Results 6 to 10 of 54
July 6th, 2013 10:16 PM #6
Thanks for the information, Blade. Personally, I'm a fan of natural deliveries and pain-free labour (in theory, anyway. Maybe I'll change my mind when I'm actually in labour!). However, I realise there are a huge number of risks in delivering a baby at home, which is why I'd never choose a homebirth over a hospital birth. When I go into labour, I will try to go as "natural" as possible in a hospital setting, but remain open to the notion that medical intervention may be necessary at some point. In general, I think homebirths are a bad idea. I think sometimes people forget what having a baby was like in the days before modern medicine could assist us.First baby due June 20, 2016
Audrey - Beatrix - Clara - Daphne - Jane - Margaret - Susannah - Violet
August - Barnaby - Edward - Frederick - Henry - Rupert - Theodore - Walter
July 6th, 2013 10:40 PM #8Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Flyover Territory
Based on the numbers, it looks like we need more nurse midwives doing in-hospital births.Tara, proud mama to a Honey Badger
... and a Badger in Training
July 7th, 2013 10:18 AM #10
Very interesting and important data.
I have one question though. Is this including c-sections/ emergency c-sections as well? I was just thinking that if c-sections were NOT counted, then maybe there were more hospital births that would have had low apgars or whatever, but actually ended up as c-sections rather than being naturally delivered (and thus excluded from the hospital data, whereas at a birthing center or home, c-section is much less likely meaning those low apgar scores would be counted in the data).
No value judgement here, I had my kiddo in the hospital with a midwife. Just musing.Melissa, Mama to Oscar Leopold.
Little Sparkler coming next July.
July 7th, 2013 11:13 AM #12Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- London, England
Interesting, I think, but I am very bad with numbers so not sure how much I actually understood...
I hope I can have a home birth with this baby, and my doctor told me as long as it's not your first baby, giving birth at home is just as safe as doing it in the hospital. Here in England your midwife will come and be with you during the birth though, and you will be strongly advised against home births if it's your first baby or there's anything that could cause complications. But I guess these things are different?My darling Marian Illyria Aphrodite, March 2013 & Little Bunny (a girl!) due 9th of February 2014
July 7th, 2013 11:53 AM #14Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
My husband's cousin has 8 kids, and the last 6 were born at home. She has had no problems. But I have another friend who tried to have a home birth with #1 and ended up being rushed to the hospital when it was discovered at the last minute that the cord was prolapsed. Baby was without oxygen for nearly 10 minutes and suffered permanent brain damage. That is enough to make me glad that I have always chosen a hospital birth. I have many friends who advocate home birth and are constantly citing statistics which show higher maternal mortality rates in the hospital, but I suspect (like you mentioned, blade) that this also includes all of the home birth mothers who had complications and were rushed to the hospital to try to save them.Mom to Alexander Patrick (11), Madelyn Esther (8), Genevieve Susan (3), and Theodore James (stillborn at 37 weeks on February 3, 2014). Expecting #5 (a girl) in May 2015 -- Penelope Bridget.
Boys: Everett, Sebastian, Augustus, Samuel, Julian, Nicholas, Desmond, Jasper, Ezekiel, Malcolm
Girls: Bridget, Felicity, Elizabeth, Penelope, Leona, Ophelia, Elodie, Callista, Miriam, Delilah