Results 46 to 50 of 55
July 11th, 2013 01:05 PM #46
As a student midwife it would be interesting to see what the stats are like for the UK where I am training. From the research I have read applying to the UK, low risk women are more likely to have a good outcome at home or in a a midwifery led unit than in a obstetric led unit. However, high risk women have much better outcomes with obstetricians present. Our system in the UK allows easy access to homebirth on the NHS and as such there are probably better provisions for transfer to hospital if required than in the US. Also here all midwives are trained to the same high degree standard and have to undertake continuing professional development throughout their careers, leading to safer maternity care. Or at least that's the idea!Name lover
Lilith Vesper - Francesca Lark - Viola Kathryn - Azalea Coralie
Zachary James - Alexander Michael/Charlie - Tristan George
M: Banjo, Chewbacca
F: Kairi, Pika
Uni: Bantha, Domino, Tadpole
My blog: http://thereviewinators.wordpress.com/
July 11th, 2013 01:41 PM #48Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Midwest, US
Ever had a chiropractic adjustment or acupuncture?) If I need to refer someone out, I'm happy to do that, but I prefer to keep interventions as natural as possible - as do most of my patients, which is why they choose to come to me. There are chiros that eschew medical intervention entirely, and I assure you I am not one of them. Also, because I focus on natural fertility and pregnancy, many drugs would be contraindicated anyway.
Some chiropractors do specialize. There are diplomate programs we can pursue for post-graduate work. I'm about 1/3 done with my acupuncture and oriental medicine diplomate and I've considered also doing the nutrition and internal medicine diplomates, but that will be for the future. I've taken a few of the courses already for them, but between starting my own practice and raising my family, I have not currently had the time.
And I don't mean to come off quite so defensive, but please understand that I have come under fire for both my chosen profession and my choice in birth location both online and in real life more than once (and from my own family) and I tend to get a touchy knee-jerk reaction. I know I'm outnumbered in my views and maybe I should just stick to the name boardsMom to Sylvia Caron and Linus Roman
Ladies: Fiala Joan · Alma · Miriam · Claudia · Tabitha · Helena · Linnea · Vivian
Gents: Jasper Simon · Arthur · Simon · Desmond · Theodore · Malcolm · Dexter · Phillip
Guilty Pleasures: Lyric · Echo · Hero · Juno/Juniper · Lark · Wren · Zephyr · Vesper · Loki · Kyrie
July 11th, 2013 02:18 PM #50Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Flyover Territory
I'm sympathetic to women who choose alternative forms of birth. I considered it myself, but decided against. I respect the MW profession and hope that it gets more positive attention, along with better regulation. I don't think you need to stick to the name boards, but I do think that people were only reacting to your knee-jerk, not your opinionsTara, proud mama to a Honey Badger
... and a Badger in Training
July 11th, 2013 03:59 PM #52
Having read the paper, I don't think the presentation of the study was unbiased at all. The decision to post it in the first place seemed quite odd. I would never make my decision about where to birth based on one study alone. Acting as if one study (that doesn't even control for high/low risk or quality of care provider) definitively concludes homebirth is dangerous seems very excitable to say the least. As other posters have mentioned, there are other studies showing that homebirth IS safe for low risk mothers.Mother to miss Mila Arden and her brand new brother, Cato Bennett
July 11th, 2013 09:15 PM #54Junior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
This is an excellent piece of research that shows several things.
1. How flawed the statistics are in the united states.
2. How far behind the United States is comapared to other countries where a midwifery model and homebirth option have long been a standard of care
3. How lacking the knowledge is and ability for the general American public to understand what SAFE homebirth really does mean.
First off. MOST homebirths in the United state which are LOW RISK, PLANNED, and are ATTENDED by a certified midwife have very low transfer rates (usually under 6%). And most transfers actually occur before labor ever begins.. The data analysis is collecting far too many types of "out of hospital births" and not gathering known safe homebirth compared to it's counterparts in the hospital. It would be better to look at low risk, planned homebirths, attended by CPM's and CNM's and eliminate ALL lay, direct entry, accidental and unassisted births completely out of the picture - but that is not what is stated. Also, the terminology here clearly indicates that the understanding of homebirth attendants is not accurately represented. Birth center births are NOT the sole domain of a CPM (actually quite the opposite) and CNM are found practicing many many homebirths. Also clearly Someone doesn't understand the distinction between a "lay," "direct entry/traditional midwife," a"CPM - Certified Professional Midwife," and lastly a CNM - Certified Nurse Midwife"
In the united state we continue to out spend EVERY nation in the World, and yet we have very high prematurity rates and an abdominal record on maternal mortality )remembering - of these "terrible homebirth options - they only account for 1%). The "research" analysis - it's not a study is a list of stats based on flawed information gathering and distinction. It would be FAR wiser to look to European and Australian statistics where they have long upheld a midwifery model and SAFE homebirth practices.
I am so curious as to WHY someone would attack homebirth (as seems to be happening in this thread) vs creating optimal and safe options for women? Wouldn't time be best spent stopping elective inductions? elective C-sections? FORCED C-sections due to VBAC bans, forced C-sections due to breech? It's always interesting to me that people get all uncomfortable with homebirth. Wouldn't a study or examination comparing a; low risk, healthy, full term pregnancy, with a certified birth attendant, spontaneous un medicated, non augmented labor of having a healthy mother and baby outcome and VERY VERY different than being at a hospital with the typical average widespread use of intervention (from IV's and fetal monitoring, routine Pitocin usage, epidurals ect) be a really neat thing to see. The problem is nearly every laboring woman gets at least one (although most get at least 5). That's because natural birth doesn't actually occur at a hospital. Only very rarely when a mom walks through the door and delivers in the hallway does that really exist.
The state of birth in the United States is very sad. We need more midwives and need to adopt a midwifery model for low risk pregnancies and stop turning a normal physiological process into a mountain of intervention. The United States does not practice evidence based medicine. It is a litigation based system structured around surgeons.
Dissuading women from choosing homebirth is NOT the answer. Helping women understand what SAFE homebirth looks like, eliminating transfer problems and women going un-assisted and choosing non qualified birth attendants because laws and hospitals create blockades against SAFE homebirth is the real answer.
Big thumbs down to this "research" which is really a FLAWED review of miscollected data. This is not research!