# Safety of homebirth & midwifery: Background and history



## jeremiyah

*
THIS IS A VERY BRIEF COLLECTION OF QUOTES AND STUDIES REGARDING
THE SAFETY OF HOME-BIRTH & MIDWIFERY: BACKGROUND AND HISTORY*

THESE CAN BE USED FOR MEDIA SOUND BITES, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, ETC.

Is Home-birth with a Midwife Safe?
Read these statements and decide for yourself.

David Stewart once again:
*"Every study published shows midwives to be safer than doctors. Every study. No exceptions. If your physician disagrees with this, challenge him or her to produce the data that supports otherwise. They won't be able to do it. Such data does not and never did exist. In a nutshell, that is the strength of the case for midwifery. It is unanimous. . .Over and over again, throughout
history, the data shows that when doctors displace midwives, outcomes get worse."*

"At the present time, 43% of all births [in Holland] remain under midwives' care: 44% of
these are delivered in the hospital and 56% at home (Tew and Damstra-Wijmenga
1991:56). Perinatal mortality for these Dutch midwife-assisted births is the lowest in the
world, approximately 2/1000 (Kitzinger 1988/236)."
[Brigitte Jordan, Revised and expanded by Robbie Davis-Floyd, Birth in Four Cultures: A Crosscultural Investigation of Childbirth in
Yucatan, Holland, Sweden, and the United States. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 1993 (Fourth Edition). Page 48. ]

*"In the U.S. the national infant mortality rate was 8.9 deaths per 1,000 live births [in 1991]. The worst state was Delaware at 11.8, with the District of Columbia even worse at 21.0.
The best state was Vermont, with only 5.8. Vermont also has one of the highest rates of home birth in the country,
as well as a larger portion of midwife-attended births than most states."*

*"The international standing of the U.S. [in terms of infant mortality rates] did not really begin to fall until the mid-1950s. This correlates perfectly with the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) in 1951. ACOG is a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians who has sought to secure a monopoly in pregnancy and childbirth services. Prior to ACOG, the U.S. always ranked in 10th place or better. Since the mid- 1950s the U.S. has consistently ranked below 12th place and hasn't been above 16th place since 1975. The relative standing of the U.S. continues to decline even to the present."*
[Stewart, David, "International Infant Mortality Rates--U.S. in 22nd Place." NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, pages 36, 38.]

*"A six-year study done by the Texas Department of Health for the years 1983-1989 revealed that the infant mortality rate for non-nurse midwives attending home-births was 1.9 per 1,000 compared with the doctors' rate of 5.7 per 1,000."*
[Janet Tipton (Editor), Is Homebirth for You? 6 Myths About Childbirth Exposed. Big Sandy, TX: Friends of Homebirth, 1990.
{http://www.gentlebirth.org/format/myths.html} The study cited in this quote is: Berstein & Bryant, Texas Lay Midwifery Program, Six
Year Report, 1983-1989. Appendix VIIIf. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Health.]

The quotations and citations referenced above are but a sampling of the information available on the safety of homebirth. You must decide for yourself, of course, if homebirth is for you. If you would like to investigate the matter further, I would recommend a couple of additional sources. 
One is a web page entitled "Homebirth - Safety and Benefits." It is
maintained by Ronnie Falcao, a Licensed Midwife. The URL for this page is
www.gentlebirth.org/ronnie/homesafe.html. A second source of factual and well documented information is Henci Goer's new book, The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth, published by The Berkley Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Putnam,
Inc., in October of 1999.
*
However, based upon the data presented above as well as from other sources, the conclusions drawn by homebirth and midwifery advocates across the nation are unanimous. For normal maternity care, a homebirth attended by a trained midwife is safer than a hospital birth. Or, to quote David Stewart once again:*

*"Every study published shows midwives to be safer than doctors. Every study. No exceptions. If your physician disagrees with this, challenge him or her to produce the data that supports otherwise. They won't be able to do it. Such data does not and never did exist. In a nutshell, that is the strength of the case for midwifery. It is unanimous. . .Over and over again, throughout
history, the data shows that when doctors displace midwives, outcomes get worse."*
[David Stewart, PhD. (Editor), The Five Standards of Safe Childbearing. Marble Hill, MO: NAPSAC Reproductions, 1982, 1997.]

The following quotes are from David Stewart's website and book. Dr Stewart has been a lifelong advocate of home-birth, and is the person who inspired Elaine through her partner in Colorado to become midwives....
Dr. Stewart remembered his terrible birth experience and so had a mission to promote homebirth, essentially from the time of his birth.
*
"More than a million American babies have died since 1950 who would have lived were it not for doctors and hospital-babies that would have been alive and healthy had they been born at home with a midwife."

"Every 29 minutes another baby dies unnecessarily in a U.S. hospital-victims of abusive obstetrics and pediatrics. What you don't know can hurt you and your family.

Mothers, this book could save you and/or your baby from serious injury and even death. Maternal-child health professionals, without knowing what is in this book, you are a danger to your patients."*

http://www.carepublications.net/books/bk_fssc.html

http://www.gentlebirth.org/format/myths.html#Studies
Studies Indicate That Homebirths Are Safe
Myth #1 - Hospital births are statistically safer than homebirths.

Safety in childbirth is measured by how many mothers and babies die and how many survive childbirth in less than perfect health.

Studies done comparing hospital and out-of-hospital births indicate fewer deaths, injuries and infections for homebirths supervised by a trained attendant than for hospital births. No such studies indicate that hospitals have better outcomes than homebirths.

According to the Time article:

* About 99% of all births in the U.S. take place in hospitals, yet we rank 29th in the world in infant mortality - below Hungary and tied with Slovakia and Poland - with 6.71 deaths per 1,000 live births. That compares to a rate of about 3.5 deaths per 1,000 live births in Far Eastern and Scandinavian countries such as Singapore, Japan, Norway and Sweden.*

*This stat is priceless. Read on: In Madera County Hospital in California, where there is a transient, high risk population, midwives did the best job. In 1959, when doctors did the deliveries the neonatal mortality rate was 23.9/1,000. During 1960-1963, midwives had a rate of 10.3/1,000. When OBGYNs took over again in 1964, the rate skyrocketed to 32.1/1,000 (Jones 98).
*

jeremiyah


----------



## Bobbb

> However, based upon the data presented above as well as from other sources, the conclusions drawn by homebirth and midwifery *advocates* across the nation are unanimous


What kind of logic is that? This is like arguing that New York Jets fans agree that the New York Jets are the best team in existence.


----------



## Bobbb

> David Stewart once again:
> 
> "Every study published shows midwives to be safer than doctors. Every study. No exceptions. If your physician disagrees with this, challenge him or her to produce the data that supports otherwise. They won't be able to do it. Such data does not and never did exist. In a nutshell, that is the strength of the case for midwifery. It is unanimous. . .Over and over again, throughout
> history, the data shows that when doctors displace midwives, outcomes get worse.​"


Who is this David Stewart moron that you're quoting? You don't provide a link, you don't provide any background on him. Why are we supposed to take this moron's word at face value?

He issued a challenge and his assertions are easily debunked, to wit:

_Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study_

Twenty-two intrapartum stillbirths and 14 delivery related neonatal deaths occurred.* Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.* Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a 3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46) . . . . . .

*We found that delivery related perinatal death was significantly higher among low risk pregnancies in midwife supervised primary care than among high risk pregnancies in obstetrician supervised secondary care. This difference was even greater among the cases that were referred from primary to secondary care during labour.*​


----------



## jeremiyah

Bobbb said:


> Who is this David Stewart moron that you're quoting? You don't provide a link, you don't provide any background on him. Why are we supposed to take this moron's word at face value?
> 
> He issued a challenge and his assertions are easily debunked, to wit:
> 
> _Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study_
> 
> Twenty-two intrapartum stillbirths and 14 delivery related neonatal deaths occurred.* Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.* Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a 3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46) . . . . . .
> 
> *We found that delivery related perinatal death was significantly higher among low risk pregnancies in midwife supervised primary care than among high risk pregnancies in obstetrician supervised secondary care. This difference was even greater among the cases that were referred from primary to secondary care during labour.*​


Bobbb,

The study you quote was posted by;
This piece first appeared on The Skeptical OB in November 2010.
Posted by Amy Tuteur, MD at 1:31 PM

"Dr. Tuteur is a former clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School. She left the practice of medicine to raise her four children."

Ummm...she is not exactly an unbiased source, 
but rather a Lone Wolf Warrior against Homebirth.

http://homebirthadvocate.blogspot.com/2010/01/dear-mothers-dr-amy-tuteur-does-not.html

Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Dr. Amy, aka The Skeptical Ob, Offers NO Value to Expectant Mothers
"A big complaint of women who birth in hospitals is they feel abandoned. They don't feel cared for..."
--Anonymous

"Then they ought to adjust their expectations."
--Dr. Amy

The debate hosted at My Best Birth, "Dr. Amy, aka The Skeptical Ob, Has a Blatant Issue with Home Birth - My Rebuttal," reached 500 comments today. Wow!

While the debate was highly significant, it has reached a point of circling back to points already covered and roads already crossed. I am bowing out, but not without one final reflection.

Read the contents of this article to learn about my "final take" on this rampant discussion that has spanned over a month and a half and garnered over 500 comments.

In short, what you will continue to conclude, as I have, is that Dr. Amy offers NO value to either side. Whether pro or anti-home birth, Dr. Amy simply does a disservice to all expectant mothers. Period.

Let's get started, shall we...

Dr. Amy, aka The Skeptical Ob, is a strong opponent of home birth and won't hesitate to let you know it. She advises women against home birth due to "grossly undereducated" midwives, (including CNMs, CPMS and DEMs alike). In her opinion, home birth is as selfish as it is dangerous, and she makes it clear - a woman's birth experience matters far less than whatever the outcome may be.

To Dr. Amy, birth is INHERENTLY dangerous. Even unnatural.

For well over a month, the online community for holistic mothers and families, My Best Birth, has been the host of a heated debate over home birth featuring Dr. Amy Tuteur. Dr. Amy, a well known anti-home birth activist on the internet (she retired from her work as an OBGYN well over a decade ago) and frequent blogger about the lack of education of home birth and natural childbirth advocates.

Here are comments from other skeptic moms about her:

http://skepticalmothering.com/tag/skeptical-o-b/

Guilt by association:
"And natural childbirth and homebirth advocates share key attitudes with vaccine rejectionists, creationists and other denialists." First she lumps natural childbirth and homebirth advocates together, then further assumes that homebirth advocates universally support poorly trained CPMs, and don't care about any evidence that they might be less safe. Through this chain of association, suddenly a mother who gave birth in a freestanding birth center because she was worried about unnecessary interventions is equated with believers in a global conspiracy to give kids autism with vaccines.

Personally I get the impression that "The Skeptical O.B." is herself a bit of a denialist, that she believes typical hospital birth with lots of interventions is the best, safest practice, and that no evidence will ever be good enough to dissuade her. So rather than searching out the best evidence about these practices and questioning her own biases, she targets people who do question, and paints us all as crazed fringe ideologues who don't care about dead babies."

"I was really excited to see a blog called "The Skeptical O.B." Having read The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth, I knew that standard O.B. practices are often more about intuition and tradition than evidence-based medicine. I thought it would be so cool to see an actual O.B. looking at the risk/benefit analysis on interventions like induction, epidural, and c-section.

Whoops! Boy is my face red. The blog could better be named, "The Hidebound Ideologue Against Natural Birth." Now, I am interested in skepticism of natural birth practices as well as hospital practices. You don't automatically get a pass from me because you're doing something crunchy. But god damn, Amy Tuteur is so vituperative, condescending, and obnoxious in her approach, and so obviously devoted to propping up standard hospital practices, that I can't read her blog even if it might offer some interesting info on homebirth safety or midwifery guilds run amok.

Amy typically storms into each post with a haughty and self-assured stance, declaring her position to be self-evidently correct and everyone else to be feeble-minded. Most recently, she announced "The largest, most comprehensive study ever done of homebirth has released its results and there's nothing left to argue about: homebirth increases the risk of perinatal death." The study she's citing though, states almost the opposite take-home message in its Conclusions:

The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.

In my experience of her work, this is representative. She is the opposite of a skeptic - she decides on her position, and then twists and cherry-picks evidence to support it. It also doesn't help matters that she is absolutely vile and superior to any commenter who dares to question her pronouncements and offer counter-evidence. In other circumstances, I'd be very interested in her information about the Midwives Alliance of North America keeping their statistics on births secret, and appearing to require almost a loyalty oath before giving someone access to it. But a.) I don't trust her to give me all the information, and b.) I don't want to don a bile-proof jumpsuit to wade through her excoriating commenters who offer other perspectives.

This was such a wasted opportunity. In my opinion, all birth practices need a good review based on the most recent evidence available. Honestly, I probably agree with Dr. Amy on a lot of things. I think unassisted childbirth is a terrifying new trend that exposes mothers and babies to too much risk. But I think that it's useful to look at the hospital practices and insurance structure that drive women to birth without any attendant whatsoever, and try to reform our institutions so mothers can feel safe and secure in a hospital, or have access to a well-trained, licensed midwife. Dr. Amy thinks the answer is to sneer and call these mothers fools."

on http://community.babycenter.com/post/a39831757/the_skeptical_ob

The Skeptical OB

In response to the questions:

Have you heard of or read this blog? Do you think the author's incessant negativity towards natural childbirth (especially homebirth) is effective or conducive to better outcomes for women? And do you agree with her views?

one responder wrote:

No I think she's an alarmist piece of s*** who steals other people's stories and photos and uses them as her own while passing herself off as a practicing doctor which she is not.

She'll be along to defend herself shortly I am sure...

another one:

No offense, OP, but I hate these threads because they generate so much traffic for "Dr" Amy and her horrible site.

Obviously, I'm not a fan. Even if her science and analysis was 100% right (which it is not, not even close), her habit of picking on individual mothers who make birth choices she disagrees with is horrid.

Birth in North America is mostly safe, whatever method you choose. All options have benefits and risks. None of us have a crystal ball. The odds favour women who are able to birth the way they feel safest and most supported. Vilifying women whose valid choices resulted in poor outcomes is cruel.

another:

She stole a poor mom's story from the VBAC board and twisted everything around. I don't like her at all.

There are 100 pages, 1000 comments...some good, some like these above...

Below is the kind of sick things she does, and it would not be a surprise to see her sued for a few million dollars -and lose of course:

http://beckfamilyblessings.blogspot.com/2012/09/slander-and-libel-from-skeptical-ob.html

she has had one major run in already:

Blog flamewar winds up in federal court | Universal Hub
www.universalhub.com/2013/blog-flamewar-winds-federal-court
Jan 26, 2013 - In her suit, filed in US District Court in Boston, Dr. Amy Tuteur of the Skeptical OB, ... home rather than a hospital, Dr. Amy writes for The Skeptical OB...

A summary of Dr Amy's work:

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a40043605/my_sil_is_messaging_me_about_hurt_by_homebirth_blog...

"There is a Hurt by Hospital Birth blog. There is also The Feminist Breeder, who is in a well publicized fight with Amy right now. Those blogs might help shed a little light on Amy and her intentions. Remind her that it is just a blog, and Amy is a well known fanatic and propagandist. She is not a reliable source of information.

Then I would address the main concern of all of these stories: provider neglect. There are ample scientific studies out there to show that homebirth is safe with a qualified attendant. She should have some access as a nursing student. Homebirth is recommended by the government and health agencies in other countries. The main concern in America is the qualifications of providers. The usefulness of these stories is in showing what a difference it can make when you have good providers versus bad providers. It is a gift by the parents that they have the courage to share these stories to help other parents, regardless of their current position on homebirth,

I've read every story on that site. Each one is a case of provider neglect. Not a single mother or baby was affected because of location. They were affected because of the incompetent actions (or inaction) of midwives, ER physicians, lab techs, and obstetricians. Some of these women were high risk and not candidates for homebirth, some didn't receive their labs in time, some were attempting births that were directly against the guidelines for their specific complication (premature baby with GBS+ status, for example), some were sent home by the hospital. Some of these women weren't even giving birth at home at all. Some were in birth centers and some ended up in the hospital and were still treated poorly."

as to the study she posted...it is a good possibility the facts are skewed; 
she consistently confuses deliberately or not, assisted homebirth outcomes with assisted ones. If this Holland "study" does that -it means less than nothing.
Unassisted homebirth, as I stated, is about 4 times as dangerous as assisted homebirth or hospital birth. I also said I would prefer Md / hospital care in birth to unassisted home birth.

http://theskepticalmother.blogspot.com/2011/10/will-real-dr-amy-please-stand-up.html
*"If you have ever heard of Amy Tuteur, then you have also probably asked yourself-
Who IS this woman and why is she constantly telling me homebirth is dangerous?
And, why does she feel it is her place to tell me where and how I should birth my child?

Well, if you have wondered this, you are not alone. Many of us have been intrigued by this random woman on the net who spends so much of her time and energy trying to make homebirth and midwives look bad. You would think, if homebirth was truly as dangerous as she claims and midwives were really as awful as she makes them about to be, she would have taken some action by now to actually do something about it."*

....

*"What I can do is this.. I can present you, the reader with a little insight into the infamous doctor
and then you, yourself, can make a judgement call on the kind of person she is. You may want to ask yourselves a couple of questions at the end of this post.

1. Does Amy Tuteur use fact or opinion as a source of information?
2. Is Amy Tuteur a good source to look to when searching for scientific evidence?

A couple of years ago, Dr. Amy was a writer on a site called Science Based Medicine.This is a place where skeptics like to go to get to the truth of the matter through science, data and other fact based information. She lasted there for three months and due to some unknown reasons, decided and/or was asked, to leave."*

...But the Dr Amy character, I have had enough of.

She could not even be tolerated by her peers, who WANTED her to write against homebirth:

November 2009:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...al-o-b-joins-the-science-based-medicine-crew/
"I'm very pleased to announce that Dr. Amy Tuteur, otherwise known as The Skeptical O.B., has joined Science-Based Medicine."

February 2010:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dr-tuteur-has-decided-to-leave-science-based-medicine/
The editors and crew at SBM have an announcement that needs to be made. This morning, Dr. Amy Tuteur tendered her resignation and will therefore no longer be a blogger at SBM. Some of you might already be aware of this development because Dr. Tuteur has already announced her decision on her own blog. That is why we considered it important to post an announcement here on SBM as soon as possible.

While we are sorry to see Dr. Tuteur go and wish her well in whatever future endeavors she decides to pursue, over the last several weeks it had become clear to both the editors of SBM and Dr. Tuteur herself that, although Dr. Tuteur had routinely been able to stimulate an unprecedented level of discussion regarding the issues we at SBM consider important, SBM has not been a good fit for her and she has not been a good fit for SBM. Over the last few days mutual efforts between the editors and Dr. Tuteur to resolve our differences came to an impasse. Unfortunately for all parties, that impasse appeared to be unresolvable and resulted in Dr. Tuteur's decision to leave SBM.

Like Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, she is likely paid well for the despicable,
unethical, and careless and inaccurate work she does. :feedtroll:

and, BTW, I am sick of reading about her, and will likely not have time for more research on this.:eyebulge:

:wave:
jeremiyah


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> Bobbb,
> 
> The study you quote was posted by;
> This piece first appeared on The Skeptical OB in November 2010.
> Posted by Amy Tuteur, MD at 1:31 PM


What are you yammering about? I gave you a link direct to PubMed. Do you know what PubMed is? Here's the link again. The study was published in BMJ, (British Medical Journal) a highly ranked and leading medical publication. Here is the link to the article itself.

The researchers behind this report are: _Evers AC, Brouwers HA, Hukkelhoven CW, Nikkels PG, Boon J, van Egmond-Linden A, Hillegersberg J, Snuif YS, Sterken-Hooisma S, Bruinse HW, Kwee A._

I don't see any mention of a Dr. Tuteur. Where are you pulling this stuff from? What role, exactly, does she have with respect to this research?

Thanks, I guess, for going out onto the internet and randomly finding some doctor to foam at the mouth against, and I suppose if this post of yours is a kind of distraction-entertainment art-form that I should be privileged to be on the receiving end of such avante-garde art, but frankly, being the country bumpkin that I am this art-form of yours swooshes over my head because I don't see what this doctor has to do with the study of 37,000 births in Utrecht, Netherlands (representing 13% of the population) during the period of study.

What exactly does some solitary physician's reputation have to do with the price of tea in China? Should I care about your mailman's reputation when I consider the quality of your comments? How about the reputation of the cashier at the Home Depot you bought a ladder at? Does her reputation tell me anything about you?


----------



## mojo4

Ok, jeremiyah, next time you get pregnant have your baby at home. Bobbb, when you get knocked up go to a hospital. Then report back. Stay calm and chive on.


----------



## lazydaisy67

There's no question it is safer at home than in the hospital. There are approximately 28 other countries in this world that have lower infant and maternal mortality rates. This EVEN WITH a c-section rate of 30%!!! How can that possibly be? It is not dangerous to give birth, it is not a killer medical emergency. Women need to take control of their medical care and stop taking the "experts" advice as the gospel truth.


----------



## BillS

The study really says that normal pregnancies are the ones supervised by midwives and problem pregnancies are supervised by doctors. It would be idiotic to argue that midwives without medical training or modern medical equipment are better than doctors who have both.

And of course the reason why America ranks so low in infant mortality is that there's a disproportionate share of black and Hispanic girls giving birth who are too young, take drugs or don't get adequate nutrition or any combination of those three things.

The fact is, after it hits the fan, there will be a LOT more women dying in childbirth. It will be like it was 100 years ago.


----------



## lazydaisy67

Well, I must be an idiot then cause I believe that doctors cause more medical issues for labor and delivery than they solve. Maybe it's because I've had 5 babies of my own, but hey, you're the expert.


----------



## dixiemama

I would love to have a home birth but due to medical issues, it's not feasible. SHTF situation, no option but home. 

My cousins wife had 2 children in the hospital and HATED the experience. He youngest was born at home 6 months ago. I had my son in the same hospital 9 years ago and had no problems. I guess it's a personal opinion. 

I do 'plan' on staying home as long as I can during labor with my next pregnancy {fingers crossed its soon} but know that I will have to go to the hospital. 

I also believe that family history plays a HUGE part in how we function today. There are health probs in my family going back generations so I tailor my lifestyle around those. I have had only 1 grandmother die in childbirth in all of my families history (that I currently have); they all had large families with a very low infant mortality rate (19 total of well over 2,000 people in my database).


----------



## Grimm

dixiemama said:


> I would love to have a home birth but due to medical issues, it's not feasible. SHTF situation, no option but home.
> 
> My cousins wife had 2 children in the hospital and HATED the experience. He youngest was born at home 6 months ago. I had my son in the same hospital 9 years ago and had no problems. I guess it's a personal opinion.
> 
> I do 'plan' on staying home as long as I can during labor with my next pregnancy {fingers crossed its soon} but know that I will have to go to the hospital.
> 
> I also believe that family history plays a HUGE part in how we function today. There are health probs in my family going back generations so I tailor my lifestyle around those. I have had only 1 grandmother die in childbirth in all of my families history (that I currently have); they all had large families with a very low infant mortality rate (19 total of well over 2,000 people in my database).


I concur. Roo was a C-section though I was trying for a vaginal birth. There is a great chance that my next could be VBAC but there is also the chance I'll have to have another C-section. I have located 2 midwives in our new town and there is an OBGYN that lives at the bottom of the small hill from us. He works in an office next to his home so if SHTF I am covered if he doesn't BO. I still want to have any supplies and knowledge should I have to have a baby at home post SHTF.


----------



## faithmarie

Hospitals are great for emergencies .... My daughter had 6 home births...


----------



## Bobbb

lazydaisy67 said:


> There are approximately 28 other countries in this world that have lower infant and maternal mortality rates.


What you're doing is making a false equivalence between country and population.

The infant mortality rate in Mexico is 16.77/1,000.

The infant mortality rate of US Hispanics is 5.5/1,000.
The infant mortality rate of American blacks is 13.1/1,000.
The infant mortality rate of American whites is 5.6/1,000.

The outcomes for Mexican women are enhanced by moving to the US because our system is better than that of Mexico's. How good is the outcome? The Hispanic infant mortality rate is* BETTER* than that of American whites. This is independent of poverty level. The US Census reports the following poverty rates in the US:










Notice in the graph that child poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly identical and yet the black infant mortality rate is nearly 2.5x greater than the Hispanic rate. Poverty is not a determinant factor with respect to infant mortality outcomes in the US. The rate in Mexico shows otherwise.

So it is misleading to believe that medical SYSTEMS are the primary determinant of infant mortality outcomes when the data shows that population characteristics are an extremely powerful factor. American Hispanics are noticeably poorer than American whites and yet have *LOWER* rates of infant mortality, despite all of the negatives with respect to medical attention, living environment, ability and willingness to follow through on a prenatal care regime, etc. that are more troubling for those in poverty than for those who are not in poverty.



> It is not dangerous to give birth, it is not a killer medical emergency.


Define what you mean by dangerous. The "natural" rate of maternal mortality is about 1,500 deaths per 100,000 births. The maternal death rate in the US is 11 per 100,000 compared to 2,100 per 100,000 in Somalia.

So, I'm not trying to be flip when I ask you to define dangerous. When you play Russian Roulette with a revolver you have a 1 in 6 chance of being unlucky. When you go for a completely natural birth, as the mother, you will survive the event 98,500 times out of 100,000. Not too bad odds, unless of course you're one of the 1,500 out of 100,000 mothers who dies during childbirth. Is a 1.5% mortality rate for giving birth a non-dangerous activity? That all depends on where you draw the line separating danger from non-danger.



> Women need to take control of their medical care and stop taking the "experts" advice as the gospel truth.


This is, of course, an ideological position. I presume that it is built on a foundation of belief that women have mystical knowledge about being women which makes them better medical decision makers than physicians who possess medical knowledge. I see no evidence of this mystical knowledge being existent but maybe you do, being a woman and all. You know, breast cancer is as natural as child birth, so maybe women should be treating their own natural breast cancers too instead of relying on physicians to use medical knowledge to treat such cancers.


----------



## Bobbb

lazydaisy67 said:


> Well, I must be an idiot then cause I believe that doctors cause more medical issues for labor and delivery than they solve.


I have no problem with what you've written here. You didn't write that you KNOW that, you wrote that you BELIEVE that. That's fine with me. People can believe in fairies, in goblins, in a flat Earth, and all sorts of other stuff.

Believe what you want and leave the knowing to other people.


----------



## mojo4

Well my sister in law had 4 kids. She could have stayed and had them at home and not had a single problem. My wife would have died in child birth had it not been for modern medicine and we had been at home. For anyone to say doctors cause more problems than they solve is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with home or hospital birth, its about each mom and how their body handles it. But just like anything else in life its more about the person than the incident. 2 identical car crashes and someone dies in one and in the other everyone walks away. It doesn't mean that the crashes were different, just some people handle it better than others do.


----------



## dixiemama

I concur with Mojo^^^


----------



## tsrwivey

My first birth was easy, unmediated, uncomplicated, & over in 6 hours. I almost had a home birth with hubby's aunt who is a midwife. By the grace of God, she didn't move back to Texas soon enough & I had the baby in the hospital with an OBGYN. All went well but slow the first 11 hours & 45 minutes of labor. That last 15 minutes both baby & I went south. Our baby would've died & quite possibly me too without the medical team & equipment that saved us. ( The midwife said so) We just celebrated that baby's 18th birthday & I can't imagine life without her. I know several kids who had traumatic births, even a couple of minutes in the delay of appropriate interventions makes the difference between severe brain damage & perfectly normal. 
I would be more comfortable at home (who wouldn't?), but the way I see it motherhood is not about me or what I want, it's about them & what's best for them. I don't have a crystal ball to tell me how the delivery of a baby will go. I want to know if something goes wrong all the equipment & experts are a few seconds away to help my baby. Let the OP squat in the field & give birth if he wants, my babies will be born in the safety of a hospital with all the resources of modern medicine to intervene if needed.


----------



## Bobbb

tsrwivey said:


> I would be more comfortable at home (who wouldn't?), but the way I see it motherhood is not about me or what I want, it's about them & what's best for them.


I like that. It's a powerful and insightful observation. You're certainly there delivering the child but it really is about the child and maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks to the child instead of about making the experience more enriching for the mother.



> I don't have a crystal ball to tell me how the delivery of a baby will go.


That's the thing, isn't it? Home birth is marvelous in hindsight for the mothers who had no-problem, no catastrophe births. It isn't so grand for the parents who are now dealing with a mentally retarded baby or child with palsy or some other affliction caused by birth complications which could have been prevented with nearby medical resources, people and equipment, ready to intervene.

Once we can perfect that crystal ball technology then we can sort women into home birth and hospital birth categories with perfect precision, but until them the mother is buying her "enriched" experience at the risk of the child's life and wellbeing.


----------



## Highwater

I would think home births are safer for at least a couple of reasons. 

Hospitals harbor dangerous germs and diseases. The normal home has plenty of germs but most are harmless.

Home births are not recommended if a pregnant woman has any pre-conditions or if there are any complications with her pregnancy. This filters out a lot of women who might lose babies during childbirth.

My mom lost a baby during a hospital birth due to a doctor who was negligent. (He said she was in pre-mature labor, put her in a room and left to go golfing. The baby was born breech with the doctor still on the links.) I've had two home births and wouldn't change anything. It's a decision to be made with care as complications happen and there are advantages to being in a hospital when they do. It's a personal choice. 

The home births cost us $300 each. Compare that to a hospital birth.


----------



## Bobbb

Highwater said:


> Home births are not recommended if a pregnant woman has any pre-conditions or if there are any complications with her pregnancy. This filters out a lot of women who might lose babies during childbirth.


Is your analysis guided by intuition or by evidence? If by evidence then how do you reconcile your conclusion that home birth is safer with the study in post #3 which noted the following:

*Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.* Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a 3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46) . . . . . .​
It seems that the actual evidence out there in the real world contradicts your conclusion. Low risk women, the ones that you feel would have a safer experience with home birth than hospital birth, have a higher infant perinatal mortality rate via home birth than do high risk women giving birth in hospitals. So, what is the Factor X that you're incorporating into your analysis which leads you to your conclusion and which answers the delivery outcomes presented in the quoted study?


----------



## drfacefixer

Highwater said:


> My mom lost a baby during a hospital birth due to a doctor who was negligent. (He said she was in pre-mature labor, put her in a room and left to go golfing. The baby was born breech with the doctor still on the links.) I've had two home births and wouldn't change anything. It's a decision to be made with care as complications happen and there are advantages to being in a hospital when they do. It's a personal choice..


Sorry about the loss. Sounds like the situation wouldn't have had a better outcome at home either - if it was a difficult birth and the fact that the doctor wasn't there was reason for the bad outcome. I can't speak or assume what happened but I never expected my wife's ob to stay by her side for the 26 hours of labour. With our second child, the midwives swapped out twice as well. Of course you're never left alone, the both the midwife team have shift changes as do the OBs that back them up should hemorrhage or fetal distress come into the picture.


----------



## Highwater

Bobbb said:


> Is your analysis guided by intuition or by evidence? If by evidence then how do you reconcile your conclusion that home birth is safer with the study in post #3 which noted the following:
> 
> *Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.* Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a 3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46) . . . . . .​
> It seems that the actual evidence out there in the real world contradicts your conclusion. Low risk women, the ones that you feel would have a safer experience with home birth than hospital birth, have a higher infant perinatal mortality rate via home birth than do high risk women giving birth in hospitals. So, what is the Factor X that you're incorporating into your analysis which leads you to your conclusion and which answers the delivery outcomes presented in the quoted study?


Well, it wasn't a conclusion. I guess I just felt safer being at home since I had a competent midwife and proper preparation. Each situation is different. What is safer for me, might not be for others.

Hospitals can harbor deadly bacteria that I happen to think is unsafe for newborns to be exposed to.


----------



## BillS

It's been an interesting discussion between those who selectively pick their facts and those who properly analyze them. If you really believe that it's safer on average to give birth at home instead of at a hospital then you're capable of the mental gymnastics required to vote for Democrats.


----------



## Bobbb

BillS said:


> . . . . then you're capable of the mental gymnastics required to vote for Democrats.


That is hilarious. I'm busting a gut here.


----------



## tsrwivey

Highwater said:


> Hospitals can harbor deadly bacteria that I happen to think is unsafe for newborns to be exposed to.


Unfortunately, those deadly bacteria are not only hospital-acquired now, there all over the place, even in your home. Matter of fact, they're frequently already on your skin or in your GI tract. 

It is possible to leave the hospital within minutes of giving birth if you're that concerned about it. Personally, I leave within 24 hours after birth, even after a c-section. My babies never leaves my side in the hospital, ever. For any reason.


----------



## Highwater

BillS said:


> It's been an interesting discussion between those who selectively pick their facts and those who properly analyze them. If you really believe that it's safer on average to give birth at home instead of at a hospital then you're capable of the mental gymnastics required to vote for Democrats.


dang, didn't know I was getting into a political discussion with folks who resort to insults to those they disagree with.

Don't think home births are safe? Don't have one.


----------



## Bobbb

Highwater said:


> Don't think home births are safe? Don't have one.


If a mother doesn't think it's wise to bath her baby is boiling water, then she shouldn't do it. However mothers who think boiling water baths are better for their babies should have every right to inflict 3rd degree burns on their babies.

Look, I have no problem with you risking YOUR life and health doing what you please, but tell me how the baby is expressing its choice on ITS own safety and well being? Perinatal mortality statistics focus on the life and death of babies, not mothers. This is a game of Russian Roulette that is being played and when you get unlucky in this game it is your baby that pays the price, and many times it is the ultimate price, death, death which could have been avoided or at least minimized the chances of occurring.


----------



## Highwater

Bobbb said:


> If a mother doesn't think it's wise to bath her baby is boiling water, then she shouldn't do it. However mothers who think boiling water baths are better for their babies should have every right to inflict 3rd degree burns on their babies.
> 
> Look, I have no problem with you risking YOUR life and health doing what you please, but tell me how the baby is expressing its choice on ITS own safety and well being? Perinatal mortality statistics focus on the life and death of babies, not mothers. This is a game of Russian Roulette that is being played and when you get unlucky in this game it is your baby that pays the price, and many times it is the ultimate price, death, death which could have been avoided or at least minimized the chances of occurring.


Well admire your crusader tendencies but I'm glad i had the freedom to have my babies at home without paying for astronomical medical and hospital fees. I had a competent midwife and a doctor who supported my decision and was willing to back us up in an emergency. The risks were minimized. There is no guarantees that there will not be complications no matter where a birth takes place.

You may feel a hospital is the best place to give birth. You have shown compelling facts to support your claim that hospitals are safer.

You have not convinced me that it's better to give birth in a hospital. You may call me irresponsible. That other clown may even call me a Democrat, which I'm not. I don't really care.

If I had to do it all over again, I would give birth at home with my loved ones and midwife.

oh yeah, and comparing a mother who baths her baby in boiling water to a woman who chooses home birth is ridiculous.


----------



## Bobbb

Duplicate post.


----------



## Bobbb

Highwater said:


> Well admire your crusader tendencies but I'm glad i had the freedom to have my babies at home


You're highlighting the theme that tsrwivey raised above - it's not about you. You get your sense of fulfillment, or whatever, and the baby is the one with the figurative gun to its head and will pay the consequences if something goes wrong.

How is this philosophy of mothering any different than a mother who believes that she should raise her child without boundaries and thus lets the child crawl across a busy highway? There is no guarantee that the child will be run down by a car but the odds of death for such an activity are higher than the odds of playing in a crib. Society would say that the mother's philosophy of a "no-boundaries" life for her baby is putting the baby at risk. There is no getting around the fact that home birthing is primarily to tickle the fancy of the mother and it shifts the risks of bad outcomes onto the baby. How is this responsible mothering?

The only saving grace here is the issue of relative risk - bad outcomes are rare, so the baby is doing the equivalent of crawling across the superhighway at 3 am when there is very little traffic speeding along. What can't be dodged is that home birthing mothers are shifting the risks onto their child in order to reap the benefits for themselves.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb ... I think you have went past ridiculous with your past few post. (As well as BillS)

When one must come up with things like boiling water baths & crawling across the superhighway... It like stating I have nothing to stand on, so I toss this out there. (And much is lost.)

And now ... It is for benefits for the mothers only. 

I have to also agree with the member that said, "Don't think home births are safe? Don't have one."

It is rather simple ...


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> Bobbb ... I think you have went past ridiculous with your past few post. (As well as BillS)
> 
> When one must come up with things like boiling water baths & crawling across the superhighway...


I'm certainly not going to tell you what you must think, so feel free to think that the argumentative form I used is ridiculous. I notice that you've simply labeled it ridiculous rather than showing me how and why it is ridiculous, likely because you can't do that in that what I've done is a logically sound form of argument.

Look, the point here is to put a spotlight on the risk that falls on the baby so that the mother can enjoy some ideological experience (a more natural birth). Well the same dynamic - baby at risk so that mother can live true to her philosophy - is at work in both of the extreme examples I tossed out.

Now, if the examples are ridiculous we should ask why they are ridiculous. Is it because the harm to the baby is amplified or simply because everyone has enough common sense that they'd never put their babies at such risk, meaning the mother's judgement is never, ever that far out of whack with regard to her baby's welfare?

Well, what's different with home birth when the statistical evidence is so solid about perinatal mortality and morbidity? There is, without a shadow of a doubt, more risk to the baby from home birth than from hospital birth. Despite this risk mothers chose to make status/ideology decisions and opt to give birth at home. In effect, they're gambling with the lives and quality of life of the baby that they're delivering, you know, just like the mothers in the "ridiculous" examples I gave.


----------



## jeremiyah

Bobbb, Bill, etc

You know, this is a Preparedness Forum; It is called Prepared Society. It is about Preparedness & Survival Forums. 
Maybe you missed that. We have women here who are actually trying to prepare as best they can to safely have babies when things go south. They know that life is uncertain. They feel the fear and danger of of the juggernauts looming on the horizon. 

If some of you think life is going to continue like it is right now, and that you will always be able to take your wives to the hospital...then what are you doing on this forum -which is dedicated to preparedness??? 
Further, what are you doing wasting these women's time who are actively trying to be prepared?

IF you have a wife, Bill, or you Bobbb...or ever plan to...and IF your wives wants to have her baby in a hospital...
then go for it...if you are able to. Chances are you may not. Realize that food, gasoline, medical care -everything will be used to control the population. If you are not making any effort to be prepared for those circumstances, then find a happy hospital and Obamacare medicaid forum, and go sing to that choir, and leave the women alone here that are trying to be ready to face a very uncertain future. You are wasting their time. 

You may have too much time on your hands, or you may be paid to do this, but exactly what is your point, 
and who do you care about? Why are you spending so much time insulting people's life choices?

You want us all to have babies in the hospital, so the children can be issued an SS # from birth, and be chipped, and vaccinated, fluoridated, chlorinated, stupidified in the public fool system, and owned by the Federal Government? Do you plan on vacationing in Camp FEMA, where even so long ago as Katrina, people complained that they "felt like a prison?"

If so, you are on the wrong forum, and really should go elsewhere if that is what your are really campaigning for. Some of us who are on this forum make choices based on life values, deep spiritual and moral principles, and eternal truths. If you do not have any of those, then Laissez Faire those who do.

jeremiyah


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> I'm certainly not going to tell you what you must think, so feel free to think that the argumentative form I used is ridiculous. I notice that you've simply labeled it ridiculous rather than showing me how and why it is ridiculous, likely because you can't do that in that what I've done is a logically sound form of argument.
> 
> Look, the point here is to put a spotlight on the risk that falls on the baby so that the mother can enjoy some ideological experience (a more natural birth). Well the same dynamic - baby at risk so that mother can live true to her philosophy - is at work in both of the extreme examples I tossed out.
> 
> Now, if the examples are ridiculous we should ask why they are ridiculous. Is it because the harm to the baby is amplified or simply because everyone has enough common sense that they'd never put their babies at such risk, meaning the mother's judgement is never, ever that far out of whack with regard to her baby's welfare?
> 
> Well, what's different with home birth when the statistical evidence is so solid about perinatal mortality and morbidity? There is, without a shadow of a doubt, more risk to the baby from home birth than from hospital birth. Despite this risk mothers chose to make status/ideology decisions and opt to give birth at home. In effect, they're gambling with the lives and quality of life of the baby that they're delivering, you know, just like the mothers in the "ridiculous" examples I gave.


Thanks ... I knew I could count on you.

:wave:


----------



## Bobbb

Andi,

Young girl is caught shoplifting.

*Mother*: Why did you do this?
*Daughter*: All of my friends were doing it and I didn't want to be Miss Goody Two Shoes.
*Mother*: And if all of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?
*Andi*: Hold up a sec there. That's a ridiculous example. I've never even heard of a kid who jumped off a cliff due to peer pressure and neither have I heard of a group of kids committing such a group suicide. Mom, you really need to stop with these ridiculous examples.
*Bobbb*: Andi, Mom here is using the example of jumping off a cliff to put the focus on the activity of peer pressure, not on the cliff jumping activity.

Jeremayih,



> Maybe you missed that. We have women here who are actually trying to prepare as best they can to safely have babies when things go south.


Here's a tip. When you try to salvage your argument from the smoldering ruins you should try to find a way to thread the needle such that your salvage effort doesn't contradict all that you've written earlier in the thread.

You weren't arguing that home birth DUE TO SHTF DISASTER will be a more common feature of post-SHTF America and that women should prepare for this new normal, rather you were arguing that home birth in present society was more safe than hospital birth, so your attempt to chastise those who point out the failings of your argument is a complete fail because your chastisement is pulled out of the ether and is completely disconnected from what you were arguing in this thread. I never wrote a word about women delivering at home in a post-apocalyptic world and I have no problem with home birth when society, and hospitals, are a distant memory to the survivors.



> . . . and leave the women alone here that are trying to be ready to face a very uncertain future. You are wasting their time.


Aren't you the White Knight, rushing to the rescue of the damsels. Look, I get that it's not fun to have your ass handed to you in an argument but the prudent thing to do when this does happen is to junk your old, failed, position and move forward with the new information that you now possess. Doubling down on a losing argument by shifting the goal posts and trying to erase the old argument by asserting a new argument in its stead only works on people who have memory problems and don't know enough to scroll upthread to reread the arguments that you had been making and most of us are not so afflicted.


----------



## Highwater

I'm gonna throw out a more appropriate analogy, from my perspective.

I don't fly much, but I feel pretty safe when I do. I'd feel pretty safe in a hospital if I had to give birth there. (well, except for those nasty germs.  ) But I know there are risks to flying. I could choose not to, I suppose. But like having a baby, I really want to go back East and visit my family sometimes. What if Boeing announces a new state of the art jumbo jet that improves safety by 30%? What if they test it for 5 years and prove their safety record? What if the cost of this new jet doubles the price of a ticket? What if it triples the price?

What if I had a choice between a $400 ticket and a $1500 ticket on a much safer ride? Say I take my two young sons with me. Then it becomes a choice between $1200 and $4500. My dad is dying. I want to see him before he passes. I can't afford the higher price. 

Should I go with the budget travel and take the added risk?

It's a calculated gamble but the odds are good that we will be safe with the regular jumbo jet. I could spend the extra thousands, like I would at a hospital. But I'd rather take my chances. Not only is it a financial decision, but a personal choice. I'd rather be at home when my babies are born. With good preparedness and experienced, capable hands to help, we minimized the risks and had the births we preferred at a price that didn't gouge our savings. 

I like what Jeremayih said. This forum is all about preparedness. We don't know what the future will be like. Shouldn't couples prepare for an uncertain future where there may not be the luxury of hospital births?


----------



## lazydaisy67

Anybody can throw stats at people to make themselves look intelligent, but it doesn't mean they are. 

Do you have any support for your statement about mental retardation being caused by the birthing process? I'd also like to see support for your idea that the rate of cerebral palsy is increased during home births. 

In the mean time, can you explain exactly why you've gotten so nasty to the people posting in this thread??


----------



## valannb22

I gave birth to all three of mine in the hospital and I am very happy with that decision. Partly because I am a fan of avoiding prolonged agonizing pain when at all possible  , and partly because my first was pretty well stuck and I was bleeding profusely and very well could have died if it wasn't for medical intervention. That is what I was comfortable doing. Women who are more comfortable at home and don't have a high-risk pregnancy should be able choose to stay home if they wish. I'm kinda glad I'm done with babies so I don't have to worry about post SHTF birth.


----------



## *Andi

Like I said Bobbb ... much of what you have to say gets lost ...

The debate about the safety of homebirth vs. hospital birth has been going on for decades and is not likely to be settled anytime soon. Much like Homeschooling, you have a number of folks on both sides that see things in a different light. 

Let us look at a few of the things a new family might think about. (NOTICE: I said family, not just mom ... but I'll get back to that. )

Stolen babies from the hospital ... it happens. Even with all the extra security. (You can do your own search or not)

Switched at birth ... again it happens. 

And the list of Pros and cons can go on and on ... for both sides. 

Now back to "The family" ... I found it interesting how you put the home birth on mom. (IMO) You have left out a few folks like husband, father or boyfriend. Like my nephew, you see as soon as he got the happy news "he" started planning the whole homebirth." His wife was not real happy at first but as a "family" they found a plan that worked for them. On a side note: They just had their second child ... at home. (Dang ... I should have checked to see if their was a "big game" on the tube he didn't want to miss. )

As for your rock solid statistics ... they too can be sliced and diced any which way you want.

As for the ... "Young girl is caught shoplifting."  Never mind.


----------



## Bobbb

Highwater said:


> I like what Jeremayih said. This forum is all about preparedness. We don't know what the future will be like. Shouldn't couples prepare for an uncertain future where there may not be the luxury of hospital births?


Do you see me uttering one word against being prepared for giving birth in a post-SHTF world? If you can't immediately answer that question then go back and read what I wrote. I have no issue with being prepared for such an eventuality. I haven't said boo about maternity kits. What I'm contesting is the position that home births are just as safe or safer than hospital births. Those two positions are a flat out twisting of reality. In the society in which we live, a society where hospital birth is readily available to all women, any women who freely chooses to give birth at home is playing Russian Roulette with the life and health of her baby.

In our functioning society women have a choice. In a post-SHTF world that choice might no longer be present and it's wise to prepare for the WORST.


----------



## Bobbb

lazydaisy67 said:


> Do you have any support for your statement about mental retardation being caused by the birthing process?


Psychologists compared the intellectual and language development of five- and six- year olds, all of whom had been born prematurely. Half the group were, during or immediately following birth, *at slight to moderate risk for hypoxia.* The other half had no such risk, although they resembled the risk group on other early risk factors and on socio-demographic characteristics. Despite the relatively small difference between the groups in the degree of risk, the authors report that the two groups "diverged significantly" in their development.

*The relationship between mild to moderate birth hypoxia and later cognitive abilities contradicts established wisdom that regards severe oxygen deprivation as the threshold for brain damage in an "all or nothing" manner. The findings add to other recent evidence of a continuum of brain injury due to asphyxia around birth.*​


> I'd also like to see support for your idea that the rate of cerebral palsy is increased during home births.


Cerebral Palsy:
There are many different types of injuries that can cause cerebral palsy, including* difficult labor that causes lack of oxygen to the brain*, head trauma, meningitis and infection.​

Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy:

Brachial plexus birth palsy is an injury to the brachial plexus nerves *that occurs during childbirth*. The nerves of the brachial plexus may be stretched, compressed, or torn in a difficult delivery. The result might be a loss of muscle function, or even paralysis of the upper arm. Injuries may affect all or only a part of the brachial plexus:​


> In the mean time, can you explain exactly why you've gotten so nasty to the people posting in this thread??


Look, I'm not a liberal whose mission in life is to affirm the feelings and philosophies of people to make them feel good. People can look to Oprah for that.

When people claim to be true something that is known to be false, I'll show them that they are wrong. That's not being nasty unless one redefines nasty as someone who doesn't affirm and applaud your decision/position.


----------



## Grimm

Can we please stop the arguing?! 

No one is going to change their minds either way so lets go back to the topic of preparedness- including giving birth AFTER shtf.


----------



## Bobbb

Grimm said:


> No one is going to change their minds either way so *lets go back to the topic of preparedness- including giving birth AFTER shtf.*


That's the topic of the "Maternity Kits" thread.

Look at the OP in this thread - the topic is:

"THIS IS A VERY BRIEF COLLECTION OF QUOTES AND STUDIES REGARDING* THE SAFETY OF HOME-BIRTH & MIDWIFERY*"​
As to changing minds, no one who is complaining about criticisms about home birthing is going to change their minds, but there are far more people who read a thread than participate in a thread and because these people are not committed to a position they can indeed change their minds on the basis of facts, arguments, anecdotes, feelings, and what have you. I'm simply trying to reduce the harm that falls on innocent children and some reader of this thread might feel that one of those innocent children might one day be their own.


----------



## drfacefixer

While I disagree with Bobbb on a some issues, he does seem to be one of the few people on this site that demonstrates an understanding of biostatics and evidence based science. Although sometimes he might seem aggressive, he's jumping into the conversation and putting some logic and worthy sources to what a lot of times is stuff cut and pasted for other sites and forums. Making insulin, antibiotics, thoughts on EMPs,, diseases, ect... There is a lot of false information passed back and forth here and it's taken as good faith information because we might like the tone or humor in the way someone posts it.

Have babies wherever you may, but Bobbb simply debated what was asked of the forum topic. Try to reread through it without emotion and you'll see there is some good stuff in it to be gleamed. Just because this is a preparedness forum, doesn't mean we have to pretend the modern world doesn't exist. There have been a lot of preppers I know that end up getting addicted to the idea of prepping for any and everything until their vision of the world is so clouded that they hope the world ends so they feel their sacrifice and narrowed views are correct. Be thankful there are people that can challenge you to maybe considering both sides of the coin. Are there dangers to hospitals - yes . Dangers to home birth yes. Bobbb did a great job teasing out bias and giving some peer reviewed stats. There are many other things raised here to consider. As for highwaters concerns, always ask about infection rates and risks before going into a hospital. Usually, the maternity wards are the safest area in the hospital. Young women are usually healthy, nurses are specialty trained so they don't work other floors (ie med and surg, or icu) and the babies are mandatory litmus tests since they routinely are seen for follow up care within the same system. Ask if you nurse is vaccinated. Its mandatory were i work to improve patient safety, but not everywhere. ( I take the risk and the patient gets the reward- how nice is that!) You are the patient and deserve to know who is taking care of you. This goes for home care as well as hospitals. Midwives are state regulated just like the rest of us and have stringent standards as an association. It's just harder to hold them accountable since they aren't performing in an accredited facility. Accredited may not mean better , it just means there is over site and consequences for public safety. 

and ladies thank you for your input as only you truly know what you must go through in this experience.


----------



## *Andi

Just for fun I did a wiki search on Midwifery ... A few things did stick out ... like ...

In the early 20th century, a conflict between surgeons and midwives arose, as medical men began to assert that their modern scientific techniques were better for mothers and infants than the folk medicine practiced by midwives.[19] As doctors and medical associations pushed for a legal monopoly on obstetrical care, midwifery became outlawed or heavily regulated throughout the United States and Canada.[19][20] Despite accusations that midwives were "incompetent and ignorant",[21] some argued that poorly trained surgeons were far more of a danger to pregnant women.[22]

German social scientists Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger (de) theorize that midwifery became a target of persecution and repression by public authorities because midwives not only possessed highly specialized knowledge and skills regarding assisting birth, but also regarding contraception and abortion.[23] According to Heinsohn and Steiger's theory, the state persecuted the midwives as witches in an effort to repopulate the European continent which had suffered severe loss of manpower as a result of the bubonic plague which had swept over the continent in waves, starting in 1348

(AND)

A midwife may practice in any setting including in the home, the community, hospitals, clinics or health units.

A few facts that you may look at ...

The war on midwives ...
The war on homeschooling ...
The war on herbs and the study of...

The war of taking your life into your own hands. (for better or worse)

Do we have a place for the hospital in homebirths ... yes. (If the need arise)
Do we have a place for homebirth ... yes ...(if that is what the family wants)

It is called freedom to pick what is best for your family ... (or you can go with big pham and all of that!)

MY point ... It is up to the family and their doctor/midwife...


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> A few facts that you may look at ...
> 
> The war on midwives ...
> The war on homeschooling ...
> The war on herbs and the study of...


Your examples all point to similar dynamics, new ways versus old ways, professional ways against common ways but the test here shouldn't be the form, it should be the function, and while the forms are similar the functions are not.

Here's what I mean. The form of each example is that the professionals know best and the common folks don't. The function is teased out by looking at measurable results. There is no question that medical procedures have improved patient outcomes over time. There is no question pharmacological research provides medicines which produce better patient outcomes than herbs. The odd duck here is homeschooling. Modern education practices don't produce the same positive functional outcomes as modern medicine. They're not improving over time, as measured by student outcomes, and the old ways practiced by common sense people actually produce equal or better results.

If modern educational theory produced the same functional progress as medicine and pharmacology then I'd be criticizing parents who home schooled for purposely shortchanging their children but that's not the case. So, it's not a rule that professionals always know best, the rule is that the results speak for themselves and when the results do speak then the professionals responsible for those results have bought themselves a lot of credibility. This process is built on the same foundation as the quotation about respect "You are not given respect, you must earn respect." The results regarding home birth versus hospital birth speak to the respect that physicians have earned for themselves by improving outcomes for mothers and children. Teachers don't earn the same respect because parents, flying by the seat of their pants, can educate their children just as effectively, or more effectively, than most teachers.

So just because we see a particular dynamic in play with home schooling doesn't imply that the same dynamic is in play with home birthing. Lay people are not always as effective or more effective than professionals.


----------



## jeremiyah

*Andi said:


> Just for fun I did a wiki search on Midwifery ... A few things did stick out ... like ...
> 
> In the early 20th century, a conflict between surgeons and midwives arose, as medical men began to assert that their modern scientific techniques were better for mothers and infants than the folk medicine practiced by midwives.[19] As doctors and medical associations pushed for a legal monopoly on obstetrical care, midwifery became outlawed or heavily regulated throughout the United States and Canada.[19][20] Despite accusations that midwives were "incompetent and ignorant",[21] some argued that poorly trained surgeons were far more of a danger to pregnant women.[22]
> 
> German social scientists Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger (de) theorize that midwifery became a target of persecution and repression by public authorities because midwives not only possessed highly specialized knowledge and skills regarding assisting birth, but also regarding contraception and abortion.[23] According to Heinsohn and Steiger's theory, the state persecuted the midwives as witches in an effort to repopulate the European continent which had suffered severe loss of manpower as a result of the bubonic plague which had swept over the continent in waves, starting in 1348
> 
> (AND)
> 
> A midwife may practice in any setting including in the home, the community, hospitals, clinics or health units.
> 
> A few facts that you may look at ...
> 
> The war on midwives ...
> The war on homeschooling ...
> The war on herbs and the study of...
> 
> The war of taking your life into your own hands. (for better or worse)
> 
> Do we have a place for the hospital in homebirths ... yes. (If the need arise)
> Do we have a place for homebirth ... yes ...(if that is what the family wants)
> 
> It is called freedom to pick what is best for your family ... (or you can go with big pham and all of that!)
> 
> MY point ... It is up to the family and their doctor/midwife...


awesome hints, Andi!!!

An FYI for everybody: this thread was started to provide additional information on homebirth, as a legitimate option -especially in SHTF scenario.
It was started as a separate thread to keep from interfering with the Midwife Kit thread. 
Many of you can disagree with some people's approach to be prepared, 
but I wanted to provide encouragement to those who will either likely homebirth as choice, or realize that they will very possibly have to do so some time in the not too distant future.

That was the purpose of the Midwife Kit thread. It is the purpose of these other threads as well. 
My purpose is to help as many people as possible, be as prepared as possible in as many areas of life as possible. 
Maintaining the health of our families, and being responsible in childbirth are two huge areas. 
Some of us plan to take care of ourselves as best we can. 
It is for those people I am writing.

Those who seem to be fine with doing whatever the PTBs steer them to do, 
and who perhaps do not even plan on preparing ahead for changes in regards to the options for health and childbirth, 
nor in being responsible for sudden changes, or worse, in those areas, have the right to do so. 
I AM NOT WRITING TO YOU.

Those of us who have always taken care of ourselves, and plan to continue to do so...
well, we will do that. You do whatever it is you plan on doing,
and I for one, sincerely wish you the best, and hope everything works out well for you, and all of those dependent on you...

I may be new to forums like this, and make mistakes on where & how to place threads, but* it was pointed out from the start, that these threads (plural) on home-birthing were started as an adjunct to the Midwife Kit thread.* As such, they are primarily directed at homebirthers.

Even Bobbb understood this...but I guess he has the same affliction which he accused me of - a short memory

*Bobbb
I sold my soul to the internet*

Bobbb's Avatar

Originally Posted by Grimm View Post
"I think these childbirth posts are sparked by the maternity kit thread that a few of us ladies started to prep for possible childbirth AFTER the SHTF."
BOBBB SAYS: *"Thanks for the heads up on that thread." *

more on that later perhaps....

If anyone is interested in getting to the Truth in History, 
here are some links and brief snippets:

The Business of Being Born. Watch this documentary!!!
*
http://www.thebusinessofbeingborn.com/*

FROM EXECUTIVE PRODUCER RICKI LAKE AND FROM DIRECTOR ABBY EPSTEIN
MORE BUSINESS OF BEING BORN

*
Executive Producer Ricki Lake and Filmmaker Abby Epstein follow their landmark documentary, The Business of Being Born, with an all-new, four part DVD series that continues their provocative and entertaining exploration of the modern maternity care system. More Business of Being Born, available on November 8th, 2011, offers a practical look at birthing options as well as poignant celebrity birth stories from stars including Alanis Morissette, Gisele Bundchen, Christy Turlington-Burns, Cindy Crawford, Molly Ringwald, Kimberly Williams-Paisley and Melissa Joan Hart.*
Warning: This film may seriously piss you off.






For an inside look at modern OBGYN Industry:
Read also, MalePractice, by Dr Mendelssohn
http://www.amazon.com/Male-Practice-Robert-S-Mendelsohn/dp/0809259745
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/456464478

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/22241.html
*The Inhumane War on Midwifery*
*Posted by Anthony Gregory on August 2, 2008 02:00 PM

The AMA and medical-industrial complex support a ban on home births. How can people believe they are free when something as intimate as childbirth is so heavily controlled by the corporate state? Of course, we need freedom for families to make their choice among hospitals and home birth options. For a case for home birth, and against the establishment that embraces a program of processing women in labor as fast as it can through the systematic reliance on the pitocin-epidural-cesarean process, see the great documentary, The Business of Being Born.

The artificial process of bringing on contractions, then giving pain relief, then bringing on more contractions, then resorting to cesareans when things don't go as smoothly and quickly as desired, reminds me of the spiral of interventionism Mises described. I wouldn't want to push the metaphor too far but it has led to an incredible increase in cesarean births. In much of the world, midwife births are the norm. In America, they have been marginalized and now risk being prohibited.*

http://www.sciencebasedbirth.com/WebPublishing_05/Faith_Book_1_Ch1_05.pdf

http://www.sciencebasedbirth.com/CEO SSB/WhitePaper_2004.htm
*C.E.O. is dedicated to bringing science-based maternity care to all childbearing women

A-C.E.O ~ The American College of Evidence-based Obstetrics ~
For physicians who wish to re-establish the scientific foundation of their profession and reclaim their expertise in the use of physiological management for normal birth

Stedman's Medical Dictionary definition of "physiological" - "&#8230;in accord 
with or characteristic of the normal functioning of a living organism" (1995)

"The hallmark of obstetrical quality is the prevention of the rare disaster
rather than the optimal conduct of the many normal cases" [Dr. Brody 1981]*

This is a very complete history of The War On Midwifery.
It has some very ugly facts the medical industry would like to keep swept under the rug:

http://www.sciencebasedbirth.com/safety_issues01/rosenbl1.htm
*The Official Plan 
to Eliminate the Midwife: 1900 -- 1930*

*The master plan to abolish midwives was not based on any categorical deficiency of midwives or a new medical "discovery" that made the principles and skills of traditional midwifery obsolete. Historically, in the US and elsewhere, the practice of midwives was safer than the same kind of care as provided by physicians.

~ "Why bother the relatively innocuous midwife, when the ignorant doctor causes many more absolutely unnecessary deaths". [1911-B; Dr.Williams,MD,p.180]...*

If you are really interested in the history of this issue, Marjory Tew's book is a must read:
http://www.sciencebasedbirth.com/Citations or text 02/safer_childbirth_MTew.htm
The first edition of Safer Childbirth? in 1990 showed that actual results have never supported the widely-held belief that today's reduced rates of death or sickness for mother or child were caused by increased hospitalization or obstetric interventions, and the second edition in 1995 added the further compelling evidence gathered by the House of Commons Health Committee in their thorough inquiry from 1990-1992 into the maternity services, including the scientific evaluations, by then completed, of obstetric practices. The recommendations of the Parliamentary Report in 1992, followed in 1993 by the Government Report, Changing Childbirth, should have revolutionized the direction of maternity care; mothers, not doctors, should henceforth have the dominant role in deciding what sort of care best served their and their babies' interests.

http://faithgibson.org/
Faith Gibson.Org
*The Politics of Normal Childbirth ~ helping to end the Hundred Years War between Midwifery & Medicine*

Faith's Additional Web sites:
http://ibirth.org/, American College of Community Midwives http://www.collegeofmidwives.org/collegeofmidwives.org/index.html, 
*
From Home to Hospital:
The Evolution of Childbirth in the United States, 1927-1940* 
http://faithgibson.org/miami-univ-evolution-cb-us-home2hosp-1927-1940/2080/
http://faithgibson.org/wp-content/u...tion-ChldBrth-US_Home-Hosp-1927-1940_2006.pdf

Medical / Pharmaceutical / Banking Cartels are winning the war in North Carolina...at present. It remains to be seen what the results of this idiocy will be:
http://theperfectbirth.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/medicine-vs-midwifery-divide-conquer/

http://wheresmymidwife.org/

http://chapelboro.com/pages/13355352.php?

*
******************************


----------



## jeremiyah

Bobbb said:


> Psychologists compared the intellectual and language development of five- and six- year olds, all of whom had been born prematurely. Half the group were, during or immediately following birth, *at slight to moderate risk for hypoxia.* The other half had no such risk, although they resembled the risk group on other early risk factors and on socio-demographic characteristics. Despite the relatively small difference between the groups in the degree of risk, the authors report that the two groups "diverged significantly" in their development.
> 
> *The relationship between mild to moderate birth hypoxia and later cognitive abilities contradicts established wisdom that regards severe oxygen deprivation as the threshold for brain damage in an "all or nothing" manner. The findings add to other recent evidence of a continuum of brain injury due to asphyxia around birth.*​
> Cerebral Palsy:
> There are many different types of injuries that can cause cerebral palsy, including* difficult labor that causes lack of oxygen to the brain*, head trauma, meningitis and infection.​


Bobbb,

You make the mistake of assuming you are right, and that the charts & studies you refer to from CDC are to be trusted as interpreted. 
Ronnie said.."the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 
-"I'm from the government and I'm here to help," yet you act like we must believe said entities simply b/c you say so. Don't be upset if some of us do not jump on your bandwagon.

I want to point out to everyone that the three examples above all relate equally to hospital birth. None of the quotes mention homebirth; Bobbb merely implies that they are somehow related to homebirth more than to hospital birth. That is wrong to imply what is not there.
The same excuse Bobbb & CDC gives for the poor rating in the US -minorities, drug use, etc -account for the same conditions which he implies in the three statements are somehow caused by homebirth.


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> Bobbb,
> 
> You make the mistake of assuming you are right, and that the charts & studies you refer to from CDC are to be trusted as interpreted.


I don't make the mistake of assuming that I am right, I am right. What are you, some kind of liberal who in believes in nonsense like "Well, that's my truth and my reality?" Reality is the same for all of us - there is not a different reality for you where that universe results in home births being a safer option than hospital births.



> Ronnie said.."the nine most terrifying words in the English language are -"I'm from the government and I'm here to help," yet you act like we must believe said entities simply b/c you say so. Don't be upset if some of us do not jump on your bandwagon.


I'm not upset, and frankly I'm not surprised by your statement either. You don't strike me as the type of person who is guided by evidence. You're a romantic or a faith-based type of person and you'll believe what your heart tells you, so when dealing with positions of faith I know that such people as yourself will simply ignore what you don't want to be true. That's indicated by you plastering this thread with propaganda movies and such. You can't counter science so you put up propaganda. The fact that you think that this is a convincing tactic suggests that you're deep in confirmation bias - watching that propaganda reaffirms your faith in your position and helps you forget the evidence which you don't want to contend with. We've all noticed that you haven't engaged the evidence, you've merely ignored it and remained true to your faith.



> I want to point out to everyone that the three examples above all relate equally to hospital birth. None of the quotes mention homebirth; Bobbb merely implies that they are somehow related to homebirth more than to hospital birth. That is wrong to imply what is not there.


Of course this medical issues also apply to hospital births. The inference here is sound - home birth results in higher infant mortality and morbidity rates than hospital birth, therefore the complications listed above are likely to present at higher rates from home births than from hospital births. Babies don't die and babies aren't crippled by magic, there is always a cause at work. When a fetus is experiencing Perinatal Asphyxia (lack of oxygen) a hospital can take corrective action, of a variety of sorts, immediately but a home birth situation results in the fetus being starved of oxygen for the length of time it takes to call an ambulance, have it arrive and the time for transport to the hospital.


----------



## tsrwivey

jeremiyah said:


> Bobbb, Bill, etc
> 
> You know, this is a Preparedness Forum; It is called Prepared Society. It is about Preparedness & Survival Forums.
> Maybe you missed that. We have women here who are actually trying to prepare as best they can to safely have babies when things go south. They know that life is uncertain. They feel the fear and danger of of the juggernauts looming on the horizon.
> 
> If some of you think life is going to continue like it is right now, and that you will always be able to take your wives to the hospital...then what are you doing on this forum -which is dedicated to preparedness???
> Further, what are you doing wasting these women's time who are actively trying to be prepared?
> 
> IF you have a wife, Bill, or you Bobbb...or ever plan to...and IF your wives wants to have her baby in a hospital...
> then go for it...if you are able to. Chances are you may not. Realize that food, gasoline, medical care -everything will be used to control the population. If you are not making any effort to be prepared for those circumstances, then find a happy hospital and Obamacare medicaid forum, and go sing to that choir, and leave the women alone here that are trying to be ready to face a very uncertain future. You are wasting their time.
> 
> You may have too much time on your hands, or you may be paid to do this, but exactly what is your point,
> and who do you care about? Why are you spending so much time insulting people's life choices?
> 
> You want us all to have babies in the hospital, so the children can be issued an SS # from birth, and be chipped, and vaccinated, fluoridated, chlorinated, stupidified in the public fool system, and owned by the Federal Government? Do you plan on vacationing in Camp FEMA, where even so long ago as Katrina, people complained that they "felt like a prison?"
> 
> If so, you are on the wrong forum, and really should go elsewhere if that is what your are really campaigning for. Some of us who are on this forum make choices based on life values, deep spiritual and moral principles, and eternal truths. If you do not have any of those, then Laissez Faire those who do.
> 
> jeremiyah


Wow...skipped that logic class, did ya? First, guessing from your picture, you've never given birth. I have, it's a very emotionally trying time & a woman should be where she feels safe & supported. Sorry, the man shouldn't get a vote. When you shit a watermelon, talk to me about your rights.

Second, you make a lot of assumptions about those of us who give birth in a hospital. I give birth in a hospital, feed those babies breast milk the entire first year, give only select vaccines on my own schedule, no chips, chlorine or fluoride, then we homeschooled those kids all the way through high school, long before it was cool.  As a nurse to medically fragile kids, I'm sure I would be an asset in any medical situation, especially one with an infant or child involved. I also feel confident enough in my skills, training, & experience as both a nurse & a woman that I could deliver a baby if I had to. Lord I hope I never have to.


----------



## LincTex

To the adamant "anti-home-birthers" (no particular person):



lazydaisy67 said:


> Well, I must be an idiot then cause I believe that doctors cause more medical issues for labor and delivery than they solve. Maybe it's because I've had 5 babies of my own, but hey, you're the expert.


I am not reading the whole thread, but my wife will echo the same sentiments as LazyDaisy on the first page. My stepson was born in the hospital, and all the other kids after were with a midwife.

My wife says the *ONLY* way she will ever enter the hospital to do a birth is due to a dire emergency.

We homeschool, and the other homeschool moms that we "meet up" with (weekly event) that have also experienced both methods, (about a dozen or so) *always* state that in no way, shape or form was the hospital experience better than a midwife. Period.

To the naysayers: If you feel a hospital birth is better, You can come here and argue with them if you wish, but it won't do you any good. They were there... you weren't.

Choose the method that suits you... but don't try to say having a baby somewhere other than a hospital is stupid idea.


----------



## LincTex

Bobbb said:


> I don't make the mistake of assuming that I am right, I am right.


Bobbb, I typically enjoy the thought you put into your posts (and the info is often much needed), but in many ways the info you have posted in this thread is wrong.

Explain to me the results of this:

1) My father was birthed at home on a farm in North Dakota. He currently has a Ph.D in English with a BS in physiology and teaches at a college.

2) My youngest just turned two... no hypoxia or cerebral palsy from being birthed at home. In fact, she started potty training *herself* before she could walk by telling us she needed to use the toilet (she used the same grunts as a bowel movement as her cue to us). We haven't changed more than three poopy diapers from the time she turned 1 until she turned 2. Oh, and she was *completely potty trained before two*. We still put training pants on her at night because of occasional night accidents, but they are usually dry in the morning.

She also can put on her own shoes, on the correct feet. She can do the Velcro straps but no "tying" yet... she's only two!

So, why is it that you say homebirthing makes unintelligent children? Come over to my house and say that to my wife's face.


----------



## dixiemama

If the midwife is correctly trained and up to date on all her education, she will have infant CPR training, bring a small oxygen tank with accessories an be prepared for any emergency. That was the purpose of the Maternity/Midwife Kit thread---to educate those of us still in childbearing years to be PREPARED for what might happen. My son (and all subsequent children) will be born in a hospital pre-SHTF. Post, at home. That is my choice, my decision based on my medical history. I could possibly birth at home but if a life threatening situation occurred, I'm too far away from the hospital for life saving treatment. I feel more comfortable laboring as long as possible at home, then transferring to hospital when I feel it's time to. 

Stats can show anything and everything: my great grandmother was 1 of 14, all born at home. She only had 1 sibling to die at birth to what is now called twin-to-twin diffusion, Freddy was too small to survive in 1888. She birthed 3 babies herself at home: Jerry was still born due to knotted cord, Timmy died of pneumonia at 1 month, my grandfather is in his 70's. All of these deaths could occur today in any modern hospital. 

Believe what you want, but don't brow-beat others for doing the same, please.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> I don't make the mistake of assuming that I am right, I am right. What are you, some kind of liberal who in believes in nonsense like "Well, that's my truth and my reality?" Reality is the same for all of us - there is not a different reality for you where that universe results in home births being a safer option than hospital births.


So now we are back to name calling ... like I said :brickwall:

Here is a little clue for you Bobbb ...

Science is great but it is only as good as the evidence they use and who pays the bill (follow the money).


----------



## tsrwivey

LincTex said:


> To the adamant "anti-home-birthers" (no particular person):
> 
> I am not reading the whole thread, but my wife will echo the same sentiments as LazyDaisy on the first page. My stepson was born in the hospital, and all the other kids after were with a midwife.
> 
> My wife says the *ONLY* way she will ever enter the hospital to do a birth is due to a dire emergency.
> 
> To the naysayers: If you feel a hospital birth is better, You can come here and argue with them if you wish, but it won't do you any good. They were there... you weren't.


If you had read the thread you would have seen that no one is arguing about whether the home birth isn't a better experience *for the mother that wants a home birth*. The argument is whether a homebirth is riskier *for the baby*.


----------



## tsrwivey

LincTex said:


> Bobbb, I typically enjoy the thought you put into your posts (and the info is often much needed), but in many ways the info you have posted in this thread is wrong.
> 
> Explain to me the results of this:
> 
> 1) My father was birthed at home on a farm in North Dakota. He currently has a Ph.D in English with a BS in physiology and teaches at a college.
> 
> 2) My youngest just turned two... no hypoxia or cerebral palsy from being .


Again, had you read the thread you would've known no one said everyone that's birthed at home is brain-damaged or dead. Obviously, since we are ALL descendants of entire families who were all born at home, that's not the case. The argument presented by Bobbb & the rest of us is there is more RISK of death or brain damage with a home birth due to the limited resources available in a home setting. I'm sure your father & daughter are brilliant, but that's another thread entirely. There are plenty of brilliant people born in a hospital as well.


----------



## lazydaisy67

I have no doubt you will never think giving birth at home is safe in any way, shape or form. You can't do it, so maybe you should butt out and let the ones who can exercise their right to choose how they'd like to handle it. 

I could throw stats at you all day long about how dangerous it is to drive your car, but you'll probably drive it today. You are more likely to die in your car than I am of birthing my child in my own bed. The stats bear that out clearly.


----------



## tsrwivey

lazydaisy67 said:


> I have no doubt you will never think giving birth at home is safe in any way, shape or form. You can't do it, so maybe you should butt out and let the ones who can exercise their right to choose how they'd like to handle it.
> 
> I could throw stats at you all day long about how dangerous it is to drive your car, but you'll probably drive it today. You are more likely to die in your car than I am of birthing my child in my own bed. The stats bear that out clearly.


Ummm... I gave birth completely unmedicated with my first child at the age of 19. I CAN & DID do it, thank you ma'am.  I don't recall anyone saying you shouldn't have the right to choose, merely that it's safer for the baby in a hospital.


----------



## Bobbb

LincTex said:


> So, why is it that you say homebirthing makes unintelligent children? Come over to my house and say that to my wife's face.


The universe doesn't divide people into Smart-Hospital Born and Dumb-Home Born. That's not what the data shows. Rather the data shows that there is a higher incidence of perinatal mortality and morbidity associated with home birth. This means that many home births will be uneventful in terms of tragedy, meaning that lots of normal and exceptional children will be born at home, just as they are at the hospital.

As I noted above with reference to this finding:

Despite the relatively small difference between the groups in the degree of risk, the authors report that the two groups "diverged significantly" in their development.

*The relationship between mild to moderate birth hypoxia and later cognitive abilities* contradicts established wisdom that regards severe oxygen deprivation as the threshold for brain damage in an "all or nothing" manner. The findings add to other recent evidence of a continuum of brain injury due to asphyxia around birth.​
This finding doesn't apply to a home or hospital birth where there was no complication involving hypoxia but as the universe shows us there are more complications in home birth than hospital birth and when timely action is required to address the complication the home birth baby suffers the consequences due to lack of skill and lack of resources. This is precisely like needing a police officer at the instant a deadly threat is directed at you and the police officer being 10 minutes away. You understand that point right? There is no way a distant cop can protect you better than a firearm that you carry on your person when it comes time to a moment of violence visited on you. Well, when you absolutely need to treat the baby RIGHT NOW because they are suffering from NOT BREATHING then calling for an ambulance, waiting for the ambulance and being transported by the ambulance means that the whole time this is going on your baby is not breathing and is suffering the consequences of not breathing. A baby in a hospital facing the exact same medical emergency can bypass the whole transport phase and thus can have the hypoxia treated immediately upon detection. The upshot here is that due to timely intervention the hospital baby suffers far less damage due to hypoxia than the home birth baby.

The same reasoning applies to all medical emergencies which arise during birth - timely action is always better than delayed action. So again, if a normal birth, a birth absent any complications, results from a home birth experience, then all of the above is not relevant. As I, and trwivey, noted the trick for mothers is to have a crystal ball with a record of perfect prediction to tell the mother whether her delivery will have no complications, and then home birth is as safe as a hospital birth. The problem is that we don't have such powerful predictive tools - the universe shows us this:

*Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death* (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), *compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.* Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a *3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care* (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46) . . . . . .

*We found that delivery related perinatal death was significantly higher among low risk pregnancies in midwife supervised primary care than among high risk pregnancies in obstetrician supervised secondary care.* This difference was *even greater* among the cases that were referred from primary to secondary care during labour.​
What this means is that the crystal ball technology isn't working very well. Women who are at lower risk of complications can still be surprised by a complication during delivery. Low risk doesn't mean No Risk. When a complication does arise these women lose their babies at a higher rate than do women of high risk who are delivering in a hospital. When the complication is severe enough that the midwife can't handle it and the low risk woman has to be transferred to the hospital, then the rate that babies die skyrockets.

So the universe of subjects that we're dealing with here is not ALL of the people who were born at home or ALL of the people who were born in the hospital, it's ALL of the people who were being birthed at home AND had complications and ALL of the people who were being birth in a hospital AND had complications. Think of it like seatbelts - when you're driving normally and nothing dangerous happens during your drive then the seatbelt offers you no protection. To judge the effectiveness of seatbelts you need to look only at the cases where some type of accident occurs and then compare the fates of seatbelt users versus non users.


----------



## *Andi

tsrwivey said:


> Obviously, since we are ALL descendants of entire families who were all born at home, that's not the case.


:thankyou:

Now we are getting some where ...


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> As I, and trwivey, noted the trick for mothers is to have a crystal ball with a record of perfect prediction to tell the mother whether her delivery will have no complications, and then home birth is as safe as a hospital birth. The problem is that we don't have such powerful predictive tools - the universe shows us this:
> 
> At one time we had something better than a crystal ball ... It was called instinct ...
> 
> *We found that delivery related perinatal death was significantly higher among low risk pregnancies in midwife supervised primary care than among high risk pregnancies in obstetrician supervised secondary care.* This difference was *even greater* among the cases that were referred from primary to secondary care during labour.[/INDENT]
> 
> What this means is that the crystal ball technology isn't working very well.
> 
> The better question would be why do our instincts not work very well ... Could it be because the nurse/doctors are telling us "all is well, when our body and our instincts scream something very different?
> 
> So the universe of subjects that we're dealing with here is not ALL of the people who were born at home or ALL of the people who were born in the hospital, it's ALL of the people who were being birthed at home AND had complications and ALL of the people who were being birth in a hospital AND had complications.


Fact: Just because you are in a hospital, you do not get a silver lined safety net ... that is 100 percent fail proof. 

This is IMO ...


----------



## Bobbb

tsrwivey said:


> Obviously, since we are ALL descendants of entire families who were all born at home, that's not the case.





*Andi said:


> :thankyou:
> 
> Now we are getting some where ...


You know who would be the perfect people to ask? The descendants of that childless uncle you have.

All that tsreivey has pointed out is that the people alive today are the descendants of ancestors who SURVIVED home childbirth and lived to reproduce. None of us are descendants of children who died from suffering through an unsuccessful home-based childbirth or who were horribly maimed or injured and thus never had the opportunity to have their own children.

Sixty percent of the men who have walked this Earth across all of time are not are direct ancestors because they never reproduced. We are the children of the remaining 40% of the men who did reproduce.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> You know who would be the perfect people to ask? The descendants of that childless uncle you have.
> 
> All that tsreivey has pointed out is that the people alive today are the descendants of ancestors who SURVIVED home childbirth and lived to reproduce. None of us are descendants of children who died from suffering through an unsuccessful home-based childbirth or who were horribly maimed or injured and thus never had the opportunity to have their own children.
> 
> Sixty percent of the men who have walked this Earth across all of time are not are direct ancestors because they never reproduced. We are the children of the remaining 40% of the men who did reproduce.


Just as children who died from suffering through an unsuccessful hospital-based childbirth or who were horribly maimed or injured due to the drugs the doctors gave the mom ... (like)

Diethylstilbestrol ~ From about 1940 to 1970, DES was given to pregnant women in the mistaken belief it would reduce the risk of pregnancy complications and losses. In 1971, DES was shown to cause a rare vaginal tumor in girls and women who had been exposed to this drug in utero.

(also) The follow-up studies have indicated DES also has the potential to cause a variety of significant adverse medical complications during the lifetimes of those exposed.

This is "one" of many ... do I need to add the others?


----------



## Bobbb

The natural rate of maternal death during child birth is 1.5%. The natural rate of infant death during childbirth to their 1st year of life is about 40%. A mother who dies while during her first childbirth, alongside the child, doesn't leave any descendants to ask how great natural childbirth really is. We only get to ask the descendants of the lucky mothers and children who survived.

Even today, knowledge of childbirth processes is widespread and yet Somalia has a maternal death rate of 2,000 women per 100,000 giving birth while the US rate is 11 per 100,000. Medical infrastructure and people trained to address medical emergencies are the factors responsible for better US outcomes. Midwife knowledge alone, as is the case in Somalia, produces some awful results. Sadly, we can't ask the people who die from the child birth experience in Somalia how great it is to have only a midwife there to help the expectant mother deliver her child.


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> Just as children who died from suffering through an unsuccessful hospital-based childbirth or who were horribly maimed or injured due to the drugs the doctors gave the mom ... (like)


You can't be serious with the argumentative tactic, can you? The issue is RATE not INSTANCE.

One time, back in the past, a Jew in Germany punched a German.
The Germans corralled up all the Jews and killed millions.

Hey, it's a wash because each group hurt the other.

See what happens when RATES are ignored? You start making nonsensical arguments based on INSTANCE.

The hurdle you need to jump is the differential RATES of mortality and morbidity. Pointing to bad historical outcomes in hospitals can be informative but it does nothing to advance the notion that home birth is just as safe as hospital birth. All you're offering is trivia.


----------



## *Andi

Thalidomide ~ Thalidomide is a drug that caused severe birth defects in babies born in the 1960s to mothers who took the drug early in pregnancy for morning sickness.


----------



## drfacefixer

*Andi said:


> Thalidomide ~ Thalidomide is a drug that caused severe birth defects in babies born in the 1960s to mothers who took the drug early in pregnancy for morning sickness.


And you best thank your FDA for making these drugs unavailable until testing and safety implementation could be established. People that don't understand the system in place complain about it but never take the time to learn. The pharmaceuticals market in the IS is one of the safest and it comes at a great price. Lots of us take it for granted every time we pop a pill. The historical legislature of medicine in the US is an amazing read.


----------



## *Andi

Pitocin~

used to induce labor, strengthen labor contractions during childbirth, control bleeding after childbirth, or to induce an abortion... (all in one)

Side effects ... shortness of breath; closing of the throat; hives; swelling of the lips, face, or tongue; rash; or fainting);difficulty urinating;chest pain or irregular heart beat;difficulty breathing; confusion; sudden weight gain or excessive swelling;severe headache; rash; excessive vaginal bleeding; or
seizures. (side effects are for mom, so we a take a stab at what they do to the baby ...)

Just to name a few ...


----------



## drfacefixer

*Andi said:


> Pitocin~
> 
> used to induce labor, strengthen labor contractions during childbirth, control bleeding after childbirth, or to induce an abortion... (all in one)
> 
> Side effects ... shortness of breath; closing of the throat; hives; swelling of the lips, face, or tongue; rash; or fainting);difficulty urinating;chest pain or irregular heart beat;difficulty breathing; confusion; sudden weight gain or excessive swelling;severe headache; rash; excessive vaginal bleeding; or
> seizures. (side effects are for mom, so we a take a stab at what they do to the baby ...)
> 
> Just to name a few ...


This one is a human hormone. Side effects have to be reported if even one person reports it in trial. Talk to your pharmacist about it. If I gave 1000 women in childbirth a sugar cube and asked them how they were feeling I would probably get all the above. This one has probably saved thousands of infant lives and helped many women avoid c sections. A lot of the bad press with this is inducing for connivence not the use of the drug. You can naturally stimulate oxytocin production from nipple stimulation or introducing semen... Sure it's a more natural way, but its hard to get in the mood at the time of the bloody show. It might be a weird way to greet your child too. Not to mention, your wife usually is thinking more about ripping your junk off for getting her into this situation.


----------



## LincTex

Bobbb said:


> The natural rate of infant death during childbirth to their 1st year of life is about 40%.


That statistic sounds *AMAZINGLY* incorrect. Where did you source it from?



Bobbb said:


> Somalia has a maternal death rate of 2,000 women per 100,000 giving birth


You chose to use _Somalia_ as a comparison example in your argument? SERIOUSLY?!?  
If you pull out such a wild card, then perhaps you should be *fair* in stating just how the "_quality of life_" in Somalia affects other aspects of their longevity  
What percentage of boys in Somalia make it past the age of 15?









Never mind, it must be because they weren't born in a hospital......


----------



## cowboyhermit

The Somalia comparison is completely absurd. Nutrition is a VERY important factor, knowledge is not widespread in third world countries, a lot of the people that have the knowledge are simply unable to do the right things because they cannot afford to. They are trying to survive on a day to day basis.


----------



## Bobbb

LincTex said:


> That statistic sounds *AMAZINGLY* incorrect. Where did you source it from?


This is the consensus figure for the historical infant mortality rate, where children are born and there are no medical interventions available. No immunizations, no medical checks, no nothing. This is the NATURAL culling process at work. Hence the large families of the past, hence customs where parents didn't get too attached to new born children until the children had survived for a while.



> You chose to use _Somalia_ as a comparison example in your argument? SERIOUSLY?!?


You think that I'm loading the dice? First, I was mistaken. This 2,100 figure wasn't for Somalia, it was for Sierra Leone. The rate for Somalia is 1,400. The rate for Tanzania is 950. The rate for Nigeria, the Jewel of Africa, the only African nation to have paid off it's foreign debt, the nation that ranks #31 in the nation in terms of GDP, a country with a space program, is 1,100 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, not far off from the basket case of Somalia. You can't argue that the Nigerians are living in mud huts and are ignorant of the modern world. Look at how Afghanistan is fighting against the US. Are they a bunch of savages who eat mud? And yet they reject modernity and cling to the old ways while modernity surrounds them and Americans, and others, are desperately trying to have them embrace modernity. No sirree, they like their old ways and their 1,800 maternal deaths/100,000 births. Worse than Somalia I might add.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Those are the numbers you are using?!? For one thing those are not about home BIRTH, they are using a definition that includes the entire time the woman is pregnant and 42 days after. There are a LOT of things going on there other than birth.
For another the pregnancy need not be the cause, it only needs to be an aggravating factor. If these people are not admitted to hospitals how reliably is the cause of death determined? We know that other forms of death are much higher in these countries as well, such as murder and abuse.
Then they openly admit how unsubstantiated all these numbers are anyways, look at the methodology


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> Those are the numbers you are using?!? For one thing those are not about home BIRTH, they are using a definition that includes the entire time the woman is pregnant and 42 days after. There are a LOT of things going on there other than birth.


Yeah, so? The point here is to push back against the claim "birth is a natural process and medical knowledge adds no value." If that was so then we'd be seeing no differences in nations with advanced medical cultures and those with primitive medical cultures and yet we see that women die from child birth at near the natural limit of 1.5% of all births in those countries where modern medicine doesn't have wide breadth and we see far, far better outcomes for mothers in societies where medicine intervenes in this most glorious of natural processes.



> For another the pregnancy need not be the cause, it only needs to be an aggravating factor.


So what? Recall this:



lazydaisy67 said:


> There's no question it is safer at home than in the hospital. . . . *It is not dangerous to give birth*, it is not a killer medical emergency. Women need to take control of their medical care and stop taking the "experts" advice as the gospel truth.





lazydaisy67 said:


> Well, I must be an idiot then cause I believe that *doctors cause more medical issues for labor and delivery* than they solve.





lazydaisy67 said:


> Having said that, the reason the U.S. has such a strangly (and alarmingly) high infant mortality rate is because the medical "professionals" intervene WAY too much. . . . .When talking about birthing after TSHTF, don't scare yourself into thinking that women will be dropping like flies from the labor and delivery process. . . . Pregnancy, labor, delivery, nursing *should* all be positive and exciting things not scary life-threatening illnesses.





JimMadsen said:


> Like I said earlier, *women are designed and built for having babies*, both carrying and caring for them. Docs came along rather late in the game.


The fact that the definition of maternal death includes issues aggravated by pregnancy doesn't imply that all deaths are from such complications.

Look, there are people out there with very idealistic views on this topic. They have a vision of how pregnancy SHOULD BE and their vision isn't informed by what pregnancy IS. Secondly, all natural processes performed by the body are not "engineered" to work flawlessly, hence a small percentage of women dying from child birth, hence babies dying from child birth.

The point is to disabuse the romantics of their fantasy by injecting real world consequences and pointing out the difference in outcomes between women giving birth the natural way (absent medical support) and women giving birth in an environment where medical knowledge is at hand to help them, and their baby, survive the natural process of giving birth.


----------



## cowboyhermit

You are missing the point, these stats do not prove that, for one thing by their own admission the data is very poor. Azerbaijan for instance has a MMR between 21 and 290 

BUT aside from all that, institutional delivery was separated out as a factor, although not properly because for that you would have to compare people with similar circumstances. However it clearly shows that it is only one factor among many.


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> You are missing the point, these stats do not prove that, for one thing by their own admission the data is very poor. Azerbaijan for instance has a MMR between 21 and 290


Why are you rolling your eyes? Data uncertainty is a fact of life in science. Your position is akin to dismissing meteorology because the weatherman can't tell you with 100% certainty whether it is going to rain tomorrow.

Researchers work with the best data that they can get. Have you ever heard the phrase "making perfect the enemy of the good?" Well, that's the line that you're taking - the data coming out of the Third World isn't up to the standards of Norway's data, so because it's not perfect, chuck it and assume that Somalia and Norway are equal.

Here's a question for you - you're trying your damnedest to dismiss these statistics as meaningless because Third World countries don't have the best data gathering and retention programs so point us all to better data, data which shows that the high maternal death rates seen in nations with weak medical infrastructures is A RESULT OF BAD DATA GATHERING and not a reflection of the reality there. That is, after all, the thrust of your criticism, isn't it, that these bad outcomes are a product of weak government bureaucracy which doesn't accurately record what is transpiring.



> BUT aside from all that, institutional delivery was separated out as a factor, although not properly because for that you would have to compare people with similar circumstances. However it clearly shows that it is only one factor among many.


Don't confuse the arguments that are taking place simultaneously in this thread. That report is useful to illustrate the folly of the position that birth is such a natural process that medical knowledge is superfluous to outcomes, you know, like "You don't need a doctor to teach you how to breath, breathing is a natural process" and the same for pregnancy - medicine is just intruding on a natural process and mucking up the works with lots of mumbo-jumbo and deception

The institutional infrastructure comes in later in the process and has more to do with timely interventions in the aftermath of complications.

Lots of home birth advocates and true believers think that giving birth is as natural and uncomplicated as breathing and that medicine has nothing to add to the mix. They're completely ignorant of history, specifically the history regarding natural rates of maternal and infant death associated with pregnancy and the life saving gains to mothers and children which resulted from medical knowledge being applied to pregnancy. It is to these claims that the international maternal mortality statistics become relevant for they offer a comparison of birth outcomes between societies where medical knowledge is woven into the fabric of birthing against societies where birth is conducted as close to natural conditions as possible.

The home birth versus hospital birth debate is up at a higher level and I dealt with the statistics regarding outcomes on that issue earlier in the thread.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Check your logic there Bobbb. I am not dismissing the entire field of statistics because I point out that the ones you cited are poor and not suited to the kind of comparison you are trying to make.


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> Check your logic there Bobbb. I am not dismissing the entire field of statistics because I point out that the ones you cited are poor and . . .


Frankly I'm under the impression that you don't have much training in statistics and I say this because you're arriving at a conclusion which hinges on the fact that anything less than pristine data means that the resulting compilation/conclusion is worthless.

You are making Perfect the Enemy of the Good. If you are so aggrieved by the quality of the data in the World Health Organization report then please offer up better data which demonstrates how divergent from reality the imprecise data in the WHO report actually is.

Also, what exactly is your beef? You're focusing on data imprecision from the Third World. Are you implying that maternal mortality in the Third World is not a problem or are you implying that their maternal mortality rates are equal to the First World and that matters only look different because the imprecise data gathered for the report paints a picture different from reality? I see you grasping at straws but I'm unclear as to what argument you're really trying to advance, so please clear that up for me.



> . . not suited to the kind of comparison you are trying to make.


How you would describe the comparison I'm trying to make? From your responses to me I get the impression that you and I are talking about two different issues. So what do you think I'm doing with this comparative data?


----------



## cowboyhermit

What I *actually* think you are doing is grasping at straws to try to make an argument that is really important to you for whatever reason.
My conclusion does not in any way hinge on pristine data but that does not change the fact that all statistical data is NOT equally useful. If you have any knowledge of statistics you know that many factors come into play when determining the validity of a pool of data. There is a big difference between a typical margin of error and the gaping holes in the data used in that report.


----------



## lazydaisy67

Bobbb's argument is like saying "I've never owned a Ford but I read some articles about people who had accidents in them, therefore all Ford's are unsafe and you'd be an idiot to buy a Ford." 
Ok, thaaannkks...


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> Lots of home birth advocates and true believers think that giving birth is as natural and uncomplicated as breathing and that medicine has nothing to add to the mix. They're completely ignorant of history, specifically the history regarding natural rates of maternal and infant death associated with pregnancy and the life saving gains to mothers and children which resulted from medical knowledge being applied to pregnancy. It is to these claims that the international maternal mortality statistics become relevant for they offer a comparison of birth outcomes between societies where medical knowledge is woven into the fabric of birthing against societies where birth is conducted as close to natural conditions as possible.
> 
> The home birth versus hospital birth debate is up at a higher level and I dealt with the statistics regarding outcomes on that issue earlier in the thread.


(birth advocates and true believers) ~ Would that be the same as liberals/feminist... ? I mean you have brought liberals into this thread more than once... Thinking back to other post where we have always butted heads that is what it came down to. Women in combat, firefighters, welders and etc.. I remember well, the whole physical inferiority (and how rare is the female who can best a man.) So do you have a problem with homebirths because you see it as a women wanting to control their life? ~~ Sorry, just a question that came to my mind, plus you said they were looking to making the experience more enriching for the themselves..

You are all about statistics and what "YOU" think is right. (Yea, I know you are always right. ) But guess what ... sometimes life happens. (and all that comes with it.)

tsrwivey had it right by the way ... Obviously, since we are ALL descendants of entire families who were all born at home, that's not the case. (You can spin it anyway you want but it comes back to that.)

As for my childless uncle I have ... I don't have any. My grams on my dads side had 13 children. (Yes, all born at home with the lady down the road to help out.) Out of the 13 kids, she had 3 girls and 10 boys. My 9 uncles had 2 ta 4 kids each. My grams on my moms side had 4 children. (yes, born at home) My 2 uncles from that side of the family also had 2 ta 4 children.

Also ... as you did bring the World Health Organization into the thread ... You do know they are all for homebirths in the good ol US of A. (right )

Pregnancy is NOT an illness ... you do know that ... right. Yes, life happens and some problems can come to light where a hospital birth is a must. (and some women may opt for a hospital birth.) But in the end it is not up to me or you but what they find is best for them.

One last thing before I wash my hands of this thread... I read a statistic once that said a C-section was best for the baby ... So maybe we need to do away with all others births. Make it a law ... all mothers must have a C-section because it is the best. (We all know that statistic are always right and a good fit for all) :wave:

I'm done here because I see "things" in a different light.

Spin away!!!


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> (birth advocates and true believers) ~ Would that be the same as liberals/feminist... ? I mean you have brought liberals into this thread more than once... Thinking back to other post where we have always butted heads that is what it came down to. Women in combat, firefighters, welders and etc.. I remember well, the whole physical inferiority (and how rare is the female who can best a man.) So do you have a problem with homebirths because you see it as a women wanting to control their life? ~~


:lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash::lolsmash:

This isn't about ME. My argument stands apart from me. Whether Hitler or Jesus made this argument, or any argument for that matter, the soundness of the argument rests on the logic and evidence, not on who makes it.

As for bringing liberals into this thread, it's tactics like yours which are favored by liberals who are losing arguments - they try to deflect away from their weak positions by either attacking their opponent or shifting the focus onto their opponent.



> Sorry, just a question that came to my mind, plus you said they were looking to making the experience more enriching for the themselves.


I'm simply taking home birth advocates at their word:



Highwater said:


> I'm glad i had the freedom to have my babies at home. . . .
> 
> If I had to do it all over again, I would give birth at home with my loved ones and midwife.


The focus is usually on the mother, the experience of the mother and hardly any home birth advocates (more than just Highwater - I'm not trying to put words in her mouth) even try to present the rationale of doing it to improve the odds for the baby. They can't argue for the baby because home birth has far higher risks for the baby than does the hospital, so yeah, there are plenty of mothers who are doing this in order to enrich their own emotional lives, risk to baby be damned.



> tsrwivey had it right by the way ... Obviously, since we are ALL descendants of entire families who were all born at home, that's not the case. (You can spin it anyway you want but it comes back to that.)


That's right. Dead babies tell no tales. Or is it Dead babies never grow up to have families of their own. Or is it dead baby girls never grow up to give birth at home.

Or to put this another way. All of the babies who are aborted also never grow up. This means that there are no humans alive today who were harmed by a "successful" abortion. See, there is no harm from abortion so we should celebrate abortion as the best thing ever invented because it doesn't harm anyone. If you discount the millions of babies who died from abortions, then every baby who lived was never harmed by abortion.

I'm surprised that you bring up that point again. Does this logic escape you? It's certainly true but it has zero calories of meaning or information, just like the abortion example.



> As for my childless uncle I have ... I don't have any.


The point of that quip was to highlight the same point above. If a person doesn't reproduce then he has no descendants. Just like the babies who died from home birth. All of us are descendants of babies who survived home birthing throughout history. That childless uncle will have no descendants. That baby who died being born at home also won't have any descendants.


----------



## jeremiyah

dixiemama said:


> If the midwife is correctly trained and up to date on all her education, she will have infant CPR training, bring a small oxygen tank with accessories an be prepared for any emergency. That was the purpose of the Maternity/Midwife Kit thread---to educate those of us still in childbearing years to be PREPARED for what might happen. My son (and all subsequent children) will be born in a hospital pre-SHTF. Post, at home. That is my choice, my decision based on my medical history. I could possibly birth at home but if a life threatening situation occurred, I'm too far away from the hospital for life saving treatment. I feel more comfortable laboring as long as possible at home, then transferring to hospital when I feel it's time to.
> 
> Stats can show anything and everything: my great grandmother was 1 of 14, all born at home. She only had 1 sibling to die at birth to what is now called twin-to-twin diffusion, Freddy was too small to survive in 1888. She birthed 3 babies herself at home: Jerry was still born due to knotted cord, Timmy died of pneumonia at 1 month, my grandfather is in his 70's. All of these deaths could occur today in any modern hospital.
> 
> Believe what you want, but don't brow-beat others for doing the same, please.


*

**************************

and....then, we still have to consider the SSN#, the chipping, vaccinating,
etc, which some families just do not want to subject their children to.

Andi says it perfectly in her byline:
*Homesteading ... it's a way of life.
*

I will repeat that this is a forum dedicated to PREPAREDNESS, not politics, or religion, or personal opinion, nor even (to some, sacred) & (to others, lying) statistics.

*We should be seeking, and advocating, a holistic approach to life.

To be plain:

Move to, and live at your would be bug out location.
Localize. Grow your own food. Make your own fuel.
Print your own local currency.
Take care of your neighbors.
Have your own well, spring house, root cellar.
Have your children at home. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES.

Guess what??? If you do that, You are pretty well prepared for whatever breakdown occurs when SHTF. And..you don't have to go anywhere, or do anything different when things go south.*

Andi says it in just a few words, so I will say it in a hundred or so:

*"So much death and destruction that is to happen, will happen
because of the the "survivalist mentality." I have come to see
that it is so damaging, because it holds out this abysmally ignorant
mentality, this carrot that you can stay in Babylon until the last second,
slopping around with the rest of the turkey farm inmates, and then poofie presto;
dodge the millions of other refugees, lack of food, water, societal veneer
of "law and order," (read marauders, gangsters, satanists,
cannibals, renegade military, law enforcement, etc,) dodge the
military roadblocks and patrols, evade the starving, hysterical,
depraved and selfish cretins also on the road with your little family,
and make it to paradise unscathed, with no deaths, rapes, or
other horrors and atrocities.
Those survivalist teachers who have propagated that mentality,
which is a selfish, destructive, and short-sighted one, will have
perhaps done more damage in the final analysis, to tens of
thousands of families, than had they never put pen to paper, or
spoken a word on the airwaves. Perhaps. Time will tell. Survivalists
were the ones leaving bloody fingernail marks on the gopher-wood
of Noah's Ark outside. The Survivors were inside, warm and
dry.
In fact, I will not be surprised if it does not turn out to be a
very similar case again in these days, as it was in the days of Noah...
Hmmmm...I remember reading that somewhere..."*

and...
just a little PS (or for the next can of worms)...

since we like statistics & studies, so much, Bobbb....

*How many people do doctors kill every year in the US??? HMMM???
Isn't it something like 200,000??? (let's be honest here, shall we???)
The reports are out there, correct???
Some figures -oh, pardon me -statistics and studies
-point to closer to ONE Million people are killed every year in the US by doctors (you really have to add in the 97% of the chemo & radiation "therapies" which resulted in dead people.*

For 100 years only three "cures" have been allowed for cancer -all other doctors who buck the system by healing people with ozone, herbs, H2O2, zapping, Rifing, Ketogenesis, sauna, Far Infrared, etc, etc, etc get beat out of business, murdered, or driven out of the country.
If GM had made cars that blow up 97% of the time, where would they be?
That is the medical industry failure rate for 100 years with three weapons of warfare:
scalpel (sword)
chemotherapy (mustard gas)
radiation (nuclear weapons)
97% fail!!!! 97% DEAD.

*We all have to look at the WHOLE PICTURE HERE:
How about cancer deaths due to chemotherapy? Botched surgery?
(The C-section and hemorrhage on the woman who was not even pregnant)
Likewise, the reports are there.
A woman went into the hospital to have a baby, comes out missing a breast, a uterus, and her baby, BUT!!! with an appointment for her next hospital visit: another mastectomy!!!
That is not going to happen with a midwife.*

*So, we really need to throw all of the drug OD deaths, the Vaccine deaths, the lives destroyed by vaccines through autism, the cytotec deaths of both mothers & babies, etc into the mix, when we discuss the issue of "it is so much safer in the hospital" studies and statistics.

Some of us just do not get the warm fuzzies like some of you do when it comes to hospital scenarios, so live & let live.
You have yours there, and may the force be with you,
and some of us will use midwives. Pretty simple.

There should not be the name calling, insulting, etc and pretending to a superior stance, attitude and way of life. It is a superior way for you. Obviously. (soem of you are even a legend in your own mind.)
It is not a better place for some of us. We want to live lives free of interference as much as possible.
THAT is what this forum is for; 
PREPAREDNESS. Some of us are doing that:*

*Homesteading ... it's a way of life.*


----------



## jeremiyah

*Andi said:


> Just as children who died from suffering through an unsuccessful hospital-based childbirth or who were horribly maimed or injured due to the drugs the doctors gave the mom ... (like)
> 
> Diethylstilbestrol ~ From about 1940 to 1970, DES was given to pregnant women in the mistaken belief it would reduce the risk of pregnancy complications and losses. In 1971, DES was shown to cause a rare vaginal tumor in girls and women who had been exposed to this drug in utero.
> 
> (also) The follow-up studies have indicated DES also has the potential to cause a variety of significant adverse medical complications during the lifetimes of those exposed.
> 
> This is "one" of many ... do I need to add the others?


While we are on that subject, Andi, AND ESPECIALLY BOBBB....let's talk about Cytotec *-just, let's talk about that one drug* 
-that it has done horrific damage to a lot of mothers & babies -IN THIS COUNTRY.
*
Perhaps Bobbb has the statistics at his fingertips...but I doubt he would divulge them. *

*I personally know two women who are still alive, but they do not have a uterus due to doctors and hospitals misuse of cytotec.

They were both about 19 when they lost both their first baby, their uterus, and the ability to ever have one. What kind of statistics nationwide does that indicate?*

OVERVIEW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_hemorrhage

http://www.oshmanlaw.com/pharmaceutical_litigation/cytotec.html
*
Cytotec, also known by its generic name misoprostol, is a drug approved by the Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") for the purpose of preventing stomach ulcers. Despite this fact, many obstetricians prescribe Cytotec to induce labor in pregnant women, an unapproved, or "off label" use. The drugs manufacturer, Searle, has never performed clinical trials to determine Cytotec's safety when given to pregnant women as an inducement agent. Furthermore, Searle has never promoted or marketed the drug for any purpose other than as an anti-ulcer medication.

Because clinical trials were never conducted regarding the use of cytotec as an induction agent, over the last decade doctors who prescribed the drug for such purpose were experimenting on their patients to learn the appropriate dosage level to prompt labor. As a result, many women suffered severe and life threatening adverse reactions to cytotec including ruptures of the uterus, birth injuries to their children and death of the mother and/or child. This proved especially true in those instances where a mother had previously undergone a cesarean section.*

*As most profoundly stated by Ina May Gaskin, one of the founders of the natural childbirth movement, in her article, Cytotec: Dangerous Experiment or Panacea?:

"Over the past three years I have watched in increasing dismay as this once little-known ulcer medication has become a popular obstetric drug - one with potentially horrifying side effects and a frightening lack of safety protocols. Buried in study after study, reports show that the drug has been connected to numerous cases of ruptured uteri and even a few maternal deaths, stillbirths and newborn deaths&#8230;

In fact, the widespread use of Cytotec essentially amounts to a massive medical experiment carried out on thousands of unsuspecting women - a situation, sadly, that is all too common in the world of modern obstetrics&#8230;*

LEGAL HELP:

http://www.cytoteccase.com/

WARNINGS!!!!!

FDA WARNING:

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety...ormationforPatientsandProviders/ucm111315.htm

Misoprostol (marketed as Cytotec) Information

FDA ALERT - Risks of Use in Labor and Delivery

This Patient Information Sheet is for pregnant women who may receive misoprostol to soften their cervix or induce contractions to begin labor. Misoprostol is sometimes used to decrease blood loss after delivery of a baby. These uses are not approved by the FDA. No company has sent the FDA scientific proof that misoprostol is safe and effective for these uses.

There can be serious side effects, including a torn uterus (womb), when misoprostol is used for labor and delivery. A torn uterus may result in severe bleeding, having the uterus removed (hysterectomy), and death of the mother or baby.

Bulletin of the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/9/08-055715-table-T2.html

Table 2. Maternal deaths and severe morbidity reported in randomized controlled trials of misoprostol to prevent or treat postpartum haemorrhage

8 Maternal Deaths / 6 Hysterectomies with Cytotec
2 Maternal Deaths / 12 Hysterectomies with other treatments

http://www.rxlist.com/cytotec-drug.htm
WARNING

CYTOTEC (MISOPROSTOL) ADMINISTRATION TO WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT CAN CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS, ABORTION, OR PREMATURE BIRTH. UTERINE RUPTURE HAS BEEN REPORTED WHEN CYTOTEC WAS ADMINISTERED IN PREGNANT WOMEN TO INDUCE LABOR OR TO INDUCE ABORTION BEYOND THE EIGHTH WEEK OF PREGNANCY (see also PRECAUTIONS and LABOR AND DELIVERY). CYTOTEC SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN BY PREGNANT WOMEN TO REDUCE THE RISK OF ULCERS INDUCED BY NONSTEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS (NSAIDs) (see CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS, and PRECAUTIONS).

PATIENTS MUST BE ADVISED OF THE ABORTIFACIENT PROPERTY AND WARNED NOT TO GIVE THE DRUG TO OTHERS.

Cytotec should not be used for reducing the risk of NSAID-induced ulcers in women of childbearing potential unless the patient is at high risk of complications from gastric ulcers associated with use of the NSAID, or is at high risk of developing gastric ulceration. In such patients, Cytotec may be prescribed if the patient

has had a negative serum pregnancy test within 2 weeks prior to beginning therapy.
is capable of complying with effective contraceptive measures.
has received both oral and written warnings of the hazards of misoprostol, the risk of possible contraception failure, and the danger to other women of childbearing potential should the drug be taken by mistake.
will begin Cytotec only on the second or third day of the next normal menstrual period.

*************************

http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/cytotec

Cytotec Side Effects Associated With Birth Defects
Cytotec | Lawsuits, Lawyers | Side Effects: Fatal Death, Birth Defects, Hysterectomy, Blood Loss, Postpartum, Amniotic Fluid Embolism

The FDA approved Cytotec, manufactured by Searle, on March 17, 1999. Cytotec is approved to treat ulcers. With the increasing off label usage of Cytotec as a labor-inducing drug, Searle sent physicians a letter in August 2000 reminding them that Cytotec is not approved to induce labor. Cytotec's sole appeal for inducing labor is price; Cytotec costs pennies per induction.

There are growing concerns about the safety of this drug when used for labor induction. A November 1999 Committee Opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) warns: ″There have been reports of uterine rupture following Cytotec use for cervical ripening in patients with prior uterine surgery. Thus, until reassuring studies are available, Cytotec is not recommended for cervical ripening in patients who have had prior cesarean delivery or major uterine surgery.

Mothers seldom die as a result of ruptures, but babies often do. Obstetricians generally react to a rupture by performing a complete hysterectomy, eliminating all possibility of future biological children. Other risks of Cytotec include increased incidence of jaundice in the baby, fetal distress caused by uterine hyper stimulation, fluid overload from the IV use, increased blood loss post-partum, amniotic fluid embolism, uterine rupture, and an overall increased risk of instrumental or surgical delivery, death and birth defects.
Legal Help For Victims Affected By Cytotec

If you or your baby were adversely affected by Cytotec, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified drug side effects attorney or call us at 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).
Tags: Cytotec Side Effects Lawsuit Lawyers Fatal Death Birth Defects Hysterectomy Blood Loss Post-Partum Amniotic Fluid Embolism

*************************

HOW ABOUT THIS???

US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health
Search term Search database
Clear input

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684033/

*The Freedom to Birth-The Use of Cytotec to Induce Labor:
A Non-Evidence-Based Intervention*

CYTOTEC ORGANIZATION:
*
A FIGHT FOR LIFE: A MOTHER'S STORY*

In December 2001, my 32-year-old daughter, Tatia Oden French, entered a well-known hospital in Oakland, California, to have her first child. She was in perfect health. The baby was in perfect health. The pregnancy was "unremarkable." Tatia was almost 2 weeks past the due date, and the doctor wanted to induce her. After much stalling on Tatia's part, she reluctantly agreed to submit to induction. The agent used was Cytotec (misoprostol). None of the medical staff told us anything about Cytotec. When I asked what Cytotec was, I was told it is "the standard of care&#8230; we use it all the time." Tatia said it was "not approved by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] for use in labor." Nothing else was said about the potential side effects, the dangers to the mom and child, or the alternatives. However, phrases such as "You don't want to go home with a dead baby, do you?" were said. The pressure was on. Tatia conceded. She told me to go home and that she would call me, believing it would be a long night. We told each other we loved each other and, having not decided on which specialty she would focus on in medical school, she smiled and said, "Maybe I'll be an OB/GYN."

Ten hours after Tatia was induced with Cytotec, both she and her baby girl, Zorah, were dead. When I asked Tatia's doctor what happened, she just said, "It was a very rare adverse effect of Cytotec, but it does happen." Still not comprehending what had just happened, I heard myself ask the doctor, "Could you at least tell me that you will not use that drug again?" Surprised, she looked at me and said, "No, I cannot promise that." Finally, my two sons, Tatia's dad, Tatia's husband, and I were allowed into the operating room where Tatia and Zorah were lying perfectly still. We gathered and said a prayer around both of them. When I left the hospital, it was raining and gray and cold. I heard myself say out loud, "That drug is going to go away."

Several months after Tatia and Zorah's deaths, I started the process of forming a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the lives of expectant mothers and their infants. On March 3, 2003, The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation received its official U.S. nonprofit status. The foundation's mission is to empower women around the issues of childbirth and pregnancy. In my role as the foundation's Executive Chairperson, I give presentations to high schools, churches, midwives, doula organizations, and many others.

Also, at least once a year since 2004, representatives from The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation have met with agents of the FDA to discuss the foundation's online petition regarding Cytotec inductions (Oden, n.d.). The petition was submitted to the FDA on November 22, 2004, and has been filed with the FDA and remains open in the agency's Division of Dockets Management. To date, over 2,100 online signatures and 1,000 hard-copy signatures have been gathered. The result, so far, has been that the FDA (2005) now has an alert posted on its Web site that speaks to the possible adverse events when Cytotec is used to induce labor.

MOTHER JONES ARTICLE:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/forced-labor

Forced Labor
Why are obstetricians speeding deliveries with an ulcer drug that endangers mothers and their babies?

-By David Goodman
| January/February 2001 Issue
25

*Like any expectant mother, Suzanne Altomare was excited about the imminent birth of her second child. But eight days after her due date in November 1995, the 34-year-old was informed by her obstetrician, Dr. Thomas Kahan, that he wanted to induce labor. There is typically no medical necessity to induce healthy moms until they are at least two weeks overdue, but Kahan considered it the safer course. Altomare trusted her doctor, and she went along with his recommendation.

To jump-start her labor, Altomare was given two doses of Cytotec, a drug known to soften the cervix and cause uterine contractions that are more frequent and powerful than normal labor. What Altomare did not know was that Cytotec has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pregnant women. The drug, made by G.D. Searle Corporation, is approved only for treating peptic ulcers. Its package insert explicitly warned that "Cytotec may cause the uterus to rupture (tear) during pregnancy if it is used to bring on (induce) labor." Uterine rupture, the insert added, "may result in severe bleeding, hospitalization, surgery, infertility, or death."

According to court records and sources familiar with the case, Altomare soon went into very active labor. But several hours later, a delivery nurse at the hospital in Salem, Oregon, was no longer able to detect a fetal heart tone or find the baby's head on a vaginal exam. 
Altomare's uterus had ruptured, causing internal bleeding in the mother and leaving the baby without oxygen. The nurses called Dr. Kahan, who was at home. 
By the time he arrived and mobilized an emergency cesarean section, the infant was brain-dead. 
Kahan then performed an emergency hysterectomy. 
When Altomare awoke, she learned that she would never again be able to bear a child. 
Her newborn daughter died three days later. *

*
*************************
*


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> I will repeat that this is a forum dedicated to PREPAREDNESS, not politics, or religion, or personal opinion, nor even (to some, sacred) & (to others, lying) statistics.


And what is the primary requirement for being prepared? I mean the most basic requirement. I'll tell you - it's that you must be alive. A baby which dies from lack of medical skill when it is required fails to meet the test of being alive and therefore cannot prepare for any emergency.

Thanks Jeremiyah, you're probably the most effective recruiter for the position that I'm advancing. People see that you *can't address any of my points* and that your response is to evade, distract with technicolor walls of jumbled text, and wax rhapsodic about the romantic vision of life and birth that you hold in your heart and which you can sustain only by shutting out reality. Most people aren't willing to follow you on that route and most people will inform their viewpoints by considering argument and evidence. You present an alternative way of looking at life, the faith-based, idealistic approach, and when people are *asked to bet the lives of their children* most people won't follow you down the rejecting-evidence yellow brick road.


----------



## LincTex

Bobbb said:


> Frankly I'm under the impression that you don't have much training in statistics


Bobbb, I think that you probably/possibly do have statistical training, which is why I am so BAFFLED by your willingness to use the statistic that 40% of all "non-medically supervised" births and infants result in death before 1 year. That is simply NOT accurate information. It discredits you and your other arguments horribly.



Bobbb said:


> This is the consensus figure for the historical infant mortality rate, where children are born and there are no medical interventions available. No immunizations, no medical checks, no nothing. This is the NATURAL culling process at work. Hence the large families of the past, hence customs where parents didn't get too attached to new born children until the children had survived for a while.


As a wee lad, I loved to listen to the stories that my paternal grandparents told me. I *never* heard any stories that would corroborate the dismal picture you are painting.

My paternal grandfather was one of 13 kids - all born at home. None were lost at birth or in infancy (you are saying that six should have). My paternal grandmother was one of seven, and the youngest did pass away, but one in 7 is only 14%, not 40 (and I would not submit that data as an accurate sampling from which to make an argument from).

I could easily skew that statistic to include all of my paternal grandparents' siblings: "Of all of my father's aunts and uncles, all born at home, one in 20 (5%) passed before one year of age". Now, that's a pretty good and realistic sampling, and I would say not very far off from the general rates for that era and region.

All of my first cousins were born in a hospital... let's see, I have 5 and 3 (father's side), and 4, 2 and 2 (mother's side). That is 16 total. One died just before she reached 30 days...... so that is 6.2% I.M.R. of hospital births from my sampling. Looks to me like it's a wash.


----------



## Highwater

re: "They can't argue for the baby because home birth has far higher risks for the baby than does the hospital, so yeah, there are plenty of mothers who are doing this in order to enrich their own emotional lives, risk to baby be damned."

It may look like a selfish act to you but we considered the babies' experiences too. A home birth with the comforts of home compared to a hospital birth without... but with bright lights, cold instruments, needle jabs, eye drops and isolation from mom. With the risks minimized as best we could and with our $300 tucked away for the midwife, we felt we were doing the best for our family. We didn't go into debt. We had competent assistance. We had backup. 

My research did not find that the risks of home birth were "far higher" as Bobb states. I don't think his citations really show a far higher risk either. I think the added risk is quite small if you are properly prepared and as I've said before have no complications or pre-existing conditions. Even when complications arise, the incidents of death or permanent damage are minimal. Death happens at home and in hospitals. To vilify folks who choose home birth because they are risking the life of their babies is overboard and insulting. And wrong.


----------



## valannb22

I think the point Bobbb is trying to make (in his usual abrasive manner) is that in the cases where there ARE complications, the outcome is better if the mother is already at the hospital. I don't think he is trying to suggest that all or even most babies born at home suffer for it. 



Ugh, I kinda feel like I should go shower now


----------



## ras1219como

I have found reading this thread very interesting to say the least. I would like to add that I currently do not have any children so i obviously haven't experienced labor. However i will say this...women have been birthing children for thousands of years and regardless of the location of the birth some babies and some mothers will die and others will survive. Labor is a strain on the body of both mother and baby and sometimes things go wrong, this is an unfortunate FACT of life.


----------



## lovetogrow

An informative short film that brings balance to informing about the use of the medical model and midwifery model for hospital and home childbirth

http://www.reducinginfantmortality.com/

The article below is referenced from above site:

Reducing Infant Mortality and Providing Better Birth Experiences for Every Baby

http://www.reducinginfantmortality.com/uploads/post_edited_version_Reducing_Infant_Mortality.pdf


----------



## DJgang

We are of the day and age of super information! 

A woman is not going to homebirth in utter stupidity. She's educated herself and made decisions to do so, then she should be allowed to. 

If one is a proponent of abortion, they should have no problem with a woman choosing to homebirth as well. So a government that allows women to end pregnancy in the womb should allow women to have homebirths, very hypocritical that they do not. My state does not allow homebirths, but an abortion clinic in birmingham is running right now without a license. 

Go figure.

Oh and I've read about women who are on the Unassisted Childbirht bandwagon, now that's a wee bit scary. But I know one who has had two children at home with no one but herself and husband. I'm too chicken shit to do something like that, God made people for helping each other...


----------



## lazydaisy67

So compare apples to apples. The CDC states that there are 4 million births in the U.S. every year. Of those, 2 million are minorities. Minority groups in the U.S. choose homebirth so infrequently that they can be taken out of the equasion for the purposes of this argument. So 2 million white babies born in the U.S. every year. 1% are born at home (20,000) and 180,000 born in the hospital. The CDC states that approximately 5.6% of white babies die, but if we're generous and say 5% you get 90,000 white babies dying in hospitals every year and 1,000 dying at a home.
Not making a statement either way about that, just saying babies obviously die in hospitals.
Home birth is mostly chosen by white, highly educated, married women over 30 who have had 1 or more children in the hospital. That doesn't sound like appropriate criteria for "idiot'.

Bobbb, you like to rattle on about hypoxia as if it's the primary reason babies die, but lets come down out of your universe and look at reality. Again, the CDC states that the leading cause of death of infants in the U.S. is congenital malformation. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5642a8.htm
That is not a cause of death that would be altered in any way by giving birth in the hospital. Your argument fails on that account.

You also made a statement about Erb's Palsy. That happens as a rare and unintended consequence of correcting shoulder dystocia. It happens in .5% of ALL deliveries in the U.S.every year. 
http://shoulderdystociainfo.com/shoulder_dystocia.htm

So if you apply that percentage to the figures above you will have 450 babies getting stuck in the hospital vs 100 getting stuck at home. Both OBGYN and CNM are trained in the appropriate maneuvers to correct shoulder dystocia. It is NOT corrected by surgery, it is not predictable in 1st time pregnancies, although prediction goes higher in subsequent pregnancies.

I really don't think you want to use the World Health Oganization's information for your argument. They have overwhelmingly embraced the midwifery model of maternal care, birthing attendance and neonatal care worldwide as a standard to which the U.S. should strive. Also calling on the U.S. to lower it's c-section rate to 15%. Some hospitals in the U.S. have as high as a 50% c-section rate!
http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/news_events/news/2011/05_05_2011/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/midwifery/facts/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/survey/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf

Maybe you should examine some of the ways that going to the hospital adversely effect the outcomes of labor and delivery. Is it (in your words) selfish to pump your baby full of narcotics for pain relief which in turn lowers their heart rate and thereby lowering oxygen levels to the brain? Hmm...didn't you refer to mental retardation and cerebral palsy?
http://americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/narcotics.html

Is it, again in your words, selfish to have your water bag prematurely broken to 'get labor going' and then introduce hospital germs and bacteria into the vagina, cervix and ultimately the baby with hourly finger checks?
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/laborbasics/a/noamniotomy.htm

Is it selfish to, by choice, not necessity, chemically induce labor with a drug (pitocin) that has dangerous side effects to both mothers and babies including abnormal fetal heart rate and fetal distress? Here's the package insert for Pitocin.
http://www.jhppharma.com/products/PI/07112011/Pitocin-42023-116-02-Package-Insert-2011.pdf
"Dr. Roberto Caldreyo-Barcia, former president of the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a renowned researcher into the effects of obstetrical interventions, declared that "Pitocin is the most abused drug in the world today." He claimed its use was medically necessary in only about 3 percent of labors, yet estimates of its use range from 12 to 60 percent. Often, the drug is administered without the woman's knowledge and she never is told of its potential harmful risk factors."
Some studies have actually shown a link between autism and pitocin. Yeah, WAAYY less selfish.

Is it selfish to schedule a c-section even if there is no medical reason to do so? Here are some *common* reasons to schedule a c-section in the U.S.: Relatives will be in town, don't want new baby to share a birthday with other siblings, mom is terrified of labor, doctor is going on vacation, mom's friends said it's better and, (my favorite) so your vagina won't get stretched out? Who's the idiot???

The OP has it right. This is a preparedness forum. Maybe the questions we should be asking are how we can be better prepared for the birthing process NOW before we have to go through it without any medical intervention. Of course, that would entail a lot of change in attitude in the U.S. and I darsay some empowerment to women to take charge of their medical decisions and educate themselves. We, in particular, should be spending twice as much time learning about homebirth than we do being afraid of it.

Let's talk about vasectomies.


----------



## valannb22

I'm not sure why anyone is even fighting about this? Both choices offer advantages as well as risks. Neither choice is always going to be the best/right decision. I think each person should be able to make their own decision and not be criticized for it.


----------



## lazydaisy67

valannb22 said:


> I'm not sure why anyone is even fighting about this? Both choices offer advantages as well as risks. Neither choice is always going to be the best/right decision. I think each person should be able to make their own decision and not be criticized for it.


I completely agree. What I find unacceptable is calling women idiots for choosing homebirth and throwing out a plethora of scetchy stats with no links to support your opinion and then telling anybody who disagrees with you that they're avoiding the issue.

Just to set the record straight, I had all 5 of my babies in the hospital. One I birthed all by myself, no 'professionals' present in the room because they wouldn't listen to me when I told them that my labor was progressing very fast. I didn't fit the parameters in their book, so I apparently didn't know what I was talking about even though it was my 4th baby. I delivered her head, unwrapped the cord from around her neck and delivered her body in about 2 1/2 minutes. I didn't even have to think about what to do. It was very instinctual. My husband was standing paralysed in the corner with his mouth hanging open. I wish I could have taken a picture of the nurses face when she came into the room and saw me holding my baby against my chest all pink and happy. She about fell over dead. Then the doctor came in and he said "WHAT HAPPENED???" I smiled and said "I told you so." From that point forward I began to gain an interest in homebirth and have been learning about it since.


----------



## Highwater

*Just for a chuckle.*

I just saw this on facebook and got a chuckle.


----------



## drfacefixer

lazydaisy67 said:


> Is it selfish to schedule a c-section even if there is no medical reason to do so? Here are some common reasons to schedule a c-section in the U.S.: Relatives will be in town, don't want new baby to share a birthday with other siblings, mom is terrified of labor, doctor is going on vacation, mom's friends said it's better and, (my favorite) so your vagina won't get stretched out? Who's the idiot???
> 
> This is a preparedness forum. Maybe the questions we should be asking are how we can be better prepared for the birthing process NOW before we have to go through it without any medical intervention. Of course, that would entail a lot of change in attitude in the U.S. and I darsay some empowerment to women to take charge of their medical
> 
> Let's talk about vasectomies.


I vote this thread best of the year. I think some people are taking bobbbs retorts out of context and pulling arguments off topic now and again but otherwise there is good info to make a more well informed discision. 
The reason c sections are increasing is because of convienience. women ARE taking thier care into thier own hands and wanting scheduled births, desire inductions, they want to be pregnant at advanced maternal age.Midwives and family practicioners cant justify the risk. Obs can justify it. They are the specialty that deals with prolapse, pelvic floor injuries, incontinence, ect. Non surgical specialities don't and dont deal with the complications from difficult labour. Is it less about the baby and more about the moms possible outcomes and future quality of life ...sure. But the women consent just as they do with home births. Bobbbs comments have been centered around complications having a better outcome in a medical facility over home birth. I agree. Are homebirths a bad idea? Not with a low risk pregnancy and a well educated mother. But If it were pushed by insurance and medicare to defer costs, there would be an outcry of receiving inferior care. The poorer demographics are seeking care in hospitals, not being able to afford prenatal care and education and having higher labour complications. Where as homebirths are primary white, nonforiegn born, nonsmokers, college educated women, 36 + weeks gestation and 2/3s live in populated areas greater than 100k. ( national center for health statistics). Its a no brainer why the reported risk of home birth is low.

One of The greatest factors in infant mortality is prenatal care and education. This is echoed in all the literture both sides here have offered. There are socioeconomic factors at play which is a politically correct way of saying why certain racial demographics have higher mortality. In the reducing infant mortality pdf, it spells it out. Poor education, tobacco use, alcohol and substance abuse, obesity... these are what needs to be addressed to better the ranking, but that's more programs, more public dollars so" one personal right to merriment becomes another person shackles in the form of taxation". welcome to social contract 101.

I think this discussion at best is to enlighten you. Trying to prepare for a home deliver from reading other peoples (nonprofessional) threads is insanity. Go assist a midwive go volunteer as a candy striper in a hospital and immerse yourself. If your the one that's going to be having the baby though that's not going to help much though in a complication. The person aiding you should be the one getting the training. And all that really was in other threads... this one is about infant mortality. Ill post a review of the current level 1 peer reviewed data on home birth later. Then maybe this can continue.

Ps those foot sticks are negliable infection risk and greatly benefit since the state is offering free survailence screening of genetic diseases. Its usually nice to know that your baby has cystic fibrosis before its first fatal respiratory infection.


----------



## Bobbb

LincTex said:


> Bobbb, I think that you probably/possibly do have statistical training, which is why I am so BAFFLED by your willingness to use the statistic that 40% of all "non-medically supervised" births and infants result in death before 1 year. That is simply NOT accurate information. It discredits you and your other arguments horribly.


The HISTORICAL rate, the NATURAL rate. Keep in mind that this is a separate issue from the home birth debate, this data point is to address the "naturalness" of birthing and the claim that physicians are intruding into a natural process and mucking up the works.

Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society:

Although we can only estimate levels and trends of infant mortality prior to the most recent centuries, it seems probable that through much of human history 30 to 40 percent of all infants born died before they could celebrate their first birthdays. Today, in even the most underdeveloped and high-mortality regions of the world, barely a tenth do.​
From the introductory chapter of "Infant and Child Mortality in the Past" by Alain Bideau, Bertrand Desjardins, Héctor Pérez Brignoli, published by Oxford University Press:

No historical population could approach the hundred per thousand level for significantly long periods and a loss of between one-fifth and one-third was common.​


----------



## Bobbb

drfacefixer said:


> One of The greatest factors in infant mortality is prenatal care and education. This is echoed in all the literture both sides here have offered. There are *socioeconomic factors* at play which is a politically correct way of saying why certain racial demographics have higher mortality.


At the risk of another thread divergence, this is misleading. I notice that you hedged by claiming "one of the greatest factors" so if we rank order a list and extend the category of "greatest" far down into the list, then it might be accurate. These conclusions are derived from faulty research design in that they don't use the genetics of race as a control and they thus attribute to income outcomes that have more to do with race but which covary with income.

Here's a study that controls for income. They analyzed the rate of preterm birth of *high income women*, black and white, and found:

*African Americans had a twofold greater preterm* (< 37 weeks) birth rate than Whites: 11.6% vs 5.2%, relative risk (95% confidence interval) equaled 2.2 (1.7-2.9). The adjusted (controlling for maternal birth weight, age, education, marital status, cigarette smoking, and prenatal care utilization) odds ratio of preterm birth for African Americans (compared to Whites) equaled 1.2 (.4-2.0). *African Americans had a sixfold greater very low birth weight rate* (< 1500 g) than Whites: 3.3% vs .6%: relative risk (95% confidence interval) equaled 5.9 (3.1-11.2). The adjusted odds ratio of very low birth weight for African Americans (compared to Whites) equaled 2.4 (1.1-3.9).​
If socioeconomic status was a powerful factor with regard to birth outcomes, then we would not be seeing this:

Births of Low Birthweight as a Percent of All Births by Race/Ethnicity, 2009

Non-Hispanic White = 7.2%
Non-Hispanic Black = 13.6%
Hispanic = 6.9%

Blacks and Hispanics have nearly identical poverty and education rates so if SES was a leading factor with respect to birth outcomes, we should expect low birth weights to be nearly identical between both groups. That's not what we find. In fact, non-Hispanic whites have higher SES than Hispanics, thus benefiting from all that theorists posit takes place in terms of prenatal care and medical attention, and yet Hispanic women still manage to have a lower rate of LBW babies.

This falsifies the claim that environmental factors are a principal cause of disparate rates of LBW, VLBW babies.

There is another factor in play here too, propensity towards multiple births:

The incidence of monozygotic twins is constant worldwide (approximately 4 per 1000 births). Approximately two thirds of twins are dizygotic. Birth rates of dizygotic twins vary by race *(10-40 per 1000 in blacks, 7-10 per 1000 births in whites, and approximately 3 per 1000 in Asians)*, . . .

Birth rates of dizygotic twins vary by race. The highest birth rate of dizygotic twinning occurs in African nations, and the lowest birth rate of dizygotic twinning occurs in Asia. *The Yorubas of western Nigeria have a birth rate of 45 twins per 1000 live births*, and approximately 90% are dizygotic.​


> In the reducing infant mortality pdf, it spells it out. Poor education, tobacco use, alcohol and substance abuse, obesity... these are what needs to be addressed to better the ranking


Certainly these factors DO play some part, but until studies control for the genetics of race they're most GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out) in that they arrive at conclusions which aren't actually true. Here is an example of a study which implements proper controls:


Pregnancy outcomes of US-born and foreign-born Japanese Americans.

US-born mothers were more likely than foreign-born mothers to be less than 18 years old and not married,* to start prenatal care early, and to more adequately use prenatal care.* Infants of *foreign-born Japanese Americans had a slightly lower risk of low birthweight.* No significant differences were found between nativity groups for very low birthweight or neonatal, postneonatal, and infant mortality.​
The environmental hypothesis (prenatal care leads to better outcomes) would predict that the American-born Japanese women who start prenatal care early and use it more fully would result in a lower incidence of low birthweight babies and a lower incidence of infant mortality. The expected result does not materialize. The EFFECTS of prenatal care did not show up and in fact the foreign-born Japanese women had a lower rate of low birthweight babies.

This type of research design allows us to focus on the features of the medical regime and to determine the influence of environmental remediation with respect to outcomes and this is the proper way to compare international outcomes - Japanese-Americans vs Japanese, Swedish-Americans versus Swedes, Ethiopian-Americans versus Ethiopians, etc.

.


----------



## Bobbb

valannb22 said:


> I think the point Bobbb is trying to make (in his usual abrasive manner) is that in the cases where there ARE complications, the outcome is better if the mother is already at the hospital. I don't think he is trying to suggest that all or even most babies born at home suffer for it.


I can always count on Valann to read and understand what is written. :beercheer:

As I've noted numerous times in this thread, if you have a crystal ball which is 100% accurate in its predictions and during a seance the crystal ball tells you that your delivery will not result in complications, then hospital birth doesn't add any value over home birth. However, if the seance lady is shining on you on and just making up predictions from her crystal ball and you elect to have a home birth and a complication does arise, now your baby is at risk from having medical intervention delayed.

To the best of my knowledge crystal ball technology is not advanced enough to have 100% prediction accuracy, so this means that home birthing is like playing Russian Roulette with your baby's life and health.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Bobbb says "To the best of my knowledge crystal ball technology is not advanced enough to have 100% prediction accuracy, so this means that home birthing is like playing Russian Roulette with your baby's life and health. ":brickwall:
Using this line of logic means that taking your child out of the hospital for ANY reason is like playing Russian roulette with your baby's life.


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> Bobbb says "To the best of my knowledge crystal ball technology is not advanced enough to have 100% prediction accuracy, so this means that home birthing is like playing Russian Roulette with your baby's life and health. ":brickwall:
> 
> Using this line of logic means that taking your child out of the hospital for ANY reason is like playing Russian roulette with your baby's life.


True in an absolute sense but not in a relative sense.

Should babies be put in car seats when inside a vehicle?

If we take all of the vehicle miles that PARENTS drive when we have children in the car and divide by the number of child fatalities we'd find that the actual risk of death to the child is miniscule. You have a better chance of winning the Mega-Millions jackpot than you do of having your child die in an auto-accident. And yet . . . there is still a risk of your baby dying from not being properly buckled into a car seat.

The Centers for Disease Control report:

Child safety seats *reduce the risk of death in passenger cars by 71% for infants,* and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years.​
Compare to the following threat to young children:

Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related *perinatal death* (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician. Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a* 3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care* (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46)​
Car seats reduce infant death by 71% and being born in a hospital when the mother is having UNEXPECTED complications with her delivery results in a 3.66 times higher survival rate. Compare - car seats reduce infant death by 71% and hospital birth reduces infant death by 78%.

So, if women can be so cavalier with respect to risking death for their babies via home birthing then why do mothers, and society, give a damn about strapping their kids into car seats when the risk of death from no car seat is less than the risk of death from complications during pregnancy while home birthing?

The point here is that mothers have a *choice *and home birthing mothers are willfully *choosing *a more *risky option* and they're putting that risk onto their baby in order that they can more "enjoy" the experience and tap into their romantic/idealistic visions of what delivery SHOULD BE.

When you have a choice and you choose the riskier option, then you're playing Russian Roulette with the life of your baby. Living life though is not Russian Roulette for life involves risks and many of the risks are unavoidable - the baby has to be put down to sleep (SIDS), the baby has to be bathed (Drowning), the baby has to be transported to the physician for a check-up (Vehicle Accident), the baby has to play with toys (Choking). The baby though doesn't have to be born at home, lengthy minutes or more from skilled medical personnel whose timely intervention could save the baby's life. Similarly, the baby doesn't have to be buckled into a car seat, the baby can ride in the driver's lap. It's safer to have the baby in the driver's lap than it is to give birth at home when an emergency arises.


----------



## drfacefixer

Here is the lit review and peer reviewed recommendations on the subject. It's pretty fair. It looks long but its well written and broken down well. The summary and recommendations are at the bottom. Have fun and rock on! I think this will help provide some of the clarity lacking in data sources. Note the education level and training on Netherland midwives compared to elsewhere. Also near the bottom is the training levels and certification for the US midwive regulations.


----------



## Highwater

Re: "Car seats reduce infant death by 71% and being born in a hospital when the mother is having UNEXPECTED complications with her delivery results in a 3.66 times higher survival rate. Compare - car seats reduce infant death by 71% and hospital birth reduces infant death by 78%."

Well, I was giving Bobb the benefit of the doubt with his statistics but now I see he is cherry picking them. 

What no statistic on death rates of babies in car seats on their way to the hospital with a life threatening illness? geesh. 

The added risk of a home birth when there are no complications or pre-existing conditions is relatively small. Comparing risks of driving with a child unsecured in a car and death rates of complicated home births that resulted in hospitalization is not scientific. It's disingenuous and mis-informative.


----------



## Bobbb

Highwater said:


> The added risk of a home birth when there are no complications or pre-existing conditions* is relatively small.*


And yet the perinatal mortality rate for home birthing for women who meet the low risk precondition *is higher than the perinatal mortality rate for high risk women* who give birth in a hospital.

*Infants of pregnant women at low risk had a significantly higher risk of delivery related perinatal death (relative risk 2.33, 1.12 to 4.83), compared with infants of women at high risk whose labour started in secondary care under the supervision of an obstetrician.* Infants of women who were referred to secondary care during labour had a 3.66 times higher risk of delivery related perinatal death than did infants of women who started labour in secondary care (relative risk 3.66, 1.58 to 8.46) . . . . . .

*We found that delivery related perinatal death was significantly higher among low risk pregnancies in midwife supervised primary care than among high risk pregnancies in obstetrician supervised secondary care. This difference was even greater among the cases that were referred from primary to secondary care during labour.*​


> Comparing risks of driving with a child unsecured in a car and death rates of complicated home births that resulted in hospitalization is not scientific. It's disingenuous and mis-informative.


Says you.

The CDC reports that there were 1,314 deaths to children under the age of 14 due to motor vehicle accidents.

The US Census reports that there are 62,844,000 children under the age of 14 in the US.

The chances of a child dying from a motor vehicle accident are 1 in 47,826 over the course of one year. If we assume that each child is in an automobile for 100 hours per year, then the odds of dying during any particular hour of travel are 1 in 4,782,600.

There are 4,151,000 babies born per year and according to the CDC there were 29,650 home births.

The infant mortality rate DUE TO LABOR COMPLICATIONS was 39.1 per 100,000 births.

All babies born have a 1 in 2,557 chance of dying during labor due to complications arising from delivery. Those children born in a home birth situation have a 1 in 698 chance of dying due to complications arising from delivery.

The infant mortality rate for home birthing is 3.66x greater than that of hospital birth, despite that low risk women are more likely to give birth at home and high risk women are more likely to give in the hospital.

So let's recap:

Of the 62,844,000 children under the age of 14 in the US, 1,314 die per year due to motor vehicle accidents and this from being passengers in automobiles on many occasions, and for many hours, over the course of the year.

Of the 4,151,000 children born per year, 1,614 babies die per year due to problems occurring during delivery.

The process of being born is a more dangerous activity than the activity of driving around in a metal box on wheels at very high speeds.

The process of giving birth is relatively short, though it may feel like a year is passing for the woman who is in labor. So, on a time-adjusted basis, the risk of a baby dying during delivery is focused on a couple of hours, averaged out for all women while the risk of dying from a motor vehicle accident is diffused across many hours of travel over the course of one year, meaning that the risk of death PER HOUR gets smaller. This adjustment more clearly shows how MORE DANGEROUS being born is than being driven around in a car.

Odds Breakdown:

-Chance of dying over the course of a year while a passenger in a car: 1 in 47,826
-Chance of dying from complications arising during any form of delivery while being born in the US: 1 in 2,557 
-Chance of dying from complications arising during home delivery while being born in the US: 1 in 698

Conclusion: Your child is safer if you drive them around in your car without a car seat than they are being born at home.

So the question for home birth advocates is this - why do you place so much care and attention on buckling your babies into car seats in order to minimize the risk of death when the odds are 1:47,826 that your baby will die from a motor vehicle accident but you willingly choose to subject your baby to a 1:698 chance of dying during delivery from a home birth?


----------



## jeremiyah

valannb22 said:


> I think the point Bobbb is trying to make (in his usual abrasive manner) is that in the cases where there ARE complications, the outcome is better if the mother is already at the hospital. I don't think he is trying to suggest that all or even most babies born at home suffer for it.
> 
> Ugh, I kinda feel like I should go shower now


*

Ugh, I kinda feel like I should go shower now*
__________________
exactly how I feel when dealing with people like this...-and i have dealt with four extreme case already, and two out of the first three times, the guy has been verified to have...shall we say, extreme ugliness in his life, as well as the demeanor he displays in his treatment of others.

There are reasons people are so negative, insulting, haughty, and proud.
It is not only in their words, but it flows out of their life. Out of what their heart is full of, is what they speak.

The sad thing is that negative energy begets negative energy, and 
if one sows the wind, they reap the whirlwind.


----------



## Highwater

Just curious, Bobb. Are you basing your arguments here on just the one study from the Netherlands? 

If so, you need to do more research. There are a lot of studies out there with different results. You know that, right?

How can you be so resolute that this particular study was done properly? Have you dug deep to make sure? 

I'm from Wash State. I found a study that shows home births in my state don't agree with your study. What makes your's better?

"Janssen PA. Holt VL. Myers SJ
Licensed midwife-attended, out-of-hospital births in Washington state: are they safe?
Birth. 21(3):141-8, 1994 Sep.
The safety of out-of-hospital births attended by midwives who are licensed according to international standards has not been established in the United States. To address this issue, outcomes of births attended out of hospital by licensed midwives in Washington state were compared with those attended by physicians and certified nurse-midwives in hospital and certified nurse-midwives out of hospital between 1981 and 1990. Outcomes measured included low birthweight, low five-minute Apgar scores, and neonatal and postneonatal mortality. Associations between attendant and outcomes were measured using odds ratios to estimate relative risks. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression controlled for confounding variables. Overall, births attended by licensed midwives out of hospital had a significantly lower risk for low birthweight than those attended in hospital by certified nurse-midwives, but no significant differences were found between licensed midwives and any of the comparison groups on any other outcomes measured. When the analysis was limited to low-risk women, certified nurse-midwives were no more likely to deliver low-birthweight infants than were licensed midwives, but births attended by physicians had a higher risk of low birthweight. The results of this study indicate that in Washington state the practice of licensed nonnurse-midwives, whose training meets standards set by international professional organizations, may be as safe as that of physicians in hospital and certified nurse-midwives in and out of hospital."


----------



## Bobbb

Highwater said:


> Just curious, Bobb. Are you basing your arguments here on just the one study from the Netherlands?
> 
> If so, you need to do more research. There are a lot of studies out there with different results. You know that, right?


One published study does not equal another published study does not equal another published study, just like a Russian Lada and the Yugo don't equal a Mercedes, a BMW or a Rolls Royce.

You dug up an ancient study, which looked at an extremely small population sample, at a time when only the most committed women went the route of home birth.

The study from the Netherlands, a country where home birth is over 40x more prevalent than in the US, looked at ALL births in one region of the country, representing 13% of the population and had a sample size of over 37,000 births.

Secondly, the conclusions of the study you cite are bizarre. Let me highlight the section:

Overall, births attended by licensed midwives out of hospital had a significantly lower risk for low birthweight than those attended in hospital by certified nurse-midwives, but no significant differences were found between licensed midwives and any of the comparison groups on any other outcomes measured. When the analysis was limited to low-risk women, certified nurse-midwives were no more likely to deliver low-birthweight infants than were licensed midwives, but* births attended by physicians* had a higher risk of low birthweight.​
I'm not sure who the journal has on their editorial review board or who these researchers are but the implication of their conclusion are that midwives are CAUSING lower risk for low birthweight or they're good at selecting low risk women to assist during childbirth. This study tells us NOTHING about the PROCESS. The study design is riddled with selection bias, which means (I don't mean to be pedantic with this explanation but while you may know what selection bias is some of the readers who are following along may not) that the group selected for the study is not representative of the general population. Think of a study setting out to determine skin cancer rates in the general population and they recruit their study participants at tanning salons and from a sun-bathing club. That study is going to show higher skin cancer rates than are found in the general public. What was the conclusion of this study? That the women who gave birth at home had no higher chance of having a low birth weight baby. What, exactly, does that tell us about the process of home birth?

What we are interested in is mortality and morbidity data which results from the PROCESS of home delivery and hospital delivery. What effect, what risk, does a mother place on the life of her child, when she makes that choice? What your study records is that the women who elected to home birth in WA state back in the dark ages of the 1980s, were drawn from a sample of very healthy women and that women with higher risks tended to have physician assisted births. That tells us nothing about the risks associated with the process and instead tells us about a historical group and their characteristics - WA women who were healthy and chose home birth had no higher risk of having low birthweight babies. Well, la-de-da, I didn't know that the choice of midwife or physician had any influence on whether the baby became a normal weight baby or a low weight baby.

I really don't understand the stubborn resistance to the key point of logic here - when there is a complication during birth how do you home birth advocates hand wave away the fact that the midwife in your home doesn't have the training nor the equipment to deal with it and that when such a complication arises timely intervention usually is of paramount importance and so waiting around from ambulance transport, actual transport time and then the hospital personnel ramping up to deal with this arriving emergency means that your baby is suffering from delayed medical intervention and this can have serious and deadly results. How do you wish that away and claim that home birth is just as safe, or safer, than hospital birth?

I get that you guys desperately WANT this to be true and so you search around for bits of "evidence" which confirms to you what you want to believe, but the logic of your position is seriously flawed. How does delayed medical intervention HELP your baby? How does delayed medical intervention NOT HARM your baby? I just don't get how you guys can cling to your fantasy so strongly that you can block out basic reasoning.


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> [exactly how I feel when dealing with people like this...-and i have dealt with four extreme case already, and two out of the first three times, the guy has been verified to have...shall we say, extreme ugliness in his life, as well as the demeanor he displays in his treatment of others.


What, exactly, does this contribution of yours add to the conversation we're all having here? Either I'm right or I'm wrong, either I'm making a convincing argument or I'm not, either my reasoning is sound or it's flawed. All you're doing is grabbing at whatever life preserver you can find and using it, in this case, you have no evidence nor any argument that you can muster to undermine the case I've made here and so you chose to attack me. Attacking me doesn't make your position stronger, it doesn't make you correct in your argument, it just shows everyone that you're out of ammunition in this debate and you're resorting to picking up stones and throwing them.


----------



## lazydaisy67

Youre wrong. 

Next


----------



## lovetogrow

What we need here is a symbol that depicts beating a dead horse. 

What could be a very helpful topic with information to assist in making informed decisions has devolved into convoluted argumentativeness because of an insatiable need to BE right. It's a pattern of behaviour, and if one continues to feed the argument the need becomes even greater to BE right. 

Let it go, post helpful information, and ignore the B.S. - don't take the bait


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> What we need here is a symbol that depicts beating a dead horse.
> 
> What could be a very helpful topic with information to assist in making informed decisions has devolved into convoluted argumentativeness because of an insatiable need to BE right. It's a pattern of behaviour, and if one continues to feed the argument the need becomes even greater to BE right.
> 
> Let it go, post helpful information, and ignore the B.S. - don't take the bait


I couldn't agree with you more. Here I am helping everyone by posting research data which shows how innocent babies' lives can be saved and those who cling to their romantic, anti-reality visions keep arguing and wanting to be right but having no way to convince others that they are actually right because the real world stubbornly refuses to bend to their fantasy of how birth SHOULD BE.

Look at what they're doing, they can't engage in a discussion by citing evidence, so they hope to sway minds by attacking me as a person and saying bad things about me, hoping that there are fools out there who will be swayed by that approach and will join them in their idealistic quest to put babies just entering life at risk for death and injury.

So like you advise, people don't take the bait. Follow the evidence rather than the Pied Pipers of Home Birth.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Bobbb, I have seen some decent arguments from you on other topics but this just makes me sad. How many people have been swayed by your arguments on this thread if that is your intention? You have been using stats in ways that are not appropriate to the nature of the data, using studies that are not representative, ignoring causation vs correlation etc. Then when someone post a study you dismiss it out of hand as "ancient" yeah, the '90s. Only the numbers you dig up are correct.
I am not saying anything bad about YOU, just your argument in this particular thread. You put out your opinion and data so why do you keep coming back and attacking people. If your intent is to sway people to your way of thinking I suggest you choose a different tactic, like maybe giving this thread a rest.
Just my opinion.


----------



## jeremiyah

Highwater said:


> Just curious, Bobb. Are you basing your arguments here on just the one study from the Netherlands?
> 
> If so, you need to do more research. There are a lot of studies out there with different results. You know that, right?
> 
> How can you be so resolute that this particular study was done properly? Have you dug deep to make sure?
> 
> I'm from Wash State. I found a study that shows home births in my state don't agree with your study. What makes your's better?
> 
> "Janssen PA. Holt VL. Myers SJ
> Licensed midwife-attended, out-of-hospital births in Washington state: are they safe?
> Birth. 21(3):141-8, 1994 Sep.
> The safety of out-of-hospital births attended by midwives who are licensed according to international standards has not been established in the United States. To address this issue, outcomes of births attended out of hospital by licensed midwives in Washington state were compared with those attended by physicians and certified nurse-midwives in hospital and certified nurse-midwives out of hospital between 1981 and 1990. Outcomes measured included low birthweight, low five-minute Apgar scores, and neonatal and postneonatal mortality. Associations between attendant and outcomes were measured using odds ratios to estimate relative risks. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression controlled for confounding variables. Overall, births attended by licensed midwives out of hospital had a significantly lower risk for low birthweight than those attended in hospital by certified nurse-midwives, but no significant differences were found between licensed midwives and any of the comparison groups on any other outcomes measured. When the analysis was limited to low-risk women, certified nurse-midwives were no more likely to deliver low-birthweight infants than were licensed midwives, but births attended by physicians had a higher risk of low birthweight. The results of this study indicate that in Washington state the practice of licensed nonnurse-midwives, whose training meets standards set by international professional organizations, may be as safe as that of physicians in hospital and certified nurse-midwives in and out of hospital."


Correct, Highwater.

All Bobbb has done so far, is repeat the same exact assumptions over and over again, with increasing sputtering vitriolic rancor -none of which he has given adequate support for. 
It reminds me of the WW2 era saying made famous by the mustachioed midget...
-"tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and it will be believed as the truth."
We are supposed to believe Bobbb, and the CDC (which is, in case any are not aware -a Federal alphabet soup agency, and therefore, at the very least, subject to suspicion) and reports paid for by the cartel which they are protecting and promoting... 
-but we are supposed to believe Bobbb, simply because Bobbb is right, and we are obviously stupid cretins who do not care if babies die. 
(BTW, any answers on the huge number of babies and mothers killed in hospitals by the absolutely unauthorized (by the FDA and WHO) use of Cytotec???)

(And another related issue, BTW...who on either side of this discussion believe it is alright to abort / murder babies? And who does not???)

Alright...
Since Bobbb worships "statistics" so much, he should read Marjory Tew's book: SAFER CHILDBIRTH?

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/homebirthuk.asp
*"In Britain, lecturer and research statistician Marjorie Tew was the first to challenge conventional assumptions that the rise in hospital births was directly responsible for the drop in deaths. She set her students an exercise to prove that birth was safest in hospital, but their findings surprised them all. *
For many years ignored and discredited, her research is now widely recognized. Using statistics from the national perinatal surveys of 1958 and 1970, to which obstetricians made a significant contribution, she has done much to revise opinions about the safety of homebirth. 
*Tew's analysis of 1986 statistics for the Netherlands, where more than a third of women give birth at home, shows a perinatal mortality rate of just 2.2 per 1,000 birth at home, compared with 13.9 for hospital. Although only low-risk women are accepted for homebirth in Holland, leading to a higher proportion of high-risk mothers giving birth in hospital, homebirth is still significantly safer."*

Many studies do not do a fair and impartial tabulation of statistics. There is a huge difference between a planned homebirth with a professional midwife, and an unplanned birth at home,or in a taxi, or worse, many times, a planned home birth with no professional help, for which honest statisticians separate out from professional help be they doctors, Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs,) or NARM / MANA qualified Certified Practicing Midwives (CPMs.)

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/homebirthuk.asp
"Unfortunately, official statistics are tainted; homebirths have been lumped together with unplanned, out-of-hospital deliveries. Unplanned births can include teenagers hiding a pregnancy, mothers giving birth on the way to hospital, women delivering prematurely and unexpectedly, or those who receive no antenatal care at all."

So, here is a totally different picture of the Netherlands; one which was done by an impartial researcher, not done by a panel paid extremely well, by those with billions of dollars at stake, to find the "correct" conclusions.
As someone said earlier: FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL.

http://www.sciencebasedbirth.com/Citations or text 02/safer_childbirth_MTew.htm
*"The first edition of Safer Childbirth? in 1990 showed that actual results have never supported the widely-held belief that today's reduced rates of death or sickness for mother or child were caused by increased hospitalization or obstetric interventions, and the second edition in 1995 added the further compelling evidence gathered by the House of Commons Health Committee in their thorough inquiry from 1990-1992 into the maternity services, including the scientific evaluations, by then completed, of obstetric practices. The recommendations of the Parliamentary Report in 1992, followed in 1993 by the Government Report, Changing Childbirth, should have revolutionized the direction of maternity care; mothers, not doctors, should henceforth have the dominant role in deciding what sort of care best served their and their babies' interests."*

http://www.fa-b.com/safer.htm
"When Safer Childbirth? was first published in 1990, most people believed that hospital birth must be safer than birth at home, simply because obstetric skills and modern technology are available in an institution which are not on hand at home. Through her painstaking statistical analysis of perinatal mortality rates for hospital and home, Tew showed that this was a misconception. Statistics suggested, indeed, that for some women hospital birth might actually be more dangerous than home birth."

http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=115
http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/321.2.full
"This book is exciting and makes humbling reading for doctors. Its relevance extends beyond maternity care. Marjorie Tew tells a tale of the abuse of professional power, the use of misinformation and the blindness and bigotry of those who should have known better. Even the very best, like Dugald Baird in Aberdeen, could lose their scientific footing in the headlong rush for doctors to take over and hospitalize childbirth: "if it is accepted that confinement in hospital is safer for certain types of patient, where the risks are high, it must also be safer for cases where the risks are less".

The shift to hospital birth has been one of the great sociological changes in the industrialized world in the past 50 years. Yet this change took place with almost no evidence to support it. It ought to be a source of shame to those who promoted the shift through the 1950s, 60s and 70s that controlled trials were not considered necessary. Only a few brave voices cried in the wilderness, Archie Cochrane notably and Marjorie Tew.

*Mrs Tew was teaching statistics to medical students and whilst using the results of the 1970 Birth Surveys found that the conclusions reached by government (through its specialist advisers) were not supported by the evidence. Despite her unbiased stance and clear presentation of the evidence, British medical journals disgracefully refused to publish her paper until the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners finally did so in 1985.*

We should be grateful for Marjorie Tew for her courage and determination in the face of sometimes vicious opposition. She is in the end I believe too critical of the benefits of specialist care. There may be more balanced views, but Tew's account is lively and impassioned. 
*Readers ought to buy a copy and pass it on to an obstetric colleague, but don't expect any thanks."*


----------



## jeremiyah

drfacefixer said:


> Here is the lit review and peer reviewed recommendations on the subject. It's pretty fair. It looks long but its well written and broken down well. The summary and recommendations are at the bottom. Have fun and rock on! I think this will help provide some of the clarity lacking in data sources. Note the education level and training on Netherlands midwives compared to elsewhere. Also near the bottom is the training levels and certification for the US midwives regulations.


I appreciate equanimity, honesty, and accuracy in posting, especially on heated topics. I respect that, and I thank you for your stance and comments to further the discussion in a positive way.

jeremiyah


----------



## jeremiyah

lazydaisy67 said:


> So compare apples to apples. The CDC states that there are 4 million births in the U.S. every year. Of those, 2 million are minorities. Minority groups in the U.S. choose homebirth so infrequently that they can be taken out of the equation for the purposes of this argument. So 2 million white babies born in the U.S. every year. 1% are born at home (20,000) and 180,000 born in the hospital. The CDC states that approximately 5.6% of white babies die, but if we're generous and say 5% you get 90,000 white babies dying in hospitals every year and 1,000 dying at a home.
> Not making a statement either way about that, just saying babies obviously die in hospitals.
> Home birth is mostly chosen by white, highly educated, married women over 30 who have had 1 or more children in the hospital. That doesn't sound like appropriate criteria for "idiot'.
> 
> .................................
> 
> Is it selfish to schedule a c-section even if there is no medical reason to do so? Here are some *common* reasons to schedule a c-section in the U.S.: Relatives will be in town, don't want new baby to share a birthday with other siblings, mom is terrified of labor, doctor is going on vacation, mom's friends said it's better and, (my favorite) so your vagina won't get stretched out? *Who's the idiot???*
> 
> The OP has it right. This is a preparedness forum. Maybe the questions we should be asking are how we can be better prepared for the birthing process NOW before we have to go through it without any medical intervention. Of course, that would entail a lot of change in attitude in the U.S. and I daresay some empowerment to women to take charge of their medical decisions and educate themselves. We, in particular, should be spending twice as much time learning about homebirth than we do being afraid of it.
> 
> Let's talk about vasectomies.


You Go Girl!!! 
AWESOME JOB!!!!

*The OP has it right. This is a preparedness forum. Maybe the questions we should be asking are how we can be better prepared for the birthing process NOW before we have to go through it without any medical intervention. Of course, that would entail a lot of change in attitude in the U.S. and I daresay some empowerment to women to take charge of their medical decisions and educate themselves. We, in particular, should be spending twice as much time learning about homebirth than we do being afraid of it.*

Good Point!!!
Which brings to mind the question:

*If Bobbb is such an expert (and the ease with which he posts hard to find info might lead one to believe he has a vested interest in hospitals, shall we say? and therefore likely has much of the information which concerned mothers are seeking right now)...
why does Bobbb not help us out on the reason for the posting of these studies in the first place, instead of trying to HIJACK AND DESTROY THAT STATED PURPOSE OF THE THREAD???** -It has been a Poor attempt, of course, as every feeble tirade he makes throws more fuel on the fire... :beercheer:
-and interests more people -who are pitching in with highly intelligent insights, facts and conclusions :kiss: (which Bobbb, of course, denies we have the ability to do, being too stupid to homebirth...):factor10: *

*He admitted early on that he understood the purpose of these threads 
-that being the preparation to as full a degree as possible, for SHTF childbirth!!!
So, with all of his brilliance, expertise, and phenomenal grasp of the childbirth process...
why does he not contribute to a positive approach to try to help women plan on how to have a safe birthing experiences? :dunno:HMMMM???*


----------



## jeremiyah

lazydaisy67 said:


> I completely agree. What I find unacceptable is calling women idiots for choosing homebirth and throwing out a plethora of scetchy stats with no links to support your opinion and then telling anybody who disagrees with you that they're avoiding the issue.
> 
> Just to set the record straight, I had all 5 of my babies in the hospital. One I birthed all by myself, no 'professionals' present in the room because they wouldn't listen to me when I told them that my labor was progressing very fast. I didn't fit the parameters in their book, so I apparently didn't know what I was talking about even though it was my 4th baby. I delivered her head, unwrapped the cord from around her neck and delivered her body in about 2 1/2 minutes. I didn't even have to think about what to do. It was very instinctual. My husband was standing paralysed in the corner with his mouth hanging open. I wish I could have taken a picture of the nurses face when she came into the room and saw me holding my baby against my chest all pink and happy. She about fell over dead. Then the doctor came in and he said "WHAT HAPPENED???" I smiled and said "I told you so." From that point forward I began to gain an interest in homebirth and have been learning about it since.


lazydaisy,

I know another woman who did this, but at home, in bed, with her violent, sick perverted husband asleep beside her; she birthed her last baby in absolute silence b/c she was afraid that if he awoke, he would kill the baby.

As I said to her, I will say to you; you were a midwife in essence, and may have a calling to that profession. Look into your heart, and if you feel led to, as you seem to be, there are good internet courses for the book work needed, and from there, it is a long hard road of apprenticeship, etc.
-which, BTW, is sadly lacking in the medical industry.

jeremiyah


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> You have been using stats in ways that are not appropriate to the nature of the data, using studies that are not representative, ignoring causation vs correlation etc.


OK, you've made some accusations against me, now support those accusations or withdraw them.

Keep in mind that you were the one who was confused about the historical infant mortality rate and thought I was implying that this had something to do with home birth infant mortality statistics. Don't project the errors which arise from your faulty reading skills (or perhaps a quick skimming of the thread and thus not catching a sub-debate that emerged) onto me as using evidence inappropriately.

I'm eager to read your explanation of how a study from the Netherlands which looked at a sample of 37,000 births in one region of the country is not representative of this issue while other people have brought in studies for us to look at which suffered from the very issue you note - unrepresentative samples. Home birth in the US presently represents only 0.7% of all births while it represents between 25% to 40% of all births (depending on the year in question) in the Netherlands, meaning that the women in the Netherlands represent a greater cross section of all pregnant women than the 0.7% of pregnant women who chose home birth in the US.

I'm also eager to read your critique of where I've confused causation with correlation. Please enlighten me.

Are you going to be a man of honor and back up your accusations?

There might be an out for you though. Perhaps you meant to direct this critique at Highwater and you addressed it to me by mistake. You did notice, surely, that she took the effort to link to this "reasoning:"

Overall, births attended by licensed midwives out of hospital had a significantly lower risk for low birthweight than those attended in hospital by certified nurse-midwives, but no significant differences were found between licensed midwives and any of the comparison groups on any other outcomes measured. When the analysis was limited to low-risk women, certified nurse-midwives were no more likely to deliver low-birthweight infants than were licensed midwives, but births attended by physicians had a higher risk of low birthweight.​
To my know-nothing eyes that sure looks like someone is confusing correlation with causation. They find it important to note that home birthing women in the study delivered babies which didn't differ in birth weight from those delivered in hospitals. What does such a correlation tell us? As a correlation it's not newsworthy at all because it simply points to an upstream choice that women made - home birth or hospital birth and those women who were having problem pregnancies which lead to low birth weight infants chose hospital births. The inclusion of this correlation as being noteworthy rests on the researchers believing that there is something meaningful going on here and that normal weight babies has something to do with home birthing as a choice. Maybe your more insightful eyes see the same thing?



> Then when someone post a study you dismiss it out of hand as "ancient" yeah, the '90s. Only the numbers you dig up are correct.


Not the 90s, the 80s. That data series began thirty three years ago at a time when home birthing was less prevalent than today and the participants were far less representative of all women in the US.

From the Centers for Disease Control - 1 home birth per 200 births back in 1990 (when that study concluded). How representative is that? And that's nationally. Highwater's study only looked at those women in WA state.












> You put out your opinion and data so why do you keep coming back and attacking people.


I think you need to refresh your understanding of the definition of the word "attack." I'm not attacking people. I'm doing two things - I'm not blowing sunshine up people's skirts and affirming their positions and I'm holding them accountable for the positions that they trot out, you know, just like you're trying to do to me except I back up my criticisms with more than just accusations, so I take you at your world that you're not saying anything about me and I don't take your comment here as an attack against me. You're simply being lazy with your accusations and they're meritless (until you support them.)



> If your intent is to sway people to your way of thinking I suggest you choose a different tactic, like maybe giving this thread a rest.
> Just my opinion.


You do realize that people read threads without commenting in the threads. I'm never going to change the minds of romantics/ideologues who think science and medicine are some conspiracy which kills babies and hides the fact that they're doing this and the only way to increase the chances of having a healthy baby is to have a home birth, far away from physicians and hospitals. The people who I'll reach are the readers who haven't jumped down that conspiracy-laden rabbit hole. They can weigh the totality of the arguments/evidence against the propaganda videos put out by home birth advocates and reach their own conclusions.

Finally, they can see that I engage the criticisms directed at my points and seek to clarify where there is misunderstanding and to refute when there is a challenge and they can also note how the home birthing advocates in this thread simply ignore evidence that they find uncomfortable. Jermiyah is a master of doing this in that he never engages on points, he just ignores them and pushes out more propaganda.


----------



## jeremiyah

Bobbb said:


> And what is the primary requirement for being prepared? I mean the most basic requirement. I'll tell you - it's that you must be alive. A baby which dies from lack of medical skill when it is required fails to meet the test of being alive and therefore cannot prepare for any emergency.
> 
> Thanks Jeremiyah, you're probably the most effective recruiter for the position that I'm advancing. People see that you *can't address any of my points* and that your response is to evade, distract with technicolor walls of jumbled text, and wax rhapsodic about the romantic vision of life and birth that you hold in your heart and which you can sustain only by shutting out reality. Most people aren't willing to follow you on that route and most people will inform their viewpoints by considering argument and evidence. You present an alternative way of looking at life, the faith-based, idealistic approach, and when people are *asked to bet the lives of their children* most people won't follow you down the rejecting-evidence yellow brick road.


Bobbb,

People see that you *can't address any of my points* and that your response is to evade, -oh, those were your own words pointing three fingers back at yourself again)
*
You have not answered ANY of the important questions and points I have brought up. What is more: YOU CAN'T. *
You have merely continue to sound like a broken record, repeating your same mantra over and over, and over again, ad nauseum.:factor10:

You say hospitals are safer;

1. What about SUPER-BUGS, Bobbb, MRSA, how about VRE, Bobbb???
Vanomycin Resistant Enterococci? Heard of it, Bobbb? You get it in hospitals. You die in three days.
(Why didn't they make the third word into two words and it would have a better acronym? 
Vanomycin Resistant Entero-Cocci (VREC) People, the drug Vanomycin is so valuable and prone to theft, it is stored in bank vault- -oh -allegedly of course -just a government and military drug supplier's word on that one...
*Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

2. Iatrogenic diseases, Bobbb, -Hospitals breed them, infect people with them, and kill them..lots of people, Bobbb...
and not just me, but several people have pointed this out; 
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE ABOUT "HOSPITAL SAFETY." *Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

3. VACCINATIONS, Bobbb...They kill. They cause autism. They are mandatory.
*Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

4. Should parents balk, or Refuse to vaccinate, etc, many parents have had their children taken away...children end up in foster homes...raped at the age of 3 to 13, boy and girl alike....that is where a lot of hospital birthed children end up, Bobbb. I know, my BIL adopted a boy this happened to, so don't even blow this off -it is huge!!!
*Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

5. Drug overdoses, wrong drug -death by allergic reaction...
Bobbb, *Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

6. Induced (FORCED) labor Bobbb...deal with that one drug; that one question -CYTOTEC!!!
You have stats at your fingertips: how any babies and mothers both have been murdered by the unethical and unapproved use of this drug? *Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

7. Forced enlistment into an unwanted communist state controlled / ownership of our children, Bobbb -
Social Security System...answer that major problem, Bobbb;
Have your baby in the hospital, it can't get out without being registered with the Federal Government, and it is now being laughed about in congress that "WE OWN YOUR CHILDREN" (-WELL CHINA DOES ACTUALLY)
Answer that one, Bobbb....*Another issue you have not bothered to address...*

There are a lot of other extremely points you have not answered, but those will do for starters. 
ANSWER ONE OF THEM; YOU CAN'T EVEN PROPERLY ADDRESS JUST ONE OF THOSE AND STILL MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION.
I understand your handicap; you have the single focus, reductionist medical mindset;
one problem, one drug, one issue. Pasteur laid the foundation for decades of medical misery. 
But Antoine Bechamp was right, and the truth is shining clearer and brighter every day in the medical world. 
More and more doctors are waking up, and becoming honest, and refusing to lie anymore about he "cures" and the other ******** they formerly stood for.
Many people see life as a whole, and this issue bears on and affects all of life -as a family, and as a nation.

In addition, what has evidenced so far, is that because you perceive that you are right, 
every absurd little CAVIL (look it up) which you make, you demand that I , or someone else, rebut for you.

Time is too short for me to play rhetoric games with people who will never be convinced. 
I learned long ago that "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
I am not going to convince you; that is hopeless. I am not trying to convince you.
I said before, that I am not writing for you.
I write, and I am, a Speaker For The Living; to try to help people have an edge of survival.
I am trying to help as many people as possible, in as many areas as possible, have as great an edge for survival as possible.
What you are trying to do, is, I think, unclear to anyone.

The ONLY reason I entertain your comments (and entertaining is the correct word for this exchange, Bobbb, THANK YOU!!! I do not know what I would have done without you) is that this issue is critical to the very core, of the survival of this nation, at least to the remnant, if that word better fits the scenario (let him that has ears, hear). 
We need right now, and we will absolutely need in the near future, to birth children outside of the control and domination of the increasingly tyrannical, insane police state we see in our near future.

Basically, Bobbb, this is not a game; but you seem to think it is.
This is not a high school debate forum, where if you win, 
you might get a hot date with another nerd.

Bobbb, this is life and death. Most of us here are trying our best, with what meager resources we have at our disposal, to prepare for a future 99.9999% of us, have not the foggiest clue as to how utterly horrific it will be. See the thread Has the civil war started? and Jack Spirko's You Tube for a little on that:
WROL or EROL Which is More Likely?





We are not in a much different situation comparatively, than were the Nine walkers who were appointed at The Council Of Elrond to set out to defeat the massed armies and monsters of Mordor in LOTR:

Oh, yes; here is the most foolish war plan of all time;
two hobbits are supposed to just walk into Mordor, climb Mount Doom, and...."One does not simply walk into Mordor. It's black gates are guarded by more than just orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep. The great eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire, ash, and dust. The very air you breathe is a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly.""

Yet, At the Council of Elrond, the proposal to take the Ring to Mordor and destroy it is questioned as a path of either despair or folly. . .
'Despair or folly?' said Gandalf. 'It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not. It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope. Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.'
'At least for a while,' said Elrond.
"The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it.
This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. 
Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: 
small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere."

We are little people Bobbb, compared to TPTB, and yes, 
we are weak; we know that. We may be perceived as foolish by those who think they are wise. 
However, that will not stop us from attempting to do what may seem to some as impossible. 
But...
Remember, sometimes the little guy wins)
We will attempt it because we have no other choice. 
For many of us, already, there is not the slightest possibility of birthing in a hospital, so that point is moot in many cases, anyway.

Well, we all have a lot to do Before :shtf2:
So...Bobbb, help us out here, please....Thank you!!!


----------



## jeremiyah

Bobbb said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. Here I am helping everyone by posting research data which shows how innocent babies' lives can be saved and those who cling to their romantic, anti-reality visions keep arguing and wanting to be right but having no way to convince others that they are actually right because the real world stubbornly refuses to bend to their fantasy of how birth SHOULD BE.
> 
> Look at what they're doing, they can't engage in a discussion by citing evidence, so they hope to sway minds by attacking me as a person and saying bad things about me, hoping that there are fools out there who will be swayed by that approach and will join them in their idealistic quest to put babies just entering life at risk for death and injury.
> 
> So like you advise, people don't take the bait. Follow the evidence rather than the Pied Pipers of Home Birth.


Bobbb,

Ummm...memory problems again? 
Like you accused me / us of? 
Or forget how to go back and reread former posts? 
Like you accused me / us of?
I am pretty sure you are the one doing 99% of the insulting of people, belittling them, -and calling them names.

Once again, One finger pointing out, three pointing back.


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> All Bobbb has done so far, is repeat the same exact assumptions over and over again, with increasing sputtering vitriolic rancor -none of which he has given adequate support for.


I'm going to extend to you the courtesy of thinking that you actually believe what you wrote and that you're not making stuff up.

And to show what a stand-up guy I am I'm willing to look at my own position and style of writing and ask whether you may have a point.

So, please go back through this thread and present to us all a chronology of my "sputtering vitriolic rancor" and show us how it's been increasing as the thread has progressed.

You see, some of us would categorize what you've done here as an attack on me because you've made an accusation but you haven't backed it up with examples. What I'm asking of you should be easy for you to do - just copy and paste the first sputtering vitriolic rancorous phrase I wrote and follow it up with phrases which ratchet up the sputtering, the vitriol, and the rancor and show the progression which you have witnessed.



> It reminds me of the WW2 era saying made famous by the mustachioed midget...
> -"tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and it will be believed as the truth."


So now I'm standing alongside Hitler and I'm pushing out a big lie. You do realize that your point is self-contradictory don't you? If the world worked as you imagined then women who are in hospitals and experience complications should be rushed OUT of the hospital and to their homes where they can improve their odds of having a safe birth. I guess the Big Lie here is all of the FALSE statistics which purport to show that women who are giving birth at home and develop complications are rushed to hospitals when that's not really the case, or something. So the question is - are those reports true or false. If they're true, then WHY are women with complications rushed to hospitals? Could it be that hospitals have a better track record of saving the lives of mothers and infants than midwives who've taken a correspondence course and apprenticed alongside another midwife for only 50 births? Or are those reports false and actually no one has ever heard of a home birthing woman being rushed to the hospital, for why would a woman want to leave a safe place and go to a place where she and her baby are in more danger?

Ah, this big lie stuff is so confusing to keep straight. Can you help me out and tell me what is really going on with women being rushed to hospitals when complications arise? Is that the big lie?



> We are supposed to believe Bobbb, and the CDC (which is, in case any are not aware -a Federal alphabet soup agency, and therefore, at the very least, subject to suspicion) and reports paid for by the cartel which they are protecting and promoting...


Thanks for that. I love when you help my side of the debate. Ok, we're not supposed to trust the CDC and instead we should place our trust in websites like MidWife Today, run by midwives and fans of midwives and full of pro-midwife propaganda. Alongside the same line, I think all hockey fans and clubs and sports networks should shut down their operations and just rely on the Boston Bruins organization to tell us all that the Boston Bruins are the best team in hockey and that no one comes close and never will until the end of time. Why wouldn't we all trust the Boston Bruins organization when they make statements like that?



> -but we are supposed to believe Bobbb, simply because Bobbb is right, and we are obviously stupid cretins who do not care if babies die.


That's about right. In a debate which is focused on reality, there is only one truth, so someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. In this debate I'm the one who is right because reality and all evidence of from birth complications shows me to be right. Because I'm right that means that you're wrong. See how that works? If you claim that mass repels objects and I claim that mass attracts objects, then one of us has to be right and one has to be wrong. When the experiments on gravity is conducted, the truth will out.



> (BTW, any answers on the huge number of babies and mothers killed in hospitals by the absolutely unauthorized (by the FDA and WHO) use of Cytotec???)


This is a red herring. Cytotec =/ hospital birth. You understand that don't you? It was used by some OBs. The issue that we're focusing on here is YOUR CLAIM

. . the conclusions drawn by homebirth and midwifery advocates across the nation are unanimous. For normal maternity care, a homebirth attended by a trained midwife is safer than a hospital birth.​
Use of Cytotec versus non-use of Cytotec is another debate that has nothing to do with your initial claim.



> Since Bobbb worships "statistics" so much, he should read Marjory Tew's book: SAFER CHILDBIRTH?


_Tew's analysis of 1986 statistics for the Netherlands, where more than a third of women give birth at home, shows a perinatal mortality rate of just 2.2 per 1,000 birth at home, compared with 13.9 for hospital. Although only low-risk women are accepted for homebirth in Holland, leading to a higher proportion of high-risk mothers giving birth in hospital, homebirth is still significantly safer."_​
I don't read works of advocacy and equate them to research.

Look at the quality of the reasoning in that quote. First they point to the differing outcomes between home birth and hospital birth then they make note of the fact that hospital births dealt with high risk mothers. Then, out of the blue, with no supporting evidence, they conclude that home birth is "still significantly safer."

And yet independent and more recent research from the Netherlands directly refutes her claim. I linked to it early in the thread in order to refute your claims. The research out of the UK refutes her claims. I posted in your other thread but here is again:

Here is the official position of the UK's National Health Service, published on Nov. 25, 2011:

They found that women having their first birth at home *had a greater chance of complications leading to injury in the child than women who had planned to go to an obstetric unit in a hospital.* This risk was *almost doubled* (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86).

Furthermore, when the sample was* restricted to women who had no complicating conditions at the start of labour, there was almost a three-times greater risk for women with planned home births than for women having planned hospital births* (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.92). . . .

Among women having their first pregnancy who opted for a home birth, *45% were transferred to hospital before or after delivery.* For women attending a freestanding midwifery unit, 36% were transferred, and 40% of women attending an alongside midwifery unit were transferred.

For women who had previous pregnancies, *12% with a planned home birth were transferred*, 9% at a freestanding midwifery unit and 12.5% at an alongside midwifery unit were transferred.​
This was a large English study and because of it's large sample size it basically replicates the Dutch study I linked to earlier in the thread. They're finding the same ratios and outcomes. You know why? Because the biology of giving birth doesn't change between the UK and the Netherlands, that is, reality is constant and uniform. There is no magical land where women with complications are rushed OUT OF HOSPITALS AND TO THEIR HOMES in order to give birth in a safer environment. That happens no where on Earth.

Zealots and advocates are rarely motivated by truth and so truth and evidence tend to be easily massaged or outright discarded in the service of a higher goal - the advancement of the zealot's ideology. The lady you cite should be embarrassed that *the exact opposite of what she claims is revealed.* The exact opposite. In two large-scale studies in two different nations.



> Many studies do not do a fair and impartial tabulation of statistics. There is a huge difference between a planned homebirth with a professional midwife, and an unplanned birth at home,or in a taxi, or worse, many times, a planned home birth with no professional help, for which honest statisticians separate out from professional help be they doctors, Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs,) or NARM / MANA qualified Certified Practicing Midwives (CPMs.)


That's the very first valid point you've made in this entire thread. To show you that I'm willing to modify my position in light on new evidence I ask you to provide me with studies which correct for the flaws that you've noted. *Surely you must have these studies on hand because they've informed your position on this issue. Right?* Well, please share them with me, and with all of us. How many babies are being born in taxis and falsely being categorized as being born at home?


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> You Go Girl!!!
> AWESOME JOB!!!!


What are you talking about. She didn't even get the math right. How can it be an awesome job when the conclusions are based on faulty math?

So 2 million white babies born in the U.S. every year. 1% are born at home (20,000) and 180,000 born in the hospital.​


> *The OP has it right.* This is a preparedness forum. . . .


You crack me up. YOU'RE the Original Poster. Why that's mighty nice of you to pat yourself on the back like that. Are we all supposed to take your vouchment to the bank?



> Maybe the questions we should be asking are how we can be better prepared for the birthing process NOW before we have to go through it without any medical intervention.


That's a fair position and we have a thread dealing with that topic - Maternity Kits. You'll notice that I'm not in that thread and I'm not arguing against being prepared for maternity issues in light of society going down the drain. I'm in this thread arguing against your claims that home birthing is safer than hospital birthing. You can always concede and admit that you're wrong and honestly mean it and then bow out of this thread.



> If Bobbb is such an expert (and the ease with which he posts hard to find info might lead one to believe he has a vested interest in hospitals, shall we say? and therefore likely has much of the information which concerned mothers are seeking right now)...


Dude, it's not about ME. Why do you constantly have to speculate about me. My arguments stand on their own irrespective of my personal life.



> why does Bobbb not help us out on the reason for the posting of these studies in the first place, instead of trying to HIJACK AND DESTROY THAT STATED PURPOSE OF THE THREAD???


What's the title of this thread again? Oh yeah " Safety of homebirth & midwifery: Background and history." ALL OF MY COMMENTS are focused on the issue of safety and outcomes dealing with home birth versus hospital birth. I'm like a laser here. You're bringing in abortion, cytotec, conspiracies amongst government agencies, etc. You started this thread and now you're claiming that my writing about what you wanted to discuss is hijacking the thread.

Look, I do understand what you mean though. You wanted this thread to be a mutual affirmation, group hug, type of thread where all true believers could come in and tell each other how right they are for believing as they do, probably like the experience you get at the website MidWivesToday.com.


----------



## lovetogrow

Quote from OP:
“Is Home-birth with a Midwife Safe?”

This is the foundation for discussion in this thread (right?).

This is a broad question and so the short answer imho is up for debate. There are far too many variables to be considered in the collective and individual contexts to definitively say yes or no. 
Narrow the question to ‘Is home-birth with a Midwife safe in your individual context’, then studies and statistics that are not skewed and apply to a particular set of variables that may be available to apply to the individual in her community can be weighed and the decision made. 

I say this from personal experience. For example, details aside - when I gave birth to my eldest decades ago, had it not been for a midwife (certified in England not here though at the time) attending while I waited for my OBGYN to get to hospital in an ice storm - I would have lost my son If the attending had been an RN, I am fairly certain he/she would have followed hospital protocol (physicians being the godhead), and my son would not have survived (see my post on page 9). 

On the flip side - my DDI gave birth to her two children at home with Midwifes in attendance. The first birth, no problem - second birth, big problems (entirely related to the level of competence of the attending midwife). She was rushed to hospital treated for hemmorage and survived. In this case the attending midwife did not have sufficient experience, knowledge (imo), nor skill to prevent or discern the seriousness of the situation. 

Another DDI had a competent Midwife attending her first birth and guided her to hospital when she discerned the need to have that service to safely deliver. The hospital worked WITH the midwife toward safe delivery.

It really can be a mixed bag dependent upon competence of caregivers, and other critical variables to consider (see my post on pg.9). 

I don’t believe there is a one size fits all at the end of the day, however my personal preference from personal experience is to have a safe home-birth with a competent Midwife attending who is well connected to a competent medical community who values (as they should)their expertise and are willing to work closely, not imposing unacceptable standards of care (again see post pg.9) upon the birth mother and her Midwife.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Bobbb, you have just totally lost it here, I never even mentioned the historical infant mortality rate, and you are saying I am confused about it
Yes I saw the number (40%) you erroneously posted but I did not refer to it in ANY way, frankly there are way too many problems with your arguments here for me to address them all. And you are criticising MY reading skills?
As to backing up my other so called "accusations", what is the point? You are not being rational on this issue and I can't see it being helpful to others at this point. I stand behind what I said and I see no reason to go into this any further. People have to decide how to invest their time for maximum benefit and breaking down the arguments on this thread in detail are at the bottom of my list. This is a VERY important topic but fortunately there is lots of information for those actually dealing with it.


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> Bobbb, you have just totally lost it here, I never even mentioned the historical infant mortality rate, and you are saying I am confused about it
> Yes I saw the number (40%) you erroneously posted but I did not refer to it in ANY way, frankly there are way too many problems with your arguments here for me to address them all. And you are criticising MY reading skills?
> As to backing up my other so called "accusations", what is the point? You are not being rational on this issue and I can't see it being helpful to others at this point. I stand behind what I said and I see no reason to go into this any further. People have to decide how to invest their time for maximum benefit and breaking down the arguments on this thread in detail are at the bottom of my list. This is a VERY important topic but fortunately there is lots of information for those actually dealing with it.


Well, a man with honor would back up his accusations against another man. If you have a case against me, then back it up instead of making unsubstantiated charges and then finding excuses not to stand behind them. From what I know of the cowboy code, what you're doing doesn't fit within it, but hey, maybe honor isn't a big thing in the real cowboy code.


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> Narrow the question to 'Is home-birth with a Midwife safe in your individual context', then studies and statistics that are not skewed and apply to a particular set of variables that may be available to apply to the individual in her community can be weighed and the decision made.


What you're describing is a game of probabilities. If you're a women with a low-risk pregnancy, then the probabilities of a successful home birth most certainly shift in your favor. However, probabilities are not certainties, which means that while the odds work to your favor you are still putting yourself and your baby at greater risk of death or injury than if you chose a hospital birth. Maybe there are compensating factors which provide benefit to you that make putting your baby's life on the line worth the gamble. That is an individual decision but let's all recognize that there is gambling going on here and the bet being made is with the life of the baby.

What strikes me as odd though is the concern that parents have for properly securing their child into a car seat when the odds of death to the baby from auto accident are so damn low. The parents though recognize that while the odds of death and injury from auto accident are low they still exist and in the improbable event of an accident they want to maximize the survivability chances for their precious baby. And yet with regard to home birth the far worse odds, the far more dangerous practice, is embraced and the life of the baby is gambled with.

-Chance of dying over the course of a year while a passenger in a car: 1 in 47,826
-Chance of dying from complications arising during any form of delivery while being born in the US: 1 in 2,557
-Chance of dying from complications arising during home delivery while being born in the US: 1 in 698

So, I get it, risk minimization to the baby is not EVERYTHING. Rolling the dice on a 1:698 odds is a pretty good bet. I'm not denying that. But what strikes me as odd is that if a parent is willing to put the life of her baby on the line with odds of 1:698 then why are they fussing so much about car seats when the odds of death to the baby 68x more remote? Why are these parents even bothering with car seats?



> On the flip side - my DDI gave birth to her two children at home with Midwifes in attendance. The first birth, no problem - second birth, big problems (entirely related to the level of competence of the attending midwife). She was rushed to hospital treated for hemmorage and survived. In this case the attending midwife did not have sufficient experience, knowledge (imo), nor skill to prevent or discern the seriousness of the situation.


The midwife was the DIRECT CAUSE of the hemorrhage? You see, this was an unplanned complication. There are all sorts of unplanned complications which can arise from low risk pregnancies. Your daughter was lucky that her unplanned complication was not extremely time sensitive. As I noted earlier with firearms, when you absolutely need a cop to aid you in your moment of distress, the cop is at least five minutes away. That's when having a gun on your body can make the difference between life and death. Well, the same applies to having medical personnel and infrastructure at your beck and call at the instant you need that support in a time critical situation rather than having that support be 20 minutes away.

From the UK study I referenced earlier, note the bolded sections:

They found that women having their first birth at home had a greater chance of complications leading to injury in the child than women who had planned to go to an obstetric unit in a hospital. This risk was almost doubled (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86).

Furthermore, *when the sample was restricted to women who had no complicating conditions at the start of labour, there was almost a three-times greater risk for women with planned home births than for women having planned hospital births* (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.92). . . .

*Among women having their first pregnancy who opted for a home birth, 45% were transferred to hospital before or after delivery.* For women attending a freestanding midwifery unit, 36% were transferred, and 40% of women attending an alongside midwifery unit were transferred.​
The decision to give birth at home, just that one decision alone, increases the odds of bad outcomes for the baby by a factor of 3. That's a pretty big factor, wouldn't you say.



> Another DDI had a competent Midwife attending her first birth and guided her to hospital when she discerned the need to have that service to safely deliver. The hospital worked WITH the midwife toward safe delivery.


Now you and I and other normal people understand why your daughter was transported to the hospital but there are people in this thread who are contending that hospitals are not as safe as the home environment and so your daughter was being transported from a safe place, her home, to an unsafe place, the hospital, and that is the wrong decision.

However, to your point. It's nice to read that the transport worked smoothly but you do realize, I hope, that this transport process is a risk factor in itself and that the risk fell on the mother and child. She was transported to the hospital because the hospital was the best place to increase her odds of completing a successful labor and if she had started at the hospital then the odds of bad outcome during transport would be zero because there would be no need for transport at all.


----------



## lovetogrow

"The midwife was the DIRECT CAUSE of the hemorrhage?"

Of course not - c'mon now. It was a matter of the midwife not properly monitoring the mother and not attending her an appropriate length of time - incompetent care, and had she not been incompetent then a timely intervention and appropriate treatment would have ensued and/or prevented hemorrhage. I certainly am not painting all Midwives with the same brush here according to this 'one' incompetent caregiver.

"...but there are people in this thread who are contending that hospitals are not as safe as the home environment and so your daughter was being transported from a safe place, her home, to an unsafe place, the hospital, and that is the wrong decision."

I didn't get that impression, and you can bet your bottom dollar that there are hospitals that are definitely 'unsafe' and put people across the continuum at high risk of serious complications from infectious disease. Point in fact - in my area one hospital has closed due to hospital acquired infections (HAI).

Canada carrying high health-care-related infection rate: WHO
http://www.canada.com/business/Cana...are+related+infection+rate/5140111/story.html

"However, to your point. It's nice to read that the transport worked smoothly but you do realize, I hope, that this transport process is a risk factor in itself and that the risk fell on the mother and child."

The decision made to transport to hospital was a timely one, - well planned for in advance and anticipated as a standard variable in her care plan as it should have been. There was no immediate high risk involved, yet the fact that the midwife discerned that her risk could escalate she managed her patient's care in a professional and responsible manner. This was no willy nilly care plan, and I assure you transport did not present any more risk than it would have had she 'transported' to hospital at the beginning stage of labor.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Bobbb, with respect to my "honour" which you are calling into question, one of the most important things I have learned over the years is when to walk away, it is not always easy but sometimes it is best. 
There have been many instances where I could have beat the heck out of some guy for being an ass but it just wasn't necessary. Everyone else knew they were being an ass, heck they probably look back on it and see it themselves, I have had a few belated apologies over the years. So I saw there was no point arguing with them, and no point getting physical because I determined they weren't likely to cause harm to others. Most of the time these people are going through a tough time or dealing with some issues and I feel bad for them (if a bit frustrated).

Same thing on here, if I see some obviously false information I will usually speak up, but I don't feel like I am some how personally responsible for refuting every argument. I still stand behind what I have said I just don't feel the need to argue with someone who is acting the way you are. Heck you accused me of misunderstanding things I never even referenced.

Anyways, best wishes to all and good luck making the right choices because ultimately you are responsible for your own actions.


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> "The midwife was the DIRECT CAUSE of the hemorrhage?"
> 
> Of course not - c'mon now.


I just wanted to be clear because you wrote that your daughter's problems were due to the midwife's competence level.



> It was a matter of the midwife not properly monitoring the mother and not attending her an appropriate length of time - incompetent care, and had she not been incompetent then a timely intervention and appropriate treatment would have ensued and/or prevented hemorrhage.


OK. Now I'm not so clear though. If the midwife had it in her power to prevent the hemorrhage then doesn't it follow that not exercising that power means that the midwife did in fact cause the hemorrhage? If the midwife did not have it in her power to prevent the hemorrhage then regardless of her actions after the fact, your daughter would have had to have the hemorrhage attended to, most likely by a physician and so this looks like another variation on the unforeseen complications which arise during pregnancy. My point is, or rather my question is, if the midwife could not prevent the hemorrhage, then wouldn't a hospital transfer be required even if an extremely competent midwife was there in place of this incompetent one?



> The decision made to transport to hospital was a timely one, - well planned for in advance and anticipated as a standard variable in her care plan as it should have been.


I have no argument with this.



> There was* no immediate high risk* involved, yet the fact that the midwife discerned that her risk could escalate she managed her patient's care in a professional and responsible manner.


As I noted above, this is all about probabilities. *No immediate high risk* doesn't equate to NO RISK. So within that risk universe there exists a risk outcome which presents as a medical condition which is extremely time sensitive. Some medical emergencies don't result in harm to the mother or child if treatment is delayed by 10 minutes or even 30 minutes and so transport time to the hospital won't influence medical outcomes. Other medical emergencies though are time sensitive and now a 20 ride to the hospital could create some very serious consequences.

Your daughter was low risk, she took a gamble because she liked the odds, and she lost the gamble when she started hemorrhaging at home. Ultimately she didn't have to pay the price for losing the gamble she took because the physicians were there to save the day. That's good news.

We should all recognize that at every branch of this decision tree different outcomes could have resulted. Mild hemorrhage versus severe hemorrhage or no hemorrhage. Instead of hemorrhage there could have been some problem with the baby's heart beat. Or nothing dangerous could have developed.



> I assure you transport did not present any more risk than it would have had she 'transported' to hospital at the beginning stage of labor.


As a blanket statement with regards to risk, sorry, I don't buy into your assurance. As a statement, with the benefit of hindsight, and with respect to the particulars of your daughter's situation, sure I accept your assurance. The key difference here is the benefit of hindsight. If your daughter had faced a different medical emergency, then the transport time delay could have had critical importance, as noted in the earlier linked study:

We found that delivery related* perinatal death was significantly higher among low risk pregnancies in midwife supervised primary care* than among *high risk pregnancies in obstetrician supervised secondary care*. This difference* was even greater* among the cases that were referred from primary to secondary care during labour.​
This study conclusion arises solely from complications which arise and which are unexpected. When a complication arises and a midwife is not equipped to address it, then the risk of death increases significantly. Notice how the risk of death is even higher for the cases where the women are transferred during labor.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it has no predictive value and this entire decision process hinges on managing the risk of what is to come during labor.


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> Same thing on here, if I see some obviously false information I will usually speak up, but I don't feel like I am some how personally responsible for refuting every argument.


Speaking up means addressing the issue. You can't just claim that someone is writing false things and then shut-up when asked WHAT FALSE THINGS were written. You don't go up to a guy in the bar and call him a lying bastard and then REFUSE to tell him and everyone who witnessed your accusation the particular lie this bastard uttered.

All you're doing is smearing and name calling by implying that I'm a liar but not sharing with me the particular lie you think I've made.



> I still stand behind what I have said I just don't feel the need to argue with someone who is acting the way you are.


You're not standing behind anything other than your smear. I asked you to tell me what in particular you have in mind when you made the following accusation:

You have been using stats in ways that are not appropriate to the nature of the data, using studies that are not representative, ignoring causation vs correlation​
You say you stand behind your accusation but you're keeping the particulars of it top-secret. Just like the guy in the bar is a lying bastard but no one can be trusted to know what particular lie he uttered.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Sorry Bobbb but I don't feel I owe you an explanation at this point and I don't think anyone else really wants to hear it. I just feel bad for you at this point and see no reason to keep this going. I never called anyone a liar but you did make statements that were not truthful, you said 

"Keep in mind that you were the one who was confused about the historical infant mortality rate"
This was never even mentioned by me.

If someone else in "the bar" you speak of wanted me to clarify my "accusations" I might reconsider but I would really rather not waste any more time arguing with you on this.


----------



## lovetogrow

"My point is, or rather my question is, if the midwife could not prevent the hemorrhage, then wouldn't a hospital transfer be required even if an extremely competent midwife was there in place of this incompetent one?"

IF - yes absolutely.

"Your daughter was low risk, she took a gamble because she liked the odds, and she lost the gamble when she started hemorrhaging at home. Ultimately she didn't have to pay the price for losing the gamble she took because the physicians were there to save the day. That's good news."

Now now - the unstable variable in the mix was the incompetence of the Midwife so there was no gamble involved aside from the fact that this unknown (to DDI) variable even existed. Yes the good news is that there was sound physician care available to her. I reiterate - no painting with a broad brush nor condemning of those 'competent' Midwives who excel in their profession.

"If your daughter had faced a different medical emergency, then the transport time delay could have had critical importance, as noted in the earlier linked study:"

Of course, however fact is she did not, and it was not.

Reference this Current Study:

U.S. analysis on home birth risks seen as deeply flawed
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...h-risks-seen-as-deeply-flawed/article1374351/

Excerpt:
"A new study by U.S. researchers questions the safety of giving birth at home, suggesting that more babies die during home births than during hospital deliveries. But Canadian researchers, whose data were extracted and used in the study, say that conclusion is deeply flawed.
The meta-analysis of 15 studies, led by Joseph Wax of the Maine Medical Center's department of obstetrics and gynecology, found that giving birth at home tripled the risk of neonatal death. Patricia Janssen, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia's school of population and public health, says that conclusion is "sensationalist" and based on data that are in some cases decades old, on very small samples and in some cases incomplete.
In many cases, she says, women included in the studies may not have planned to give birth at home. They may not have been attended by a properly trained midwife. And much of the data used were retrospectively, gathered using birth records, which may not include enough information.
Dr. Janssen's most recent research, published last September, found no difference in outcomes between planned hospital births and planned home births. Similar results were found in an Ontario study.
The question of whether there's a higher risk of a baby dying during a planned home birth with a regulated midwife has been answered in Canada, she says.
"The question has not been answered in the United States."
...In the new meta-analysis, researchers looked at a total of 342,056 home births and 207,551 hospital births in Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain, Australia, Switzerland and Sweden."

Also see transport protocol in this handbook:

Handbook for Midwifery Clients
http://www.commercialdrivemidwives.com/uploads/file/HomebirthHandbook.pdf

K - I'm done with this excellent topic now :wave:


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> Sorry Bobbb but I don't feel I owe you an explanation at this point


Your cowardice is duly noted.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> Your cowardice is duly noted.


As was your rudeness!!!


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> Now now - the unstable variable in the mix was the incompetence of the Midwife so *there was no gamble* involved aside from the fact that this unknown (to DDI) variable even existed.


In your daughter's scenario there are two gambles in play. The first is the gamble on the competence of the midwife. If she had chosen a competent midwife then your daughter would have won that gamble. The other gamble has to do with her hemorrhage. Would a competent midwife have prevented the hemorrhage? No. Therefore this gamble stands apart from the other gamble on the midwife. Your daughter gambled that she would have no medical emergencies due to her low risk status. This gamble has nothing to do with the midwife or physician who attends her, it has to do with the unpredictability of giving birth. Some labors are uneventful in terms of complications and others are not. Prediction is not certainty and even low risk women can encounter complications. So yes, most certainly, there is gambling involved here.



> Of course, however fact is she did not, and it was not.


As I said, with the benefit of hindsight that decision worked out.



> Patricia Janssen, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia's school of population and public health, says that conclusion is "sensationalist" and based on data that are in some cases decades old, on very small samples and in some cases incomplete.


These are all very valid criticisms and in fact are of the same form that I've made in this thread and to which some people took offense at my noting reference to "ancient" data.

You do realize though that I didn't reference this study in support of my argument. The studies I referenced don't suffer from the limitations noted in Professor Janssen's criticism.


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> As was your rudeness!!!


I'm always open to a lesson from Miss Manners. If someone accuses you of lying and you ask them for details and they refuse to back up their accusation, a more polite person, you claim, would not call them a coward and would instead call them what?

The manners I was taught as a young man didn't count telling the truth as being rude. Perhaps you were raised differently.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> I'm always open to a lesson from Miss Manners. If someone accuses you of lying and you ask them for details and they refuse to back up their accusation, a more polite person, you claim, would not call them a coward and would instead call them what?
> 
> The manners I was taught as a young man didn't count telling the truth as being rude. Perhaps you were raised differently.


The truth as only you know it.

And with this ... I'm getting ready to wrap it up ...

Last call folks!!!


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> The question of whether there's a higher risk of a baby dying during a planned home birth with a regulated midwife has been answered in Canada, she says.


Oh brother, another advocate who is willing to twist the truth in order to advance her ideology.

From your link:

In 2002, Ms. Janssen was lead author of a study that concluded homebirthing is safe, but had to issue a public retraction of her conclusion because* she neglected to report the homebirth group in her study had 2 perinatal deaths, and the hospital group had none.*​
So why exactly should we accept her word as some impartial judge when she has demonstrated herself to be manipulating data on perinatal mortality in order to arrive at the "proper" conclusions?


----------



## lovetogrow

"These are all very valid criticisms and in fact are of the same form that I've made in this thread and to which some people took offense at my noting reference to "ancient" data."

K - Final Note Bobb:

U.S. analysis on home birth risks seen as deeply flawed
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...h-risks-seen-as-deeply-flawed/article1374351/

"Dr. Janssen's most recent research, published last September, found no difference in outcomes between planned hospital births and planned home births. ... In the new meta-analysis, researchers looked at a total of 342,056 home births and 207,551 hospital births in Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain, Australia, Switzerland and Sweden."

Not quite the same methinks and I referenced this article FYI as well. :wave:


----------



## Bobbb

What is the need to kill this thread? There is still useful information being added, the debate is flowing nicely. Why is there this aversion to disagreement on this board? There are people here who are disagreeing with each other. So what? We're quite likely to be agreeing with each other on other topics tomorrow. There is no need to run away from disagreement. 

Let this thread die a natural death as people just lose interest in it and allow it to be resurrected by some future commenters who have something new and interesting to add.


----------



## lovetogrow

Bobbb said:


> Oh brother, another advocate who is willing to twist the truth in order to advance her ideology.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> In 2002, Ms. Janssen was lead author of a study that concluded homebirthing is safe, but had to issue a public retraction of her conclusion because* she neglected to report the homebirth group in her study had 2 perinatal deaths, and the hospital group had none.*​
> So why exactly should we accept her word as some impartial judge when she has demonstrated herself to be manipulating data on perinatal mortality in order to arrive at the "proper" conclusions?


Not from my link. Provide link.


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> Not from my link. Provide link.


Yes, it's a direct quote from your link. It's noted in the comments.


----------



## lovetogrow

Bobbb said:


> Yes, it's a direct quote from your link. It's noted in the comments.


Aaannd how is it qualified in the comment as fact? If you are going to qualify this then provide that information please.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> What is the need to kill this thread? There is still useful information being added, the debate is flowing nicely. Why is there this aversion to disagreement on this board? There are people here who are disagreeing with each other. So what? We're quite likely to be agreeing with each other on other topics tomorrow. There is no need to run away from disagreement.
> 
> Let this thread die a natural death as people just lose interest in it and allow it to be resurrected by some future commenters who have something new and interesting to add.


Debate is always good (and I'm for it!) ... till the name calling starts and then it gets old rather fast ...


----------



## cowboyhermit

The concern is not about people disagreeing Bobbb, "the debate is flowing nicely" ? Hope to see you in reality again one day. Maybe you will figure out the difference between cowardice and not kicking the crazy guy throwing a tantrum in the corner.


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> Aaannd how is it qualified in the comment as fact? If you are going to qualify this then provide that information please.


You ask and you shall receive. Here is the entire kerfuffle playing out. Seven letters of criticism published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal and Janssen's response and retraction.

One letter published and written by a BC physician with access to the same information:

The interpretation section states that "there are no indications of increased risk associated with planned home birth." *This is dangerously misleading: rates for perinatal mortality and assisted ventilation were both higher in the home-birth population.*

Although the authors acknowledge that the rates of some adverse outcomes were too low to provide statistical comparisons, they still suggest no difference in adverse outcomes. Clearly, one preventable episode of perinatal mortality or requirement for assisted ventilation is one too many. Given that this study is not large enough to detect a clinically relevant difference in these major outcomes, *the authors have no basis to make this claim.*

Unfortunately, the claims have already made it into the popular press, with the CBC stating: "Home births with a midwife are as safe as births in a hospital with a doctor."* Once again, a medical publication has played a hand in misinforming the public. *​
Another letter:

This study1 contained significant biases. The groups were not like for like2,3,4,5 because members of the hospital specialist group were shorter, more likely to have had a previous cesarean section, weighed more and were less likely to be multiparous. Hence, they were more prone to dystocia than members of the home-birth group.

As well, comparisons were made for induction of labour and epidural/spinal analgesia, but these interventions are usually unavailable during home births.3 Are the authors implying that they are available at home in British Columbia? The overall transfer rate of about 22% was high. What were the major indications for transfer prepartum and intrapartum?

*This article is too biased to allow us to draw any meaningful comparisons between home and hospital births. Moreover, the conclusions are not justified by the evidence presented*​


----------



## lovetogrow

The link/article I provided was published in 2010, and concerned:

“The meta-analysis of 15 studies, led by Joseph Wax of the Maine Medical Center's department of obstetrics and gynecology, found that giving birth at home tripled the risk of neonatal death.”

The research in this regard I referenced was published in 2010

The letter you referenced is a critique of Dr Janssen’s article/study referenced in your link to the subject:
Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia


NOT the subject matter referred to in the link/article I provided

K - DONE NOW :lolsmash:


----------



## Bobbb

lovetogrow said:


> NOT the subject matter referred to in the link/article I provided


The point is that if the lay reader is expected to respect the authority of this professor and her opinion on this subject, then the professor shouldn't have a documented history of doing sloppy research and manipulating data in order to arrive at the conclusion she wants to arrive at. Her declarative statement on the safety of home birth now is no different than jeremiyah's. She has shown herself to be an advocate with a disdain for truth instead of an impartial observer.



> K - DONE NOW :lolsmash:


----------



## *Andi

Sorry Bobbb ... you have fuzzy math ...

I was tell hubby about this thread and he ask me how it added up with my family history. (Which is a good point ... plus I love the person on the outside looking in with new info.)

I have been doing a family history search for the past ten years. I have made it back to Ireland and the 1690s, along with England and the early 
1700s ... Babies born in the back of a wagon, on a ship and in a cabin on the top a mountain... but they and their mother made it! How could that is so with your stats ??? 

But with over 1500 family members logged on my tree, I have 0 numbers of mother lost in birth... With your stats that is rather odd! (is it not)

Numbers of children lost before they were 30 days old? 3, all girls ... 1812 daughter lost after 3 days ... 1886 daughter lost after 30 days ... 1969 daughter lost (stillborn twin other twin made it and has three kids of her own)

My tree also shows some data like the 1918 flu pandemic ... it hit one side of the mountain rather hard. And yet another date 1862 ta 65 ... care to make a guess...

Like I have posted before ... your stats are only as good as the info used...


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> Sorry Bobbb ... you have fuzzy math ...
> 
> I was tell hubby about this thread and he ask me how it added up with my family history. (Which is a good point ... plus I love the person on the outside looking in with new info.)
> 
> I have been doing a family history search for the past ten years. I have made it back to Ireland and the 1690s, along with England and the early
> 1700s ... Babies born in the back of a wagon, on a ship and in a cabin on the top a mountain... but they and their mother made it! How could that is so with your stats ???
> 
> But with over 1500 family members logged on my tree, I have 0 numbers of mother lost in birth... With your stats that is rather odd! (is it not)
> 
> Numbers of children lost before they were 30 days old? 3, all girls ... 1812 daughter lost after 3 days ... 1886 daughter lost after 30 days ... 1969 daughter lost (stillborn twin other twin made it and has three kids of her own)
> 
> My tree also shows some data like the 1918 flu pandemic ... it hit one side of the mountain rather hard. And yet another date 1862 ta 65 ... care to make a guess...
> 
> Like I have posted before ... your stats are only as good as the info used...


Two issues.

#1: My math is not fuzzy.
#2: I think that it's terrific you have such a family history and it's additionally terrific that you can go back so far in your family history to get such details. However, what has happened in your family's history is not generalizable to the population at large and right in this very thread you've heard from people who recounted their own stories of difficult labor which put their baby at risk. These accounts directly invalidate the line of argument that you're trying to advance, which is that your family history is applicable to all of humanity.


----------



## lovetogrow

K - K -

First, the 'retraction' that Dr. Janssen supposedly made is nothing less than the spin doctors (pun intended) spinning her response to their 7 holy letters, and it was posted on a Blog site that advocates for 'physician assisted only birthing'.

http://homebirthdeathstatistics.blogspot.ca/2012/07/janssen-retracts-conclusion-of-her-2002.html

Next, for any woman who is looking to make a decision regarding home birth, get as much information as you can, find the best qualified Midwife you can and if ANY Dr. is adamant that you should never consider home birth with a qualified Midwife, rest assured that physician is politically motivated by the almighty dollar imho.

Finally, Bobb you have some research skills, but a statistician you are not (nor am I). Sorry bud but I gotta say your communication skills need to improve, and I'm not suggesting you compromise your 'integrity', just be polite otherwise you shut down any discourse that could be helpful in the process.

Peace and thank you Jeremiyah and all for the helpful information provided in this topic.


----------



## *Andi

Bobbb said:


> Two issues.
> 
> #1: My math is not fuzzy.
> #2: I think that it's terrific you have such a family history and it's additionally terrific that you can go back so far in your family history to get such details. However, what has happened in your family's history is not generalizable to the population at large and right in this very thread you've heard from people who recounted their own stories of difficult labor which put their baby at risk. These accounts directly invalidate the line of argument that you're trying to advance, which is that your family history is applicable to all of humanity.


When math dose not add up it is fuzzy ... and using my history it is way off base ...

But that is the point Bobbb... my family history and your stats do not go together ... not at all...

How can that be???

Your post stats that show that my family should have lost X amount of mothers and children lost ...when they were not?????? 

How could that be ???


----------



## Bobbb

*Andi said:


> When math dose not add up it is fuzzy ... and using my history it is way off base ...
> 
> But that is the point Bobbb... my family history and your stats do not go together ... not at all...
> 
> How can that be???


Statistical evidence shows that men are more violent against their partners than women. If you family history shows that the men in your family never beat their wives, that doesn't mean that the evidence all around the world that men are more violent towards their women than women are violent towards their men is wrong.

Probability deals with distributions. Absent very specific information the best thing to do is to work with probabilities for we know that the outcomes will fall on X number of people in that sample, we just can't say which people.

What you present about family history is very useful information. This improves the odds for you that you won't have complications. Let's work with the 1:698 odds of death from home birth I noted above. Your odds may be pushed back to 1:1,100 but they'll never be pushed back to the point where there is no risk of your baby dying and you don't get that in hospitals either. Now, because you have this family history and we have strong reason to suspect that what we're dealing with here is a heritable trait, to some degree, this means that in the sample pool of all women some will be like you, have good odds, and for the odds for all women to be at 1:698 it follows that other women will have worse odds.

At the end of the day though you're still left with this gamble - if something goes wrong during delivery and you or your baby need medical attention RIGHT NOW having the baby at home means that you've lost the bet you've made because that medical attention is 20 minutes away by ambulance.


----------



## jeremiyah

lovetogrow said:


> What we need here is a symbol that depicts beating a dead horse.
> 
> What could be a very helpful topic with information to assist in making informed decisions has devolved into convoluted argumentativeness because of an insatiable need to BE right. It's a pattern of behavior, and if one continues to feed the argument the need becomes even greater to BE right.
> 
> Let it go, post helpful information, and ignore the B.S. - don't take the bait


Ignore the school yard bully, he gets bored & goes away. Right, Normally, I do that.
I have said on another forum that I am not being paid to try to help people, and have no need to do this to help my own situation; that I am not being paid to babysit, and I sure do not have time to argue with idiots. That is what makes this a very positive challenge for several of us. Bobbb may be overly aggressive, absurdly prideful, terribly condescending, far too insulting, and extremely snide, caustic, skeptical, whatever words fit in here as to the many insulted, demeaned, and castigated people....but other than the lamentable single -focus mentality, Bobbb is not an idiot. So we all can learn...well, OKAY, most of us can learn something.


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> Bobbb may be overly aggressive, absurdly prideful, terribly condescending, far too insulting, and extremely snide, caustic, skeptical, whatever words fit in here as to the many insulted, demeaned, and castigated people....but other than the lamentable single -focus mentality, Bobbb is not an idiot.


My heart is warmed by all of these kind, loving words but, while I'm blushing, I should also point out that they're about ME and not the points I raised, the arguments I advanced or the evidence I presented. This isn't about me.


----------



## jeremiyah

Bobbb said:


> What is the need to kill this thread? There is still useful information being added, the debate is flowing nicely. Why is there this aversion to disagreement on this board? There are people here who are disagreeing with each other. So what? We're quite likely to be agreeing with each other on other topics tomorrow. There is no need to run away from disagreement.
> 
> Let this thread die a natural death as people just lose interest in it and allow it to be resurrected by some future commenters who have something new and interesting to add.


Finally!!! I could like one of Bobbb's posts.:2thumb: 
However, Andi is right, "flowing nicely" is not the appropriate turn of phrase, considering the nastiness Bobbb has displayed to so many people,
but there *is* good info being presented, and a huge amount that can yet be presented.

This would especially be true if only Bobbb would deal with the hard core reality of the dangers of medical intervention that all too often affect the safety of the birthing process in hospitals.

He says over & over that it is safer to birth in the hospital. That is true for many people. As many have said; to each his own, etc. 
BUT!!! what about the mother who plans a hospital birth, gets an epidural, and has "complications," or contracts MRSA, VRE and dies, or whose baby dies from vaccination, or who is told "we need to induce; we are going to give you Cytotec..." and she loses both her first baby, and her uterus, thus in essence, killing every one of the babies she might have someday had, -whether two or twelve.
So...Bobbb needs to get past the Mantra that he is right and that everybody else who disagrees with him -on anything at all - is stupid and wrong, or dishonest and wrong, or...a coward and wrong....
So...Bobbb, deal with reality here, please. These following issues severely cloud your rose colored, warm fuzzy perspective.

Deal with these issues:

1. Iatrogenic Diseases -many and varied...
2. Specifically, Super-Bugs -MRSA, VRE, etc, etc, etc 
3. Unnecessary & dangerous C-Sections (increased hemorrhage) 
There are studies on this which indicate that the rising maternal mortality rate in the US is due to this.
4. Epidurals 
5. Cytotec -see a former post-and a following post -this stuff is nasty!!!
6. Vaccination -many baby deaths and autism (changing diapers on a 19 year old boy with a 1 year old brain, is not an enjoyable experience) 
7. "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" -this is the biggest line of ******** likely in the history of the Medical / Pharmaceutical Cartel industry. 
How many babies have died from "SIDS?" I know three families who lost babies -diagnosed as "SIDS" -by the same doctors -the same doctors who just a day or two prior, had given them a vaccine shot full of the most toxic and dangerous and unstable substances on the periodic table...listed by the EPA as hazmats...
8. Social Services intervention
9. Many more when those are addressed...................................

-People, if Bobbb refuses to address these related issues, do your future children a huge favor, and do your own research, and draw your own conclusions.
-At least be informed and aware of the issues and possible dangers so you can minimize the risks.

As to the thread and possibly ending it, I want to say that I have been on a much smaller forum right before getting on here. What rules were on that one were: there are no rules. Trolls, paid shills, etc, you just gotta deal with them. (these are men 99% of the time, and these men seem to always hammer on women. They threaten or mock men who give the slightest appearance of agreeing with the women they are splattering on (they call it rescuing maidens -as if that is an evil thing) Anyway, There is no moderation on said forum. 
So, point being, as far as being clear on forum niceties, traditions, etc, I am fuzzy on; I admit it. Sorry and all that....

That being said, I want to point out that It is in conflict that we become more effective communicators and thinkers. Iron rubbing on iron makes the blade sharper, and all that.

Another way to say it is that when there is incorrect information -heresy, if you will -in the ensuing debate, discussion, etc, many people can read both sides, (about 2000 views on this thread already) and determine who is sincere, who is a real person, who cares about people, who is honest, who is fair, who is honorable in their dealings with others, -in short, -who is wise, and who is generally approved to be entrusted to present truth, and encouragement, and hope for a way to face the future.

One of the greatest sayings I have heard applies to this discussion and it is this:
*
"He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. 
He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him. 
He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him. 
He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him."*

I will admit that I am new to this forum and new to the idea that each and every thread has some kind of professional debate restrictions to it. We can start another thread with a more general title if need be if people are so bent out of shape about it. Personally, considering the excrement I have read on other threads, even on this forum, I think we have done very well here.
However, it was made clear that the purpose of this thread was supplementary to the Midwife Kit thread and that it is about preparing for changes coming at us; once again, even Bobbb acknowledged that understanding.

I have read a lot of insanity & filth on this forum overall, and a lot of extremely terrible and disgusting language, etc. In contrast, this thread has been very productive, has been relatively respectful, clean, and mature, and has even gotten at least one vote for THREAD OF THE YEAR from Drfacefixer:wave:.

So I am thankful for everyone who participated so far -including, and especially Bobbb. Like I said earlier, had it not been for him, a lot of this would have perhaps not have happened...but it really has been very good overall.

If Bobbb would take a break -for himself especially -and come back with a bigger picture and less of a need to attack everybody who points out problems with his facts, statements, etc, that would be very helpful.

But I would like to continue the discussion as there are many people reading it, and it will be there in the records for future readers who may desperately need the information and ideas presented here to work through and evaluate the terms, studies, stats, of the conditions, dangers, etc from the various viewpoints.

I understand Bobbb's frustrations. He is, from his viewpoint, pretty much on the whole, dealing with idiots and "uneducated" bumpkins...but guess what? A huge percentage of the population of this nation are on a par with the people who are participating on this thread

I can apologize to Bobbb for not being on his educational level. I am sorry Bobbb; there, I said it; I am not a debater, I am not a statistician, I am not a logician, and I am not a sophist.

However, I am also not the idiot you take me to be, nor are the other people that you have demeaned, insulted, etc. 
We are awake to dangers, we are on this forum to learn about problems, dangers, and we are doing what we can to be ready for them.
A rapidly growing number of preppers & survivalists are finally beginning to understand that we must help each other. We must be there for support, etc.
It would be good to see you come to that understanding -as I said before -to begin helping people, instead of treating everyone like an enemy.
You seem to think this is a fight between you and anybody who disagrees with you on anything at all, 
and that this is a debate that you intend to win, no matter what it takes. 
The ends justify the means, and the highest good is Bobbb's opinion and reputation. 
I truly hope that you can come out of this discussion not only as a better informed person, but in reality, a better person than you are coming across as;
you are doing your reputation no favors, Bobbb, and you are doing yourself no favors, and it would be wise to take a breather before you quack up.

Sincerely,

jeremiyah


----------



## Bobbb

jeremiyah said:


> However, Andi is right, "flowing nicely" is not the appropriate turn of phrase, considering the nastiness Bobbb has displayed to so many people


What nastiness? I haven't been nasty, I've just been holding people accountable for their views, asking them to defend their position in light of reality. That I'm making them feel badly about themselves for gambling with the life of their baby doesn't make me nasty, it just highlights to these people that their own personal feelings about home birth were more important to them than the life and welfare of their baby. That's an awful realization to have, especially when it's pointed out to you on an internet forum and it's more painful still when you can't find an excuse to justify your behavior. The result of this realization is that you want to shoot the messenger, hence people thinking I'm being nasty.

Look, this dynamic isn't restricted to just child birth, it happens whenever someone holds a position on a topic that they thought they arrived at logically and they find out that they've been emotional and illogical in their thinking. When that's pointed out to them, they don't like it, they feel insulted, they feel demeaned. The thing is though, the person pointing it out isn't insulting them nor demeaning them, he's just pointing out the folly of their decision. The feelings of inadequacy arise solely within the person and they then tend to lash out.

Lastly, you're doing it again. It's not about me, it's about the real world and the facts that play out there.



> This would especially be true if only Bobbb would deal with the hard core reality of the dangers of medical intervention that all too often affect the safety of the birthing process in hospitals.


It's not sufficient for you to just SAY this and not prove it. Post statistical evidence on the perinatal mortality rate due SOLELY to medical intervention in a hospital. Post accounts of pregnant women in distress during labor who were rushed out of dangerous hospitals to safely give birth in their home because their home was a safer place to be than a hospital while having a complication arise during labor.



> He says over & over that it is safer to birth in the hospital. That is true for many people. As many have said; to each his own, etc.


Of course it's true for many people, the trick is to know beforehand if you're one of the many people or not. No one has such predictive power at their disposal. Look at the real world evidence. LOW RISK women giving birth at home have a higher perinatal mortality rate than HIGH RISK women giving birth in the hospital. Those low risk women didn't know beforehand which of them would have an uneventful birth and which ones would face complications which resulted in their babies dying. Meanwhile the high risk women have a better chance of having a living baby at the end of the delivery process. These high risk women have given their babies the best chance of living while the low risk women thought of themselves and their experience of giving birth in a comfortable setting, by candlelight, with their loved ones near them, and the welfare of the baby they are delivering is not considered as important.



> BUT!!! what about the mother who plans a hospital birth, gets an epidural, and has "complications," or contracts MRSA, VRE and dies, or whose baby dies from vaccination, or who is told "we need to induce; we are going to give you Cytotec..." and she loses both her first baby, and her uterus, thus in essence, killing every one of the babies she might have someday had, -whether two or twelve.


Yeah, what about her. It's a sad story. The question is though how the numbers compare, the prevalence of such outcomes. People buy lottery tickets, some people win the lottery, people get hit by lightening. Rare events do happen. There is no way you can twist reality to show that your scare story has a greater chance of happening than bad outcomes during home birth because the evidence on perinatal mortality doesn't show it. There is NOT a never ending stream of women who've suffered the fate that you paint in your scare story.



> So...Bobbb needs to get past the Mantra that he is right and that everybody else who disagrees with him -on anything at all - is stupid and wrong, or dishonest and wrong, or...a coward and wrong....


Which is the best flavor of ice cream? Chocolate or vanilla? There is no correct or incorrect answer to such a question. The answer here is a subjective opinion.

Which is a safer way of giving birth, at home or in a hospital. The answer is at a hospital. This is an objective fact.

Everyone can be right and no one can be wrong when we deal with subjective issues, but there is only one right answer to objective issues, you know, just like a math test where 2+2=5 is incorrect and there is nothing rude about telling people that they are incorrect when they claim that 5 is the answer.

As for cowardice charge, there too there is nothing untoward about pointing out to everyone that a person has acted in a cowardly fashion. If they come into a conversation to level a charge at you and *you ask them for the particulars of the charge and then they refuse to give you any details*, then they are not willing to back up the charge, the insult, that they've leveled at you. I've shown repeatedly throughout this thread that I will engage with criticism directed at my positions. I do so with you all the time. If someone claims that I'm misusing evidence and I ask what in particular they mean then they have nothing to fear from me, other than their being wrong, from detailing what the issue they have. What I suspect happened is that CowboyHermit picked up some "sciency" lingo somewhere and tossed it out at me but he couldn't actually back up his accusations and now he was trapped. I'm completely happy to hold his feet to the fire because he directed bad behavior towards me - he made a public accusation that I was lying in furtherance of my argument. That's bad mojo. The funny thing here is that the moderators don't seem to mind people calling other people liars in an indirect manner but they do mind when the accused tries to hold the accuser accountable for the accusation that was leveled.



> Deal with these issues:


No. These are red herrings that you're tossing out and they have nothing to do with the perinantal mortalilty outcomes. I'm not saying that these are non-issues but simply because they exist to some degree or another doesn't imply that your faith-based vision of home birth now becomes safer than hospital birth. These certainly are risks but the bad outcomes which result from losing these gambles are rarely as disastrous as the bad outcomes which result from losing the gamble of birthing at home.

Lastly, most of us are parents and we've seen this tactic from our kids. When they are called to account they try desperately to confuse the issue, to throw anything and everything at the wall and hope that something sticks and thus distracts the parents from the issue for which the parent is calling the child to account. If we as parents can see through this tactic when kids roll it out then we should also try to refrain from pulling the same shenanigan in a debate against other adults.



> At least be informed and aware of the issues and possible dangers so you can minimize the risks.


I have no problem with this advice. Understanding of the real world and the risks out there is always a good place to be. When people do research this issue they'll find the incidence rate to be low, the mortality rate arising from these factors to be low and when compared to home birth outcomes these issues will be less threatening. They still exist, but like a lottery, the chances of hitting the reverse jackpot here are more remote than the chances of hitting the reverse jackpot in a home birth and having your baby die on you.



> If Bobbb would take a break -for himself especially -and come back with a bigger picture and less of a need to attack everybody who points out problems with his facts, statements, etc, that would be very helpful.


I've seen people in this thread TRY to point out problems with my arguments but their efforts have failed when I pointed out to them the flaws in their criticism. I'm not defending indefensible positions here. I have reality on my side. The world DOES work as I claim it works. Women are not rushed OUT OF HOSPITALS to their safe homes when they are facing complications during delivery.

I have no problem with people trying to undermine my position, keep trying everyone, but don't delude yourself into thinking that I'm attacking and lashing out at you when I don't accept your flawed criticisms, and when I show you how your criticisms are flawed, because I'm not, I'm not angry, I'm not raving, I'm just aggressive in not letting false information draw a breath of life.



> I understand Bobbb's frustrations. He is, from his viewpoint, pretty much on the whole, dealing with idiots and "uneducated" bumpkins...but guess what? A huge percentage of the population of this nation are on a par with the people who are participating on this thread


I don't think you do understand my position. I'm not looking down on anyone. I'm not ridiculing anyone for their lack of understanding on some issue. I try to explain, adult to adult, with respect, some of the issues that I'm raising. Now this may come off as talking down to those who already know about the basics but I'm in an awkward place here - I don't know everyone's background and when I see people writing their posts based on a misunderstanding of some issues I want to remedy the misunderstanding and the best way to do that is to hit on the basic principles in play.


----------



## *Andi

And that's all folks!!!


----------

