Home births, natural or foolish?
Posted
October 22, 2006 at
10:29 am by
Jessica
I stumbled upon a story this morning about a woman who chose to give birth in her Sydney Australia home and within minutes of giving birth, the outer body, beautiful and natural experience became seriously life threatening. The baby was also under severe duress while the mother lay bleeding to death. The midwife called in the emergency and a medevac helicopter arrived, taking 30 minutes to stabilize the pair and flew them to the nearest hospital where they are both doing fine after proactive medical intervention.
It leaves me to wonder, this small, yet growing sub-culture that engages in hating medical intervention (a sub-culture that has become so self-loathing and hateful towards progress itself or “intervention”), isn’t it selfish to denounce the medical community, only to call upon it to save one’s life when it’s needed? It’s one thing if one’s life is in danger dure to an accident, but is it wrong to secretly wish this woman gets a $25,000 bill for the medivac, as I secrety do (which I’m sure is only a fraction of the cost)? After all, valuable resources were taken away for a knowingly risky choice. In my opinion, she knowingly put her and her baby in harms way.
A Physician wrote about his thoughts on the matter in this letter to the editor of The Border Mail in Australia:
I REPLY to the letter from Janet Fraser, national convenor Joyous Birth (The Border Mail September16), which demonstrates perfectly the misinformation this minority group puts forward as “evidence-based” facts.
This group has some dangerous ideas, convincing anxious expectant mothers that a home birth is safe.
The evidence-based facts are that it is at least three times more dangerous to have a baby born at home than in a hospital, because when something does go wrong, often without warning as in about 30 per cent of all births, there is not the expertise and immediate assistance from a team of professionals, including midwives, obstetricians, paediatricians and anaesthetists.
None of the obstetricians in Albury-Wodonga support home birth, and no sensible experienced midwife would agree to deliver a woman at home when the alternative is to offer a safe delivery in hospital with immediate support available.
When a person works for 35 years doing high-risk obstetrics, seeing perfectly healthy women suddenly have a complication that is a risk to their lives as well as their baby, is it any wonder that I feel saddened by the ignorance of home birth groups which are trying to take us back to the dark ages.
The data measured by the Victorian Government proves the Wodonga obstetric team has one of the best outcomes for women and their babies.
Rural women and the dedicated team of midwives and doctors do not need to be insulted by a city based group of ideologists, telling us what is safe in our environment.
— DR PIETER MOURIK,
Wodonga
Admittedly, it is difficult to get accurate data. Those opposed to home births often cite a much higher risk than those that support it, although even in home birthing organizations, I have read that home birthing is safe in about 90% of the cases (and given they have an agenda, I take that percentage with a grain of salt).
The most common argument for homebirth is that of the feminist who believes that the male dominated medical community is trying to suppress women and rip their babies out of them to establish their dominance and to demean women. I say this is a major crock. There are plenty of female gyne’s out there and to assume that male doctors generally have a hatred of women is paranoid and delusional. Their job is keep you and your baby healthy and while some misjudgements can and do occur (nobody’s infallible), I cannot buy that it is all part of a vast conspiracy to keep women down. In fact, I think women are so self-absorbed with their own victimization, that they lack reason sometimes. I’m sure there are some male doctors that hate women, I’m sure there are a lot of female doctors that hate men, but all of them love their paychecks and common sense would dictate that they put their personal feelings aside to thwart off malpractice suits.
Generally, I think those that choose to become physicians, do so because they’re smart enough, have a “God-complex” and want to make a lot of money. The way to do that, is to be a good doctor and minimize mistakes. I actually would rather have a doctor with a “God-complex” than an indecisive ninny that based his or her decisions on political correctness or sappy emotional baggage.
Another point to consider is that many midwives are practising without licenses and the more disturbing trend, the one of “unassisted” birth where no person of expertise or birthing experience is present, except one’s family, only furthers concern. In some states, unlicensed midwives are being prosecuted, and why shouldn’t they be? The New York times reports:
Midwives see it differently. They say the ability of women to choose to give birth at home is under assault from a medical establishment dominated by men who, for reasons of money and status, resent a centuries-old tradition that long ago anticipated the concerns of modern feminism.
Chloe Hendrix-Petry’s birth has not given rise to criminal charges, but a prosecution against another midwife, Jennifer Williams, is pending in Shelbyville, Ind. It was prompted by the death of a baby named Oliver Meredith that Ms. Williams delivered in June. But she is not charged with causing or contributing to Oliver’s death.
Instead, to hear the county prosecutor tell it, the case against Ms. Williams is not unlike one against a trucker caught driving without a license. Read the rest…
Unlicensed midwives, like other unlicensed individuals acting under the guise of legitimacy, ought to be held to the same standards as anybody else. Nobody is above the law.
It is my opinion that people should be allowed to make their own choices, even foolish ones. My hope is that people are completely informed of the risks involved in home births and not just risking the lives of their babies for their own political agendas and hatred of progress that has done far more good and has extended millions of people’s lives. I feel that having a home birth is an unecessary risk that I wouldn’t want to be a part of, however, there are thousands of women who think otherwise and as empowering as they might think that makes them, I think it makes them just foolish people that got lucky.
Tags: feminists, home-birth, homebirth, midwives, natural-birth, Parenting, unassisted-birth |
118 Responses to “Home births, natural or foolish?”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
31. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
In any case, while Kris and I have offered various resources to back up our claims, I have yet to see any actual evidence from the opposition. It makes me question whether any research has even been done on their part or if they are just talking what is ‘common sense’ to them.
32. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
[quote comment="10884"]In any case, while Kris and I have offered various resources to back up our claims, I have yet to see any actual evidence from the opposition. It makes me question whether any research has even been done on their part or if they are just talking what is ‘common sense’ to them.[/quote]
Call me crazy, but pointing out the flaws in your resources and arguments is just as valid a counterpoint as providing other research.
As for your suggested middle ground, I would say that the middle would be not that hospital birth is necessarily safer, but one assisted by a qualified obstetrician most certainly is, whether hospital, home, or back of a taxi.
I am curious — how many neonatal deaths that are attributed to occuring in hospitals happen to be mothers who were rushed there due to complications during home birth?
33. Kris said:
December 2, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Amy-where are you getting your statistics on neo-natal deaths?
‘The lack of knowledge about the history of childbirth leads homebirth advocates to make additional misleading statements.’
If anything, they (the home birth advocates) are generally MORE informed about the history, science and EXPERIENCE of the birth process. It’s their job.
34. Kris said:
December 2, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Anyway, all of this(comments, Etc) is reminding me of how people get about religion: the ‘I’m right, you are wrong if you don’t believe what I believe’ sort of thing.
Think what you like about that one.
And really, like religion, birth itself has become political in this country.
35. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
[quote comment="10889"]Anyway, all of this(comments, Etc) is reminding me of how people get about religion: the ‘I’m right, you are wrong if you don’t believe what I believe’ sort of thing.[/quote]
Let’s put together a list of parenting websites and web forums that routinely use verbiage like “best way”, “only way”, and “right way”, and see if you can spot any sort of trend…
36. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
You have no evidence to prove that the ‘flaws’ you have pointed our are real.
One assisted by a qualified obstetrician is not most certainly safer, because not all obstetricians are so wonderful. I’d much rather birth at home unassisted than attended by one of the incompetent doctors and nurses who were at my last birth.
I doubt many neonatal deaths are attributed to mothers rushed there due to complications during home birth. In any case, it is irrelevent, as many women and babes who have complications at home or die at homebirth are in situations where they would have inevitably died in the hospital. I talk to homebirthers and unassisted birthing families everyday. I read their stories. VERY few of them end up transferring. In the circles I wander, there is maybe a %10 transfer rate, with maybe %5 c-section, and maybe %1 mother or infant death. Maybe you could check out the unassisted childbirth forum at mothering.com if you’d like to see just how many women, in that circle alone, have birthed at home unassisted and just how many were admitted to the hospital, as well as the conditions of their treatment.
Kris, I hate the “I’m right; you are wrong” mentality too. I happen to think the safest place to birth is ultimately wherever a woman feels most comfortable. I think that has a much bigger effect on things than the kind of care or the specific location. Homebirth feels safer for me and more comfortable. For a person who would rather trust a doctor and is more comfortable in a hospital, that is the right choice. There are dangers, risks, cons to every choice, from how to feed an infant to how to birth to what kinds of diapers to use. There are trade-offs with every choice. I wish people would realize that before preaching about how much safer one is than the other, or for judging someone as foolish for making a different decision. :/
37. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
[quote comment="10893"]Kris, I hate the “I’m right; you are wrong” mentality too.[/quote]
Then why on earth do you hang out at mothering.com??
38. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
I have met very few people there with that mentality, and it is certainly not one that I have. I hang out there simply because the lifestyle I have is similar to that of many of the people there, not because we all believe we are living the ‘right’ way and think everyone else should. I have seen much more rudeness, judgement, and “I’m right; you’re wrong” here at the imperfectparent than I’ve ever encountered on other sites, especially MDC–hence my reason for commenting here in the first place. Your experiences with MDC may be different; I’m not saying everyone there is wonderful. There are plenty of people there who have that mentality, but there are many who do not.
39. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
I was so busy checking yours and Amy’s math this went right over my head:
Today our mortality rate is 15%. That is not a 90% drop. It is a 50% drop.
15%? 15 out of every 100 births results in death within the first 28 days? Do you really want to go on record with that?
40. Kris said:
December 2, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
I don’t deny that there aren’t parenting web sites that ‘routinely use verbiage like ‘best way” etc. There are PLENTY. Hell, people I know tell me that sort of thing in daily life. The ‘I’m right, your wrong’ thing crosses MANY genres and beliefs.
‘I have seen much more rudeness, judgement, and “I’m right; you’re wrong” here at the imperfectparent than I’ve ever encountered on other sites,’
Freebirther, I have to say I agree with much of what you have said (all thoughout this) and that I DO respect others opinions, even if it may not appear so in some posts here.
I must add, too, that I’m still curious as to where everyone’s getting their percentage numbers…
41. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
Our mortality rate as in our infant mortality rate is 15%, and yes, I’ll go on record for that as it is quoted from the most recent findings. It is not a huge drop. As for our neonatal mortality rate, why don’t you do the honors of telling me what it is now and what it was in the dark ages centuries ago to prove what a HUGE drop we’ve had in it?
Kris, I agree with everything you’ve said here as well. I respect other people’s choices and opinions as well; I do not respect judgement of those chosing otherwise, such as calling them foolish :/ My numbers of 15% infant mortality rate/29% C-section/30% needing intervention all came from a google search for infant mortality rate, c-section rate, etc. As for my numbers from the dark ages, I posted a link a few posts back about the estimated IMR back then. I am indeed curious as to where everyone else is getting their numbers though.
42. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Quoting a “Google search” as your source is like me reponding, “I read it somewhere”.
As for the current infant mortality rate of 15%, maybe in Sierra Leone but certainly not in the “modern” world. I don’t need to provide proof — Kris already did that in the links she provided, as well as the current neonatal mortality rate. Guess you didn’t bother to read the sources that you are whole-heartedly agreeing with.
43. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
PS. Infant and neonatal mortality rates are the number of deaths per 1000 live births, not 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perinatal_mortality
Neonatal mortality rate is reflected in the infant mortality rate. It doesn’t make sense for neonatal mortality to drop 90% while infant mortality drops only 50%, IMO, especially when you consider ALL the facts involved when calculating these things as well as ALL of the possible causes of death.
According to Wikipedia our infant mortality rate is 6.50%, an up-to-date number from 2005 which I have not seen before. In any case, that is not a significant enough drop from 30% for me to believe, without some hard (factual) evidence, that neonatal mortality has dropped 90%. If neonatal mortality was, as you all claim, was SO huge in the dark ages, then I doubt IMR would have been 30%–which it was. If it has dropped so significantly, after having been SUCH a huge cause of infant death and such a huge percentage of infant mortality, then I think we’d have seen a bigger decrease in our IMR. The two are quite closely related after all.
So, my number for IMR was outdated, but the point still stands…that IMR was NOT as incredibly high as you all preach it was, even centuries ago, and has not fallen as significantly as you all preach it was (though it has fallen quite a bit). And you still hvae yet to show any evidence of this 90% drop in neonatal mortality rate.
44. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
That’s right; I read it somewhere, and were I not in a hurry to get back to real life, I would find the source again for you. Maybe later. I haven’t, however, seen ANY proof that the neonatal mortality rate has dropped 90%. The neonatal mortality rate TODAY doesn’t prove that it has dropped 90%. In waht time period has it dropped 90%? What was the neonatal mortality rate in the dark ages? These are the questions you cannot answer.
45. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
How could IMR drop only 75% when neonatal mortality rate has supposedly dropped 90 (and when childbirth is such a HUGE cause of infant death), especially considering all of the other factors that go into whether children live or die such as sanitary, smoke-free environments, adequate supervision, nutrition and health, etc?
46. Amy Tuteur, MD said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
continued:
and for low risk white women (almost all women who choose homebirth fall into this group) is
47. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
15 out of 100, 150 out of 1000, no difference, both 15%.
Kris’ CNN article stated the current rate in the U.S. is 5 out of 1000. This is not 5%, as your math seems to dictate, but .5%.
I didn’t say anything about your “dark ages” numbers being incorrect, don’t I know why you keep making an issue out of that. So I’ll keep it fair and use your lowest number, 30%. Now try and follow along:
30% = 300 out of 1000
.5% = 5 out of 1000
30% - .5% = 29.5%
29.5%/30% = .983 = 98.3%
48. Amy Tuteur, MD said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Sorry, this should be the complete post:
First of all, you should know that I am an obstetrician, that I run several websites, and one of them is Homebirth Debate. We have been discussing this issue for the past 7 months.
I am familiar with (and have read) virtually every homebirth paper. If you’d like specific citations, I’d be happy to provide them.
As for basic health statistics, according to the CDC:
“At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year. From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less than 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births (7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1997).”
Neonatal mortality (as opposed to infant mortality) has probably declined even more.
The most recent complete figures for neonatal mortality show a death rate of 0.5% (that’s no where near the 15% that Freebirther claims). The neonatal mortality rate in 2003 was less than 5/1000, and for low risk white women (almost all women who choose homebirth fall into this group) is less than 1/1000.
Freebirther: “Do you have any statistics proving that childbirth is one of the leading causes of death in young women and babies?”
I certainly do. The fact is that the day of birth is the single most dangerous day of the entire 18 years of childhood.
“Midwives existed BEFORE obstetricians.”
That’s right, and until obstetricians came along, the death rates of patients and babies delivered by midwives were astronomically high. It is only by copying obstetricians that midwives were able to lower their death rates to comparable levels.
49. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
I keep making an issue out of that because, in this article, homebirth was compared to birthing in the dark ages.
Your math isn’t making much sense. If we are going to call our rate now .5% percent, rather than %5 percent, then we need to use the proportinate rate from centuries ago. If we’re going to call our %5 rate .5% instead, then you have to adjust the 30% from centuries ago to 3%. Of couse you are going to show a huge decrease when you compare 30% to .5% percent, mixing and matching the proportions, rather than comparing 30% to 5%. It’s one or the other. You don’t use one standard (rate) for one, then another (percentage) for the other, and then try to compare them. That’s flawed logic.
50. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
People were birthing in hospitals at the beginning of the 20th century with frequent intervention even back then. We still use some of those same interventions (improved upon) and more of new design, such as ultrasound. Here we are going from rate to percentage again. *chuckles* Okay, rates do not have percentage signs after them. Infant mortality RATE is .5. The percentage is 5%. One is compared to per 1000 deaths. The other is compared to 100. Learn the difference, please, between rate & percentage. I admit that I confused the 15% rate; however, I already corrected that mistake, so you can stop using it against me now as if it proves your point when it does not.
“I certainly do. The fact is that the day of birth is the single most dangerous day of the entire 18 years of childhood.”
This made me laugh. I’m sorry. I really had to stop typing and just sit here chortling before I could even think of replying. Stating that you have statistics doesn’t prove anything. Showing those statistics does. Moreover, MANY more children die of car accidents, accidental poisoning, and child abuse than from childbirth. It seems to me that driving to the supermarket once a week would be a much more dangerous day, judging from those statistics, than the day of birth. The number of kids who die from childbirth every year is a LOT lower than the number of newborns, infants, & children who die from other things. Let’s also not forget that the number one cause of newborn death is premature birth, many of which are caused by OBs inducing labor early for various reasons or delivering a woman at 37 weeks by C-section because her baby is “too big” (rather than waiting until 40 weeks, in case her due date is off as commonly happens with ultrasound technology–as with fetal weight). Shopping day, circumcision day, graduation day…all of those are much more dangerous days. I think you are greatly exaggerating…to the point of hilariousness!
“That’s right, and until obstetricians came along, the death rates of patients and babies delivered by midwives were astronomically high. It is only by copying obstetricians that midwives were able to lower their death rates to comparable levels.”
Again, prove this. What were the death rates back when midwife was the standard? Moreover, prove to me that it is OB care that is responsible for the lower death rates–rather than the fact that we have simply learned to wash our hands before sticking them in people’s vaginas, eat right during pregnancy, not work 8 hours a day in the sun in the fields, etc. You are also forgetting that not all, or even most, do the routine procedures and tests that OBs do; they perform them when necessary, not routinely, most of the time.
Comparing death rates from centuries ago to today, as your side of this argument originally began doing, is really quite futile. You can claim that OB care is responsible for the decline, but society has changed QUITE a bit since then. OB care isn’t the only ‘new’ development (and isn’t really that new, to be honest). The fact of the matter is that homebirth death rates are the same as, if not lower than, the hospital ones in our current society. We are healthier, have more nutritious diets. Less of us are starving or doing manual labor all day. More of us live in sanitary homes. We have comforts not available centuries ago. Bringing up the distant past, as was done by Jessica in her article, really has nothing to do with which standard of care is better for the women of today’s society. Homebirth is not comparable to birthing in the dark ages and is not so unsafe that a person is foolish for choosing it.
51. Prescott said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Sorry, Dr. Amy, your comments were put in “moderation”, possibly because of the numerous links…
[quote comment="10920"]Your math isn’t making much sense. If we are going to call our rate now .5% percent, rather than %5 percent, then we need to use the proportinate rate from centuries ago. If we’re going to call our %5 rate .5% instead, then you have to adjust the 30% from centuries ago to 3%. Of couse you are going to show a huge decrease when you compare 30% to .5% percent, mixing and matching the proportions, rather than comparing 30% to 5%. It’s one or the other. You don’t use one standard (rate) for one, then another (percentage) for the other, and then try to compare them. That’s flawed logic.[/quote]
I’m not “calling our rate now” .5%, it’s not “by my logic”, 5/1000 is .5%, math is math. I compared it to 30% because that’s the number you gave me. A 30% mortality rate is the equivalent of 300/1000. My result, then, is flawed not because of any sort of logic, but because of your misunderstanding of how to calculate percentages. Wow, you just all around hate admitting you’re wrong, don’t you?
Fine, using your new number of 3% (a rate incredibly lower than parts of Africa even today, so I take it with a grain of salt), the percentage decrease is 83.3%.
52. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
You started out by stating you’re an OB and run a homebirth debate site, as if to assert your credentials… I’m sorry… That you are an OB and have read so much (most likely scrutinizing the pro-homebirth studies & dubbing them flawed propaganda but not using the same standards when reading pro-hospital/OB data) may make you seem credible to the other posters here…but to me, it makes you less credible and causes me to doubt and respect you even less for various reasons (one of which being that, when a woman gives birth at home, she’s obviously not getting care from you OR paying you, so therefore you lose money and reputation when women birth at home rather than allowing you to control their experience). If you want me to believe anything you say, you–being who you are–are going to have to work even harder than the other, impartial parties here. I sure would like to see something proving that a child’s birthday is the most dangerous day of the child’s life. My son didn’t seem to be in any danger at all on his. The day I first took him to the park was a lot more dangerous
53. Amy Tuteur, MD said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Freebirther:
“Here we are going from rate to percentage again. *chuckles* Okay, rates do not have percentage signs after them. Infant mortality RATE is .5. The percentage is 5%.”
I’m not sure why you are laughing. This is elementary school math and you don’t understand it.
Percent means per hundred. So 5 per 100 equal 5%. 5 per 1000 is the same as 0.5 per hundred which equals 0.5%. Do you understand now?
The neonatal mortality rate in 2003 was less than 0.5%.
Once you understand the basic math, then we can proceed with a discussion of what the statistics actually show.
54. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Ah, you’re right. I’m sorry. I never was any good at math. Show me numbers, and I’ll show you one confused woman.
I’ve already admitted I was wrong and corrected my mistake once before this, so how can you accuse me of hating to admit that I’m wrong?
I make mistakes and get confused when dealing with numbers. It doesn’t make me nearly as stupid as you insinuate. In addition to that, I can be a little snarky at times…but at least I am not as rude as you all. I may not have brains but at least I have that going for me.
I was wrong there. Yes, rate is 5/1000. Percentage is .5%. They are still two very different things. In any case, I was laughing at the whole ‘birth day is the most dangerous day of childhood’ thing. I’m still chuckling at it.
55. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
So this is clear, I admit you were right about the death rates.
I do not, however, agree that it is the result of OB care. I’m sure they have contributed greatly to it, especially in the high risk cases (which are the minority; the majority of cases are low risk), but I doubt the decrease is due predominantly to obstetricians & hospitals.
56. Jessica Carlson said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Think what you like about that one.[/quote]
It’s not about what one believes, it’s about science which supports that medicine and technology have had a positive influence on the outcome of childbirth and the mortality of the mother and newborn.
[quote comment="10889"]And really, like religion, birth itself has become political in this country.[/quote]
Well, I agree with that. The homebirthing movement seems to me to have more of an agenda, with a distrust of the medical community and the illusion that women are being suppressed by technology, medicine and corporations.
57. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
And either way, the initial point of the issue of rate vs percentage came from the post someone else made about IMR being ‘x deaths of 100′ when it’s ‘x out of 1000.’
58. Amy Tuteur, MD said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
Freebirther:
“I was laughing at the whole ‘birth day is the most dangerous day of childhood’ thing. I’m still chuckling at it.”
You shouldn’t laugh at that, either, because it is true.
According to Save the Children:
For most children in the developing world, the most dangerous day of their lives is their birthday.
Of more than 10 million children under the age of 5 who die each year, about 1 in 5—an estimated 2 million babies—die within the first 24 hours of life, according to the seventh annual State of the World’s Mothers report issued today by Save the Children, a global independent humanitarian organization. According to the report, an additional 1 million babies die during days 2 through 7. A total of 4 million babies die during the first month of life.
59. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
It absolutely is about what one believes. Two people can look at the same statistics and come to two different conclusions, both of which seems the only logical one in their minds. I look at the facts and believe science supports one thing; you see it differently. Medicine and technology have had a positive influence on the outcome of childbirth and mortality rates; I agree. However, I think other facts have had much more profound influences over those things.
I don’t have an agenda. I don’t distrust the medical community. I wouldn’t hesitate to put my life into the care of a physician, if necessary. I distrust medical personel who encourage people to receive care and treatment when it is unnecessary. I’m not interested in feminism, being a SAHM, or complaining about supression. I wish to have a private birth experience that is comfortable for myself, my child, and my family in which I trust my instincts and am in control in the environment I deem safest–like most of the homebirthers and other freebirthers I have encountered.
60. Freebirther said:
December 2, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
This isn’t the developing world, so that’s quite irrelevent. We are not a third world country; we are America. Our people are not suffering as much from malnutrition, homelessness, or unsanitary conditions. If they had as many cars as us, then driving in a car would probably make a day much more dangerous than childbirth–as is the case here in America, IMO.