. I don't believe that giving up my autonomy (the right to make decisions for myself) is beneficial to either of us in the long term. Saying that you would pay a physical cost to fulfil your child's needs is not giving up your autonomy because you are the one making the decision. I only have a problem when somebody else tries to remove this decision making ability from a woman.

[Heaven]

Honestly, I have NFI what you're on about.

Anyways, choose what you want to do with your children based on your own beliefs and do it. Luckily for us everyone gets to make their own decisions in this country, most of the time.