Seriously?
Does the ACOG seriously not remember that most women throughout time have given birth in their homes?
As of now, no actual legislation has been drawn up, but the AMA has agreed to back a measure called “Resolution 205,” a request to support the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) position that home births are not safe.
“We are against home births, period,” said Gregory Phillips, an ACOG spokesman.
Due to Ezra’s heart rate decels during early contractions, I’m glad I was at a hospital. And so that’s made me a bit nervous about any future birth(s), but I think a birth center would be ideal — personalized care, certified nurse-midwives, and connections with a local doctor (who is natural-childbirth friendly) and hospital if the need arises.
Here’s the article if you’re interested in reading the whole thing.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Haven’t read the article but I would guess that it all come from the inability to realise that there might just be another path to the care of pregnant women and infants and that just possible the ‘medical’ model is not ideal. I would love to see the ACOG’s position on the high rate of intervention for both mom and baby in North America! I am frankly pertrified at the notion of not being cared by midwives in the hospital.xxNeyir
August 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I haven’t read the article. But home births really freak me out. I know that in the olden days woman used to birth their children in the fields while working, and then go back to work. LOL! Not sure how they managed that. But I am definitely a hospital birth type of person. Nothing against the person that wants to do a home birth. Just not for me. Too many things could go wrong, and for me, it’s too scary.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Ack!!! I can’t believe they feel the need to pass legislation on this! I fear this will only make it harder for women to choose midwife care (for home or hospital), as they alluded to in the article. I do appreciate that this particular article is fairly balanced.
Stuff like this is what drives me crazy:
“I worry about the small percentage of women who have unpredictable complications,” she said. “The studies are conflicting. My fear with home deliveries is that, even in the best, most capable hands, a home doesn’t have the equipment needed to save a life in an extreme circumstance.”
As if women never die when “unpredictable complications” and “extreme circumstances” arise in the hospital!
I personally think the brave person is the one going into the hospital, considering the US’ ridiculously high intervention rates for both mother and baby, not the one staying at home.
I will refrain from further ranting.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
A friend in the area has helped start a group, Community Alliance for Birth Options (CABO). Might be worth getting involved!
http://www.mycabo.org/
August 14th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“Does the ACOG seriously not remember that most women throughout time have given birth in their homes”
Mr T knows the AMA knows that throughout time the survival rate of women and newborns has been extremely low compared to what we have today with modern medicine.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I agree that we have the benefits of modern medicine, BUT the US has the 2nd highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, 29th in maternal mortality rates, and 42nd in infant mortality rate. Surely all that technology isn’t always helping!
In the Netherlands, 30% of babies are born at home and they have one of the lowest infant and maternal mortality rates. In fact, the countries that use midwives for low-risk pregnancies and OBs for high-risk pregnancies, have the best outcomes.
I’m not saying we should all have home births and I’m not saying medical intervention isn’t necessary (after all, I think our c-section was necessary). However, I do think it’s ridiculous to try to legislate something like this and say that home births are unsafe, period.