Homebirth

Homebirth

Today America leads the world in medical technology, but they trail 27 countries for infant deaths. Unfortunately, the public in general continues to believe that the only safe place to give birth is in the hospital. All Americans need to do is take a look at these other 27 countries to see what they do different, and it is not more medical techniques or interventions. It would be found that these countries have a high percentage of homebirth/nonintervention birth. The truth is that the hospital fails to offer the environment needed for the safest birth outcome. A woman's body is specifically created to give birth; it is a part of her normal bodily functions, and should not be considered a physical problem or medical emergency. For the vast majority of women, childbirth is neither an emergency nor an illness, indicating there is no need for medical intervention.The safety of homebirth is well documented, although the vast majority of the public has never seen any of the information. Medical corporations do not profit by presenting the information. In most cases, homebirth is as safe, usually safer, than subjecting yourself to a hospital birth. Below are only a few quotations and citations. There is with a wealth of knowledge to find, you are encouraged to research the safety of home birth further, until you are confident that you know the truth, then you can be well informed to make your own decisions. Some very helpful sites are included on the resources page.Presented on October 20, 1976 before the 104th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association:So far, the largest and most complete study on the comparison of hospital birth outcomes to that of homebirth outcomes was done by Dr. Lewis Mehl and associates in 1976. In the study, 1046 homebirths were compared with 1046 hospital births of equivalent populations in the United States. For each home-birth patient, a hospital-birth patient was matched for age, length of gestation, parity (number of pregnancies), risk factor score, education and socio-economic status, race, presentation of the baby and individual major risk factors. The homebirth population also had trained attendants and prenatal care.The results of this study showed a three times greater likelihood of cesarean operation if a woman gave birth in a hospital instead of at home with the hospital standing by. The hospital population revealed twenty times more use of forceps, twice as much use of oxytocin to accelerate or induce labor, greater incidence of episiotomy (while at the same time having more severe tears in need of major repair). The hospital group showed six times more infant distress in labor, five times more cases of maternal high blood pressure, and three times greater incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. There was four times more infection among the newborn; three times more babies that needed help to begin breathing. While the hospital group had thirty cases of birth injuries, including skull fractures, facial nerve palsies, brachial nerve injuries and severe cephalohematomas, there were no such injuries at home.The infant death rate of the study was low in both cases and essentially the same. There were no maternal deaths for either home or hospital. The main differences were in the significant improvement of the mother's and baby's health if the couple planned a homebirth, and this was true despite the fact that the homebirth statistics of the study included those who began labor at home but ultimately needed to be transferred to the hospital.("Home Birth Versus Hospital Birth: Comparisons of Outcomes of Matched Populations," Dr. Lewis Mehl. Presented on October 20, 1976 before the 104th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. For further information contact the Institute for Childbirth and Family Research, 2522 Dana St., Suite 201, Berkeley, CA 94704)"It is important to clarify that safety is measured by death (mortality) or illness (morbidity) during the labor and birth process and shortly thereafter. The United States has consistently high maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity rates compared to other industrialized countries. In 1990 the United States was ranked twenty-third by the Population Reference Bureau, which publishes the mortality and morbidity statistics. This means that there are twenty-two other countries where it is safer for women to give birth than in the United States."("Gentle Birth Choices," Barbara Harper, R.N. . Rochester, Vermont: Healing Arts Press, 1994. Page 52.)"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 homebirths was 1.9 per 1,000 compared with the doctors' rate of 5.7 per 1,000."Berstein & Bryant, Texas Lay Midwifery Program, Six Year Report, 1983-1989. Appendix VIIIf. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Health.)Records kept from 1969-73 in England and Wales indicate still birth rates of 4.5 per 1000 births for home deliveries as opposed to 14.8 per 1000 births for hospital deliveries. ("The Place of Birth", Sheila Kitzinger & John Davis, eds., 1978 Oxford University Press, pp. 62-63)"Every study that has compared midwives and obstetricians has found better outcomes for midwives for same-risk patients. In some studies, midwives actually served higher risk populations than the physicians and still obtained lower mortalities and morbidities. The superiority and safety of midwifery for most women no longer needs to be proven. It has been well established." ("The Future of Midwifery in the United States," Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.30)"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)."("Birth in Four Cultures: A Crosscultural Investigation of Childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden, and the United States," Brigitte Jordan, Revised and expanded by Robbie Davis-Floyd, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 1993 (Fourth Edition). Page 48. )"The British and American experience, now powerfully supported by the Dutch results, tells us convincingly that homebirth and midwives are indeed 'safer than we thought.' Together they offer the safest option. The danger of home as a place of birth does not lie in its threat to the healthy survival of mothers and babies, but in its threat to the healthy survival of obstetricians and obstetric practice."("A Good Birth, a Safe Birth", Diana Korte & Roberta Scaer: Harvard Common Press, 1995)"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. . .[O]ver and over again, throughout history, the data shows that when doctors displace midwives, outcomes get worse." ("The Five Standards of Safe Childbearing," David Stewart, PhD. (Editor), Marble Hill, MO: NAPSAC Reproductions, 1982, 1997.)"In The five European countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, midwives preside at more than 70 percent of all births. More than half of all Dutch babies are born at home with midwives in attendance, and Holland's maternal and infant mortality rates are far lower than in the United States..." ("Midwives Still Hassled by Medical Establishment," Caroline Hall Otis, Utne Reader, Nov./Dec. 1990, pp. 32-34)"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."("International Infant Mortality Rates--U.S. in 22nd Place," David Stewart, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, pages 36, 38.)"Most of American obstetric practice in hospitals is not based on science but on myth. What obstetricians do may be the utmost in high-tech, but it is not true science. What you don't know about modern medicine can hurt you and your baby, perhaps permanently."(David Stewart, PhD., in the foreword of Janet Tipton's Is Homebirth for You? 6 Myths About Childbirth Exposed. Big Sandy, TX: Friends of Homebirth, 1990. {http://www.gentlebirth.org/format/myths.html} David Stewart is the Executive Director of the National Association of Parents and Professionals for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth.)Tew M. Place of birth and perinatal mortality. J R coll Gen Pract 1985; 35(277): 390-394.Using the raw perinatal mortality rates (PMR) from a 1970 British national survey, the hospital PMR was 27.8 per 1000 births versus 5.4 per 1000 for homebirths/general practitioner units (GPU). This was not because hospitals handled more high-risk births. When PMRs were standardized based on age, parity, hypertension/toxemia, prenatal risk prediction score, method of delivery and birth weight, adjusted hospital PMRs for each category ranged from 22.7 per 1000 to 27.8 per 1000 while homebirth/GPU rates ranged from 5.4 per 1000 to 10.5 per 1000.The 1970 survey assigned a prenatal risk score to predict the likelihood of problems during labor. When PMRs for hospital versus home/GPU for the same level of risk (very low, low, moderate, high, very high) are compared, the hospital PMR was lower only at the very highest risk level. All differences, except in the "very high risk" category, were significant. The PMR for high-risk births in home/GPUs (15.5/1000) was slightly lower than that for low-risk births in the hospital (17.9/1000). Moreover, the PMRs in home/GPUs for very low, low, and moderate risk births were all similar, but hospital PMRs increased twofold between categories, which suggests that hospital labor management actually intensified risks.The percentage of infants born with breathing difficulties (9.3% versus 3.3%), the death rate associated with breathing difficulties (0.94% versus 0.19%), and the transfer rate to neonatal intensive care units for infants with breathing problems who survived six hours (62.0% versus 26.2%) were all higher in the hospital (all p<0.001), further evidence that hospital interventions do not avert poor outcomes.Although no national study has been undertaken since, smaller studies confirm that increasing use of hospital confinement is not the reason for the overall drop in PMR since 1970. In fact, those years when the proportional increase in hospital births was greatest were the years when the PMR declined least and vice versa.("Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities, A Guide to the Medical Literature", Henci Goer, Bergin & Garvey, 1995)