What is your opinion on homebirth?

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Tara:

Quoting Libby:

Quoting Tara:

Well since the American Medical Association is against homebirths....(they don't make any money by mothers who choose to have homebirths with midwives!!!) they are against homebirths....thus...who are these studies actually sponsored by? The AMA certainly doesn't want to do studies on homebirths because they are afraid of what they will find.

In countries where most babies are born at home and/or with midwives....their infant mortality rate is FAR FAR better than the US!!

Look here...(this is from wikipedia and I used the 'updated April 2009' numbers) the numbers on the right are the infant mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births). The US is the last one I went to...so look at ALL the countries under the US that have a BETTER infant mortality rate!!!!

178 United States 6.26
179 Guam 6.05
180 Cuba 5.82
181 European Union 5.72
182 Italy 5.51
183 Isle of Man 5.37
184 Taiwan 5.35
185 San Marino 5.34
186 Greece 5.16
187 Ireland 5.05
188 Canada 5.04
189 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
190 Monaco 5.00
191 New Zealand 4.92
192 United Kingdom 4.85
193 Gibraltar 4.83
194 Portugal 4.78
195 Australia 4.75
196 Jersey 4.73
197 Netherlands 4.73
198 Luxembourg 4.56
199 Guernsey 4.47
200 Belgium 4.44
201 Austria 4.42
202 Denmark 4.34
203 Korea, South 4.26
204 Liechtenstein 4.25
205 Slovenia 4.25
206 Israel 4.22
207 Spain 4.21
208 Switzerland 4.18
209 Germany 3.99
210 Czech Republic 3.79
211 Andorra 3.76
212 Malta 3.75
213 Norway 3.58
214 Anguilla 3.52
215 Finland 3.47
216 France 3.33
217 Iceland 3.23
218 Macau 3.22
219 Hong Kong 2.92
220 Japan 2.79
221 Sweden 2.75
222 Bermuda 2.46
223 Singapore 2.31

Look at all the countries that beat the US in infant mortality rate.

Most of the world's birth attendants are midwives, and those countries with the best birth outcome statistics use midwives as their main maternity care providers. These countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and New Zealand, have significantly lower infant and maternal mortality rates than does the U.S. Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world, we rank very low compared to most other developed countries for infant mortality. Why is that if hospitals are so safe?

Something to think about......

Just because we spend more money on health care doesn't mean everybody gets the healthcare.  When listing countries that have a very standardized health care plan (who all residents have access to) and them comparing them to our privatized health care system, it's really not an apples to apples analysis.  When I lost my job I lost my health care.  And I also lost my abillity to pay for my own health care.  If I were a person who couldn't get on another health care plan (my husband's) I may not get the best health care possible for my family, including a pregnancy.   You can't compare different health care systems (per each country)  to determine if you should have a home birth or not.  You need to compare home births to hospital births depending on your risk.  A home birth is only for a low risk pregnancy.  And none of the statistics I posted were from a AMA study.  In fact, the one (I believe it was the very first quote I listed) was from a website specifically promoting home births.  I also don't think the whole health care a midwife can provide is in question.  We are specifically discussing home births.  I don't doubt that the US has a higher rate of infant death, but specifically are these neonatal deaths or postnatal deaths?  There is a difference.  Or is this a collective number? 

I believe the number is a collective number, however I am not 100% sure on that.  As far as your situation, had you not been able to get onto another health insurance plan, most states have things in place to help pregnant women out. I believe most states give health care to all pregnant women in someway or another.  I definitely see what you are saying about comparing health care systems....but from my expierience, I am under the impression that if you go to a hospital in labor, the hospital will not turn you away, insurance or no insurance.  The same goes for emergency situations, regardless of health insurance. 

Most states have organizations that insure that all children receive healthcare under age 18 as well as pregnant women, if they fall into a certain income level as well, sometimes along with certain circumstances, like not being able to qualify for another insurance provider.

I believe that homebirths are a very good option for many women.  I, too, believe that you have to be comfortable in whatever setting you choose to give birth in, or your birth experience might not be the way you expected it to be.  I said previously that I do not feel that I could have had a homebirth for my first child, however, now that I know what to expect, and because I will more than likely be low risk again, I will more than likely have a homebirth with a qualified midwivfe who has been practising for 20+ years.

Homebirths are not for everyone.  It takes a lot of time and energy to reserach homebirths and to decide whether or not it is for you.  It is about personal choice.  If you choose to have a hospital birth because you believe and feel that that is safer, then that should be your option.  If I choose to have a homebirth because I feel, believe, and know that a homebirth for me is safer and a better option for me, I will do the same.

People don't give homebirths enough credit, however.  Homebirths are a very good option for many women (but not all women).  I wouldn't advice someone who is having 3 or 4 babies to have a homebirth.  That would not be a wise decision IMO.

When I was looking up the stats and research for this and found out that stats that show infant death don't necessarily break it down into neonatal and postnatal.  Postnatal is I wanna say 90 days after birth to the first birthday (I think...without going back and checking exactly).  So, to give stats and say one country has a lower infant mortality rate than another can't be directly linked to whether or not one country has more homebirths than hospital births.  Just because you deliver in a hospital or home and your baby dies 1 day or 11 months after you give birth is a big difference and shouldn't determine whether it is safer to deliver in a home without any medical equipment.  Yes, a midwife can bring some, but not everything is at your finger tips INCASE of an emergency.  And that's the big difference.  You never know when there is going to be an emergency and you don't know exactly what you will need for an unforseen emergency. 

As for healthcare given to pregnant women by the state, it is income based here in my state.  If you don't qualify for another private based health insurance, usually it is due to a previous medical condition.  Some insurance companies consider pregnancy as a previous medical condition and will not cover you.  That is more rare these days.  My husband works and we make too much to qualify for anything the state could give us.  So, if I had not been able to get on his plan I would be without insurance.  Of course a hospital cannot turn you away if you are in labor or needing medical care (you just have to pay the bill!  LOL). 

But my point is that giving stats that are not apples compared to apples (meaning everyone has the same prenatal care prior to delivery, whether homebirth or hospital), isn't an accurate comparison.  Some women, because they don't have the access to the healthcare, simply do not receive proper prenatal attention (or sometimes not prenatal care at all, like the teenage girls who are getting pregnant in our country often don't receive proper prenatal care).  This can skew the results of any survey because a woman who doesn't receive proper care is way more susceptible to have complications during pregnancy, at birth, and postpartum.  So, I wouldn't rely on what seems or sounds to be accurate statistics in order to make your decision.  To say something is "safer" without any real info to back it up is misleading. 

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Kate:

Quoting Libby:

I disagree that this is a "safer" option than a hospital birth. It's easy enough to say it is without any statistics to back it up. But I don't believe that giving an opinion as fact is the right thing to do. Here's what I found for statistics:

"Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States."

"Studies on home birth have been criticised if they have been too small to accurately assess perinatal mortality, unable to distinguish planned from unplanned home births accurately, or retrospective with the potential of bias from selective reporting."

Here are some results from a study I found:

"Of the 5418 women, 655 (12.1%) were transferred to hospital intrapartum or post partum. Five out of every six women transferred (83.4%) were transferred before delivery, half (51.2%) for failure to progress, pain relief, or exhaustion."

"A randomised controlled trial would be the best way to tackle selection bias of mothers who plan a home birth, but a randomised controlled trial in North America is unfeasible given that even in Britain, where home birth has been an incorporated part of the healthcare system for some time, and where cooperation is more feasible, a pilot study failed."

Here is a positive I've found:

"An economic analysis found that an uncomplicated vaginal birth in hospital in the United States cost on average three times as much as a similar birth at home with a midwife41 in an environment where management of birth has become an economic, medical, and industrial enterprise."

I don't have time to do more research at this time. Hope this helps.

You just discredited all your stats by stating they are biased and a randomised pilot study failed.

I think a hospital birth is good for the women who need or want medical intervention or who are just nervous about giving birth at home. Birthing centers are a really good "middle ground" if you don't want a hospital but are worried about birthing at home. 

A lot of people say "Well a lot of women died in childbirth before they started giving birth in hospitals". This was also before we learned about things like pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, blood disorders, and other complications. Women who have those complications are not candidates for home birth and should be delivering in a hospital. It all depends on a woman's comfort level and what her health care provider deems safe for mom and baby. Blanketly stating that home births are unsafe or even safer than hospital births is unfounded. Some women may have a "safer" birth at home and some may have a "safer" birth in a hospital.

I didn't discredit the stats, that was a quote from one of the studies I was reading.  I listed that statement from the study to show the women that think their statistics are accurate that say homebirths are safer are probably not getting entirely accurate information.  There were a lot of things I came across when looking at different websites for this info.  And not all of that info came from one site.  But one thing I saw that some statistics include homebirths that are not planned homebirths simply because birth certificates don't list whether it was a planned homebirth or not, just that it was a homebirth.  However, I found a mention of a study done in California that it does list whether the birth was in a hospital or home and if the homebirth was planned or not.  I think it's important to determine if these results that people are relying so desperately on to prove that homebirths are "safer" are really accurate or not.  Also, I found out that infant death is broken down into two different categories, so if the research provided doesn't state exactly which kind of infant death, then again, the results are skewed.  I agree that stating whether it is safer or unsafe is unfounded b/c there is no real clear research to determine this.  That is why I said that a homebirth is strictly for a low risk pregnancy and even then it must be a decision that is researched and not entered into lightly. 

Alison - posted on 05/13/2009

You should be really careful about who you chose to deliver your baby. alot of midwives have little to no medical training. i was told by a labor and delivery nurse that i am friends with that there is a midwife here in town that has had 9 babies come in who died because she has no medical training. and yet she still delivers babies. if you decide that home birth is for you, for whatever reason, check your midwifes background thoroughly and make sure they are licenced in the medical profession!

Karine - posted on 05/13/2009

I loved my homebirth experience, will do it again next time around. Midwifes are fully trained in labour and delivery; I trusted them to advise me of the safest steps to take when the time came. They have lots of guidelines to follow and hospital priviledges if needed.

I delivered a big, healthy baby boy (9lbs) in my quiet and comfortable bedroom... well, more precisely in the bath of my on-suite bathroom.

Tara - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Jenifer:

While most states will help out women without insurance, the care that they get is not necessarily the best. I have insurance, but when I was pregnant with my son, I decided to try going to the public hospital a few blocks from my home for prenatal care - huge mistake. The place was filthy, the nurses and doctors were incompetent, they regularly lost my records, forgot I was in the waiting room etc. I switched over to a private hospital affiliated with a research university. I absolutely shocked by the differences in care - these were two hospitals standing about a mile apart from each other. At the private hospital I had a very competent midwife working with me.

I agree that home births are not for everyone (myself included), but that competent medical care - whether at home with a doula, a birthing center, or in a hospital with a doctor - will bring you the best outcome. If you're at home birthing, I think it is prudent to have a plan in place in case of emergency, just as I think moms who labor in hospitals need birthing plans.

Thanks for sharing your experience Jenifer!!  It was definitely eye opening.  I live in WI and we have very good hospitals and medical centers here.  I've been to virtually all of them in the past and haven't noticed significant differences in the quality of care I received whatsoever, so I appreciate you sharing that information with us.

Those who choose to have a homebirth definitely should have a plan in place in case of an emergency.  It is my understanding that all qualified midwives definitely make sure to have this in place should something go wrong.

I believe all women should have a birth plan as well. My birth plan was followed pretty well in the hospital (with a CNM), and over all it was a good experience and I am definitely grateful to have had a birth plan.

Jenifer - posted on 05/13/2009

While most states will help out women without insurance, the care that they get is not necessarily the best. I have insurance, but when I was pregnant with my son, I decided to try going to the public hospital a few blocks from my home for prenatal care - huge mistake. The place was filthy, the nurses and doctors were incompetent, they regularly lost my records, forgot I was in the waiting room etc. I switched over to a private hospital affiliated with a research university. I absolutely shocked by the differences in care - these were two hospitals standing about a mile apart from each other. At the private hospital I had a very competent midwife working with me.

I agree that home births are not for everyone (myself included), but that competent medical care - whether at home with a doula, a birthing center, or in a hospital with a doctor - will bring you the best outcome. If you're at home birthing, I think it is prudent to have a plan in place in case of emergency, just as I think moms who labor in hospitals need birthing plans.

Kate CP - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Libby:

I disagree that this is a "safer" option than a hospital birth. It's easy enough to say it is without any statistics to back it up. But I don't believe that giving an opinion as fact is the right thing to do. Here's what I found for statistics:

"Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States."

"Studies on home birth have been criticised if they have been too small to accurately assess perinatal mortality, unable to distinguish planned from unplanned home births accurately, or retrospective with the potential of bias from selective reporting."

Here are some results from a study I found:

"Of the 5418 women, 655 (12.1%) were transferred to hospital intrapartum or post partum. Five out of every six women transferred (83.4%) were transferred before delivery, half (51.2%) for failure to progress, pain relief, or exhaustion."

"A randomised controlled trial would be the best way to tackle selection bias of mothers who plan a home birth, but a randomised controlled trial in North America is unfeasible given that even in Britain, where home birth has been an incorporated part of the healthcare system for some time, and where cooperation is more feasible, a pilot study failed."

Here is a positive I've found:

"An economic analysis found that an uncomplicated vaginal birth in hospital in the United States cost on average three times as much as a similar birth at home with a midwife41 in an environment where management of birth has become an economic, medical, and industrial enterprise."

I don't have time to do more research at this time. Hope this helps.

You just discredited all your stats by stating they are biased and a randomised pilot study failed.

I think a hospital birth is good for the women who need or want medical intervention or who are just nervous about giving birth at home. Birthing centers are a really good "middle ground" if you don't want a hospital but are worried about birthing at home. 

A lot of people say "Well a lot of women died in childbirth before they started giving birth in hospitals". This was also before we learned about things like pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, blood disorders, and other complications. Women who have those complications are not candidates for home birth and should be delivering in a hospital. It all depends on a woman's comfort level and what her health care provider deems safe for mom and baby. Blanketly stating that home births are unsafe or even safer than hospital births is unfounded. Some women may have a "safer" birth at home and some may have a "safer" birth in a hospital.

Terrie - posted on 05/13/2009

I had a home birth and would not have missed the experience for the world. My first child was born when I was just barely 17 years old and I did exactly as the doctor said. When I had my second time around, I was 26 and totally in control of my life and my wishes. The experience was as different as eating pizza and turnip greens.
I am now a mother of 5 wonderful children, 4 of them are girls. While I would be terrified of the risk of complications, I would totally support them if they chose to have a home birth. An experience to remember!

Tara - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Libby:

Quoting Tara:

Well since the American Medical Association is against homebirths....(they don't make any money by mothers who choose to have homebirths with midwives!!!) they are against homebirths....thus...who are these studies actually sponsored by? The AMA certainly doesn't want to do studies on homebirths because they are afraid of what they will find.

In countries where most babies are born at home and/or with midwives....their infant mortality rate is FAR FAR better than the US!!

Look here...(this is from wikipedia and I used the 'updated April 2009' numbers) the numbers on the right are the infant mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births). The US is the last one I went to...so look at ALL the countries under the US that have a BETTER infant mortality rate!!!!

178 United States 6.26
179 Guam 6.05
180 Cuba 5.82
181 European Union 5.72
182 Italy 5.51
183 Isle of Man 5.37
184 Taiwan 5.35
185 San Marino 5.34
186 Greece 5.16
187 Ireland 5.05
188 Canada 5.04
189 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
190 Monaco 5.00
191 New Zealand 4.92
192 United Kingdom 4.85
193 Gibraltar 4.83
194 Portugal 4.78
195 Australia 4.75
196 Jersey 4.73
197 Netherlands 4.73
198 Luxembourg 4.56
199 Guernsey 4.47
200 Belgium 4.44
201 Austria 4.42
202 Denmark 4.34
203 Korea, South 4.26
204 Liechtenstein 4.25
205 Slovenia 4.25
206 Israel 4.22
207 Spain 4.21
208 Switzerland 4.18
209 Germany 3.99
210 Czech Republic 3.79
211 Andorra 3.76
212 Malta 3.75
213 Norway 3.58
214 Anguilla 3.52
215 Finland 3.47
216 France 3.33
217 Iceland 3.23
218 Macau 3.22
219 Hong Kong 2.92
220 Japan 2.79
221 Sweden 2.75
222 Bermuda 2.46
223 Singapore 2.31

Look at all the countries that beat the US in infant mortality rate.

Most of the world's birth attendants are midwives, and those countries with the best birth outcome statistics use midwives as their main maternity care providers. These countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and New Zealand, have significantly lower infant and maternal mortality rates than does the U.S. Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world, we rank very low compared to most other developed countries for infant mortality. Why is that if hospitals are so safe?

Something to think about......

Just because we spend more money on health care doesn't mean everybody gets the healthcare.  When listing countries that have a very standardized health care plan (who all residents have access to) and them comparing them to our privatized health care system, it's really not an apples to apples analysis.  When I lost my job I lost my health care.  And I also lost my abillity to pay for my own health care.  If I were a person who couldn't get on another health care plan (my husband's) I may not get the best health care possible for my family, including a pregnancy.   You can't compare different health care systems (per each country)  to determine if you should have a home birth or not.  You need to compare home births to hospital births depending on your risk.  A home birth is only for a low risk pregnancy.  And none of the statistics I posted were from a AMA study.  In fact, the one (I believe it was the very first quote I listed) was from a website specifically promoting home births.  I also don't think the whole health care a midwife can provide is in question.  We are specifically discussing home births.  I don't doubt that the US has a higher rate of infant death, but specifically are these neonatal deaths or postnatal deaths?  There is a difference.  Or is this a collective number? 

I believe the number is a collective number, however I am not 100% sure on that.  As far as your situation, had you not been able to get onto another health insurance plan, most states have things in place to help pregnant women out. I believe most states give health care to all pregnant women in someway or another.  I definitely see what you are saying about comparing health care systems....but from my expierience, I am under the impression that if you go to a hospital in labor, the hospital will not turn you away, insurance or no insurance.  The same goes for emergency situations, regardless of health insurance. 

Most states have organizations that insure that all children receive healthcare under age 18 as well as pregnant women, if they fall into a certain income level as well, sometimes along with certain circumstances, like not being able to qualify for another insurance provider.

I believe that homebirths are a very good option for many women.  I, too, believe that you have to be comfortable in whatever setting you choose to give birth in, or your birth experience might not be the way you expected it to be.  I said previously that I do not feel that I could have had a homebirth for my first child, however, now that I know what to expect, and because I will more than likely be low risk again, I will more than likely have a homebirth with a qualified midwivfe who has been practising for 20+ years.

Homebirths are not for everyone.  It takes a lot of time and energy to reserach homebirths and to decide whether or not it is for you.  It is about personal choice.  If you choose to have a hospital birth because you believe and feel that that is safer, then that should be your option.  If I choose to have a homebirth because I feel, believe, and know that a homebirth for me is safer and a better option for me, I will do the same.

People don't give homebirths enough credit, however.  Homebirths are a very good option for many women (but not all women).  I wouldn't advice someone who is having 3 or 4 babies to have a homebirth.  That would not be a wise decision IMO.

Sarah - posted on 05/13/2009

i hold a very positive view of homebirth. i have three children and i am a student nurse myself. i say that if you want to have a homebirth, you have the support and most importantly, you have no medical conditions ( and the baby as well) that could put you in trouble during the labour or birth, then ask for one. obviously the pain relief methods are reduced. midwives do carry entenox ( which they pick up from the hospital) but for anything else, you may have to go into hospital. at the end of the day, the decision is down to you and no one should tell you otherwise. hope all goes well.

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Tara:

Well since the American Medical Association is against homebirths....(they don't make any money by mothers who choose to have homebirths with midwives!!!) they are against homebirths....thus...who are these studies actually sponsored by? The AMA certainly doesn't want to do studies on homebirths because they are afraid of what they will find.

In countries where most babies are born at home and/or with midwives....their infant mortality rate is FAR FAR better than the US!!

Look here...(this is from wikipedia and I used the 'updated April 2009' numbers) the numbers on the right are the infant mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births). The US is the last one I went to...so look at ALL the countries under the US that have a BETTER infant mortality rate!!!!

178 United States 6.26
179 Guam 6.05
180 Cuba 5.82
181 European Union 5.72
182 Italy 5.51
183 Isle of Man 5.37
184 Taiwan 5.35
185 San Marino 5.34
186 Greece 5.16
187 Ireland 5.05
188 Canada 5.04
189 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
190 Monaco 5.00
191 New Zealand 4.92
192 United Kingdom 4.85
193 Gibraltar 4.83
194 Portugal 4.78
195 Australia 4.75
196 Jersey 4.73
197 Netherlands 4.73
198 Luxembourg 4.56
199 Guernsey 4.47
200 Belgium 4.44
201 Austria 4.42
202 Denmark 4.34
203 Korea, South 4.26
204 Liechtenstein 4.25
205 Slovenia 4.25
206 Israel 4.22
207 Spain 4.21
208 Switzerland 4.18
209 Germany 3.99
210 Czech Republic 3.79
211 Andorra 3.76
212 Malta 3.75
213 Norway 3.58
214 Anguilla 3.52
215 Finland 3.47
216 France 3.33
217 Iceland 3.23
218 Macau 3.22
219 Hong Kong 2.92
220 Japan 2.79
221 Sweden 2.75
222 Bermuda 2.46
223 Singapore 2.31

Look at all the countries that beat the US in infant mortality rate.

Most of the world's birth attendants are midwives, and those countries with the best birth outcome statistics use midwives as their main maternity care providers. These countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and New Zealand, have significantly lower infant and maternal mortality rates than does the U.S. Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world, we rank very low compared to most other developed countries for infant mortality. Why is that if hospitals are so safe?

Something to think about......

Just because we spend more money on health care doesn't mean everybody gets the healthcare.  When listing countries that have a very standardized health care plan (who all residents have access to) and them comparing them to our privatized health care system, it's really not an apples to apples analysis.  When I lost my job I lost my health care.  And I also lost my abillity to pay for my own health care.  If I were a person who couldn't get on another health care plan (my husband's) I may not get the best health care possible for my family, including a pregnancy.   You can't compare different health care systems (per each country)  to determine if you should have a home birth or not.  You need to compare home births to hospital births depending on your risk.  A home birth is only for a low risk pregnancy.  And none of the statistics I posted were from a AMA study.  In fact, the one (I believe it was the very first quote I listed) was from a website specifically promoting home births.  I also don't think the whole health care a midwife can provide is in question.  We are specifically discussing home births.  I don't doubt that the US has a higher rate of infant death, but specifically are these neonatal deaths or postnatal deaths?  There is a difference.  Or is this a collective number? 

Tara - posted on 05/13/2009

Well since the American Medical Association is against homebirths....(they don't make any money by mothers who choose to have homebirths with midwives!!!) they are against homebirths....thus...who are these studies actually sponsored by? The AMA certainly doesn't want to do studies on homebirths because they are afraid of what they will find.

In countries where most babies are born at home and/or with midwives....their infant mortality rate is FAR FAR better than the US!!

Look here...(this is from wikipedia and I used the 'updated April 2009' numbers) the numbers on the right are the infant mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births). The US is the last one I went to...so look at ALL the countries under the US that have a BETTER infant mortality rate!!!!

178 United States 6.26
179 Guam 6.05
180 Cuba 5.82
181 European Union 5.72
182 Italy 5.51
183 Isle of Man 5.37
184 Taiwan 5.35
185 San Marino 5.34
186 Greece 5.16
187 Ireland 5.05
188 Canada 5.04
189 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
190 Monaco 5.00
191 New Zealand 4.92
192 United Kingdom 4.85
193 Gibraltar 4.83
194 Portugal 4.78
195 Australia 4.75
196 Jersey 4.73
197 Netherlands 4.73
198 Luxembourg 4.56
199 Guernsey 4.47
200 Belgium 4.44
201 Austria 4.42
202 Denmark 4.34
203 Korea, South 4.26
204 Liechtenstein 4.25
205 Slovenia 4.25
206 Israel 4.22
207 Spain 4.21
208 Switzerland 4.18
209 Germany 3.99
210 Czech Republic 3.79
211 Andorra 3.76
212 Malta 3.75
213 Norway 3.58
214 Anguilla 3.52
215 Finland 3.47
216 France 3.33
217 Iceland 3.23
218 Macau 3.22
219 Hong Kong 2.92
220 Japan 2.79
221 Sweden 2.75
222 Bermuda 2.46
223 Singapore 2.31

Look at all the countries that beat the US in infant mortality rate.

Most of the world's birth attendants are midwives, and those countries with the best birth outcome statistics use midwives as their main maternity care providers. These countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and New Zealand, have significantly lower infant and maternal mortality rates than does the U.S. Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world, we rank very low compared to most other developed countries for infant mortality. Why is that if hospitals are so safe?

Something to think about......

Kelly - posted on 05/13/2009

I had a terrible first birth experience in hospital as well. However, after researching stats in Canada, I found there were very few to clearly confirm for me which was "safer". After my second pregnant became somewhat high risk (I aquired a blood antibody which could have been dangerous for baby), I had no choice but to birth in hospital. I found a Certified Doula (a midwife was out of the question due to my blood disorder). My experience was phenomenal. I gave birth 45 minutes after arriving, no drugs, and didn't even see the OB who delivered until after when she was done. The hospital gave my Doula free reign and allowed her to coach me the entire time. They did their "medical" part quietly and let my Doula keep me in the zone. It was so fabulous. My daughter was born without complications. If you have a perfectly healthy birth, you can go home the same day so you don't even have to sleep in the hospital. I didn't like the "medical" experience I had with my first but can honestly say that I had a completely different experience the next time.



So, consider your options and make an informed decision. I would have gone with a midwife at the hospital had I had the choice but the Doula was my next best option and one of the best decisions I have ever made! NOTE: Doula's are not covered under health plans in North America. I had to pay her myself but it was entirely worth it.

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

I disagree that this is a "safer" option than a hospital birth. It's easy enough to say it is without any statistics to back it up. But I don't believe that giving an opinion as fact is the right thing to do. Here's what I found for statistics:



"Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States."



"Studies on home birth have been criticised if they have been too small to accurately assess perinatal mortality, unable to distinguish planned from unplanned home births accurately, or retrospective with the potential of bias from selective reporting."



Here are some results from a study I found:



"Of the 5418 women, 655 (12.1%) were transferred to hospital intrapartum or post partum. Five out of every six women transferred (83.4%) were transferred before delivery, half (51.2%) for failure to progress, pain relief, or exhaustion."



"A randomised controlled trial would be the best way to tackle selection bias of mothers who plan a home birth, but a randomised controlled trial in North America is unfeasible given that even in Britain, where home birth has been an incorporated part of the healthcare system for some time, and where cooperation is more feasible, a pilot study failed."



Here is a positive I've found:



"An economic analysis found that an uncomplicated vaginal birth in hospital in the United States cost on average three times as much as a similar birth at home with a midwife41 in an environment where management of birth has become an economic, medical, and industrial enterprise."



I don't have time to do more research at this time. Hope this helps.

Emma - posted on 05/13/2009

i want 1! i want 1! i want 1!

statistics show that homebirths are safer, they wudnt let you have a homebirth if they thought you or baby were at risk

Kate CP - posted on 05/13/2009

Wow. Apparently a lot of women are still under the impression that a home birth means you just squat and push out a baby. Midwives have to adhere to strict guidelines to ensure the health and safety of both mom and baby. A midwife will tell you before you even plan on where to deliver if you should have a home birth. Some women are not candidates for home births. As far as something "going wrong" that's why you hire a midwife. They bring everything with them: IVs, catheters, saline, pitocin, anti-biotics sterile instruments, oxygen, etc. A midwife is trained to evaluate you during your labor and determine if you need medical intervention or not. That's when you go to the hospital. That is why most midwives will insist that you deliver within a few miles of a hospital in case of a medical emergency. For some women it is actually safer to give birth at home than in the hospital. For example: me. I have a severe immune deficiency and it's not a good idea for me to go to a hospital where hundreds of sick people are wandering around. Being at home means less chance of infection for me. Now if I get to the point of delivery at home and the midwife says it's time to toss in the towel and head to the hospital I will. But home births can be just as safe, if not safer, than a hospital birth. As long as you have a knowledgeable health care provider who is licensed and experienced in the birthing process and you've been okay'd for a home birth it is very safe.
The new trend I can't understand is the unassisted birth. THAT is friggin' crazy. I don't care who you are or where you deliver but for the love of pete, have a trained professional with you!

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Sara:

Quoting Libby:

Quoting Sara:

I'm so sorry for the loss some of you ladies have experienced, it makes my heart ache just to read it. I have some good friends who lost a daughter at 6 weeks old, it was the most heartbreaking thing. But, they now have a healthy and bouncing 2 year old. I think it takes a lot of bravery and courage to try again after a the loss of a child. I commend you for your strength and bravery. :) A little off topic, but had to be said!

Very nice of you to say so Sara.  Thanks.  I am actually pregnant again after my loss.  It is a scarey time, but I totally look forward to delivering this little one in October (in a hospital). 

When are you due?  I had my little girl on October 13, 2008.  She was born in a hospital too, and I had wonderful nurses and a good, but slightly crazy, doctor.

I am due Oct 26th.  However, due dates mean nothing for me!  LOL.  All of my kids have been early.  My daughter was obviously too early to survive.  But my son was 10 weeks early, and another son 2 1/2 weeks.  So, I don't expect to get anywhere near my due date.  If I make it to 36 weeks and have a baby around my birthday (Sept 28th) I would be ecstatic with that!!!  I've always had a wonderful experience in the hospital.  Same doctor for all of my babies and I wouldn't go anywhere else.  I feel so comfortable with him.  Right now he is not only administering to my physical needs during the pregnancy, but also my emotional needs.  I have had 2 ultrasounds so far (at 6 weeks at 10 weeks).  Going to find out the sex in 2 weeks.  Also we're taking some extra precautions as well as have a plan to get steroids for this baby's lungs around 28 weeks (even if we're not having complications, just as a precaution).  So, I am totally comfortable with him, and the hospital setting that I will be having my baby in.  The hospital I deliver in has birthing suites with beautiful furniture and I don't doubt that I will be relaxed and be able to enjoy this birth (hopefully without any pregnancy or labor complications).

Sara - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Libby:

Quoting Sara:

I'm so sorry for the loss some of you ladies have experienced, it makes my heart ache just to read it. I have some good friends who lost a daughter at 6 weeks old, it was the most heartbreaking thing. But, they now have a healthy and bouncing 2 year old. I think it takes a lot of bravery and courage to try again after a the loss of a child. I commend you for your strength and bravery. :) A little off topic, but had to be said!

Very nice of you to say so Sara.  Thanks.  I am actually pregnant again after my loss.  It is a scarey time, but I totally look forward to delivering this little one in October (in a hospital). 

When are you due?  I had my little girl on October 13, 2008.  She was born in a hospital too, and I had wonderful nurses and a good, but slightly crazy, doctor.

Melissa - posted on 05/13/2009

It's beautiful, as long as you have someone there to assist who has a good track record with home births. And if anything goes wrong, rush to the hospital.. don't wait an extra second. It's safe or SAFER than hospital birth and your chances of c-section go down extraordinarily with a home birth. I tried to have one with an awesome midwife, but had to go to the hospital I will be having one next time around.

Sarah - posted on 05/13/2009

Well, personally I think that babies should be born in the hospital that way if there is a complication, you can get the treatment you need right away. I wouldn't want to risk my health or my baby's health by not being in the hospital.

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Sara:

I'm so sorry for the loss some of you ladies have experienced, it makes my heart ache just to read it. I have some good friends who lost a daughter at 6 weeks old, it was the most heartbreaking thing. But, they now have a healthy and bouncing 2 year old. I think it takes a lot of bravery and courage to try again after a the loss of a child. I commend you for your strength and bravery. :) A little off topic, but had to be said!

Very nice of you to say so Sara.  Thanks.  I am actually pregnant again after my loss.  It is a scarey time, but I totally look forward to delivering this little one in October (in a hospital). 

Emily - posted on 05/13/2009

Home birth is great for some people- myself included and not for others. I am a firm beleiver that as long as a woman is full term she should be able to give birth however she wants even if it is an elective Csection which is a choice I would never make.

Sarah - posted on 05/13/2009

i decided with my second to have a home birth as they said i would give birth quicker than the first, and the fact with the first the hospital staff couldn't give a monkeys, all went well with the home birth true to there word had a 6lb 5oz baby girl in my living room only in labour for 45mins and would have another home birth if i am blessed with anymore children, best experince ever in the comfort of my own home.

Tara - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Libby:

I'm so sorry for your loss Joanna.  I lost a child too and the guilt I placed on myself because it was my body that failed her will never leave me either.  It's always...what could I have done differently?  I think when you make a choice as a parent it is a HUGE choice and carries a lot of responsibility.  One can not understand that guilt unless they have lived it.  And playing the what if game after the fact is a life long thing.  Not worth it in my opinion. 

I'm so very sorry for both of your losses, I can not even imagine, however, deciding to have a homebirth is not taking unneccesary risks in my opinion.

Some even believe having a birth in a hospital is taking extreme risks!!  I personally would never have another planned hospital birth as I feel that this option is more dangerous than a homebirth.  The infant mortality in this country is TERRIBLE!  It's around 30th or so of the developed countries.  Why, if hospital births are 'so safe', is our infant mortality so horrible?  Obviously it's not because those with homebirths are having tragic outcomes...If you look at Sweden, where most of the births are with midwives at home, their infant mortality rate is one of the best!!

Birth is a natural process...it is not a medical disease. Pregnant women should not be treated as if they are as fragile as if they had cancer.  Pregnancy is a normal and natural process, and women have been doing it for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Homebirths with trained and qualified midwives have the least likelyhood of having unneeded interventions.  Interventions include epidurals, constant fetal monitoring, constant checking to see how dialated you are, etc.

Many time, the c-sections that they say were nessecary may not have been, and had you been in a different setting like a birth center or at home, it may not have had to take place.  This obviously does not go for every person, but many times, doctors are very quick to do C-sections because they are afraid of being sued, so they go a head and do the c section instead of waiting a little for the 'problem' to correct itself.

My midwife has done hundreds and hundreds of homebirths, and only 2 have needed to be transferred, and only one "needed" to be a c section delivery, and there was plenty of time to get to the hospital because my midwife knows what she is doing and she knew that something was wrong and it was time to transfer.

Hospitals are great for true emergencies, but in my opinion, low risk births are better left inthe hands of qualified and trained midwives that truly understand what birth and pregnancy is all about.

Angie - posted on 05/13/2009

I had a fairly uneventful pregnancy and deliver with my son - until he was born. There was no way for the midwife to know that he was going to have problems after his birth - he could not breathe. In addition, I began to bleed profusely. Had he been born a home we both would have died. I agree that this is a natural wonderful experience and women have been having babis at home for centuries. But having babies in hospitals has dropped the mortality rates of both babies and moms. Be safe, have your baby in a hospital. If you think you may not be able to stand up for your own rights to have your child the way you want, hire a doula to help you through the process..

Lisa - posted on 05/13/2009

I have 5 kids, 2 hospital births with the first being a lousey birthing experience with non-helpful staff, doctor what not. The second was much better. Then a birthing center birth I think that is ideal and what I would choose if I had that option for the next 2. However we were overseas so my options were go back to the states alone and leave hubby and the kids, hospital birth in an OK hospital or a home birth. The first I opted for a homebirth with a midwife because I did not want to leave my other kids for 8-12 weeks and the hospital was just OK and the kids weren't allowed in which I wanted and they wanted. It was a good decision as the baby came fast, before the midwife made and I would have never made it to the hospital and the side of the road in Manila wouldn't have been a good spot to give birth. I choose another home birth because the first went so well. So I think homebirths are a good choice if all seems fine with the pg and are close to a hospital just in case.

Stacy - posted on 05/13/2009

It would not be for me, there are just to many risks to Mom and baby. I like the idea of being in the hospital just in case something goes wrong. My first preganacy I hormoraged after the birth and if I had not been in the hospital I most likely would have bleed out before I got to the hospital. Most hospitals now have more "warm" settings and give a lot of options for delivery. I have a friend who gave birth 3 times at home and loved it, but she also had the comfort of knowing a major hospital was 10 minutes away. This is such a personal choice, just be sure you weigh all your options. Good luck!

Sara - posted on 05/13/2009

I'm so sorry for the loss some of you ladies have experienced, it makes my heart ache just to read it. I have some good friends who lost a daughter at 6 weeks old, it was the most heartbreaking thing. But, they now have a healthy and bouncing 2 year old. I think it takes a lot of bravery and courage to try again after a the loss of a child. I commend you for your strength and bravery. :) A little off topic, but had to be said!

Libby - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Joanna:

LIke many of the women quoted above I had a perfectly healthy pregnancy but right at the end there were complications. After a frightening and painful labour delivery my son was born in distress. We were just blocks from hospital but the ambulance took forever and after three weeks in intensive care my son died. I was blamed by hospital staff but mostly the blame I put on myself has never completely left. I now have two healthy daughters - both born by C-section because they were HUGE. You can have a good delivery in a hospital and most importantly if anything goes wrong at the last minute you're already where you need to be.

I'm so sorry for your loss Joanna.  I lost a child too and the guilt I placed on myself because it was my body that failed her will never leave me either.  It's always...what could I have done differently?  I think when you make a choice as a parent it is a HUGE choice and carries a lot of responsibility.  One can not understand that guilt unless they have lived it.  And playing the what if game after the fact is a life long thing.  Not worth it in my opinion. 

Sara - posted on 05/13/2009

I think as long as you have an uncomplicated pregnancy, get proper prenatal care throughout and have someone there, like a midwife, to supervise the birth then it's ok. I have to say I don't really agree with the whole "free birth" thing, where you have no one there if something should go wrong. But, I think midwives are wonderful, and I think if you want to give birth in your home or a birthing center, then do it. I had my baby in a hospital and I had a great experience.

Anne - posted on 05/13/2009

I have three children and all of them were born in hospital and without drugs..Every single one of them is positive experience..Maybe I am lucky one that nothing negative didn't happened

Sarah - posted on 05/13/2009

I just had my third baby 8 weeks ago at home. It was a great experience and so much better than my other 2 deliveries in the hospital. Yes, it was painful but when it's over, it's over. And there are many risks involved with ANY delivery. My midwives were amazing. We had a plan in case anything went wrong and I felt totally comfortable with them. I did PLENTY of research before making this decision and found that many of the "interventions" done in the hospital create problems for the labor and delivery. I would recommend doing a home birth to every pregnant woman, just to try one time. I understand why people choose the hospital, for high risk, less pain, etc. BUT, hospitals were vreated to help those that realy needed it, not for healthy people. With my first baby I wanted the epidural right away and did not want to feel one contraction. But it was not the journey I was hoping for and after my second daughter was born in the hospital naturally, I knew I could do it at home.



So each woman has to make her own decision on what's best for her. But I would highly recommend doing research for both avenues and see which one fits you the best.

Cathy - posted on 05/13/2009

My first baby was born in hospital, I found it a horrible experience! They just didn't seem to care what they did to me so long as they got the baby out as quick as possible to free up the room. I'm convinced that all the intereferance, checking every hour how far dilated I was, actually slowed things down and made it more painful! The only good thing about a hospital birth is the drugs.



My second baby was born at home. I wanted a home birth and it was something that my midwife encouraged. I was very low risk. I was monitored very closely up to the end. Things to understand are that you cannot have a planned homebirth if you go into labour before 37 weeks. Not sure in America, but in the UK you then have to go for a presentation scan. This is to make sure your baby is in a safe position to be born and there are no concerns over cord or placenta. My care at home during my labour was amazing. It was so much more personal. I got the care I wanted. Within an hour of giving birth I was curled up in my own bed with my baby with no other noises or disturbances.



It's not a descision that should be made lightly. If its your first child you don't know what to expect pain wise. You also should avoid it if you have any pre existing medical conditions, I think its too risky for both you and your child.



For me it was a great experience!

Natalie - posted on 05/13/2009

Hi Alyssa, to your question on home births, i see it as a personal choice, i had my daughter torrance now aged 7 at home, not by choice by the way (she just came out to quick.......lol), but i had the ambulance officers there to help, i think it's up to you and your partner to decide on wether you want to have a home birth or a hospital birth but get a lot of information on it and talk to your midwife/doctor aswell. good luck and best wishes on your arrival :-)

Lynda - posted on 05/13/2009

I've had 4 children and i delivered at home with my first daughter. It was great being in your own surroundings.

Sian - posted on 05/13/2009

I had my first child last June and had a home birth. I had planned to do so from day one, and shared my hopes with my midwife from the very beginning. I had a normal, low risk pregnancy, so the home birth option was strongly supported. I had an amazing experience, needing no pain relief at all (not even a paracetomol!) and didn't even tear. I loved being able to have a bath and shower in my own bathroom (before and after the birth), getting into my own bed (where I spent the rest of the day while my parents, in-laws and husband ran around after me!) and being in a familiar environment. The midwives cleared up after the birth, so you don't need to worry about that! Obviously, I don't have a personal hospital experience to compare it with, but I had the best birth experience out of any of my friends who have had children in the past 3 years, and am the only one who had no medical intervention at all. I was also the only one to have a home birth.
Of course there are risks with giving birth but this is true whether you are in hospital or not, and, as someone else has already mentioned, home births are statistically safer than hospital births.
I live in the UK and I recognise that culture of giving birth is very different in the US, where you are expected to go to hospital, to have an epidural the second you step through the door and be disgusted if a doctor is not present throughout the labour. But I recently found out that births are only like this because a (male) politician in the 1970s "decided" that home births were not safe. He had no research or informed grounding for this decision, and it changed the face of childbirth. I would strongly recommend that you do some major research into home births, including talking to your midwife/medical staff and make an informed choice for yourself.
Good luck!

Joanna - posted on 05/13/2009

LIke many of the women quoted above I had a perfectly healthy pregnancy but right at the end there were complications. After a frightening and painful labour delivery my son was born in distress. We were just blocks from hospital but the ambulance took forever and after three weeks in intensive care my son died. I was blamed by hospital staff but mostly the blame I put on myself has never completely left. I now have two healthy daughters - both born by C-section because they were HUGE. You can have a good delivery in a hospital and most importantly if anything goes wrong at the last minute you're already where you need to be.

Debbie - posted on 05/13/2009

If you have already had a baby and there were NO complications or anything, than I would go for it. But I would make sure you had a mid wife or doula. But I am sure it would be a wonderful experience. I have had 3 babies, and me personally I could not do it because I am such a big baby and do not like any pain. So I totally needed that epidural. But I would make a list of Pros and Cons and discuss them with your doctor, and just do what you feel is the best. So best of luck for you

Torien - posted on 05/13/2009

Look ultimately it's your body and when giving birth you have to feel comfortable ( or at least as comfortable as you can) but as someone who's first child had a cardiac arrest half an hour after she was born I am a firm believer of hospitals. Her delivery was total normal we were back in our room and I was feeding her she went as stiff as a board. blue and then black. I thought I had lost her and at just 18 it was the most terrifying experience I have had. So my advice would be to follow what feels right for you but also listen to medical advice. Good luck.

Lucy - posted on 05/13/2009

Don't do it!!! I had a perfectly normal pregnancy and went into labour naturally - day before my due date - but everything went wrong in labour and if I had not been in hospital there's a big chance myself and my son would not be here today! Things can change so quickly so if you can be somewhere where there is as much help as possible its got to be a good thing!!

Anne - posted on 05/12/2009

I won't risk my child life..If something goes wrong would you get help fast...It doesn't matter if your pregnancy has been perfect too many things can still go wrong

Tara - posted on 05/12/2009

We are planning a homebirth for our next baby (we're not pregnant yet). I would never step into a hospital again to have a birth unless it was an emergency type situation, a situation in which my midwife would be able to tell far before anything drastic would happen.

When you have educated and experienced midwives around that know what they are doing, homebirths are an INCREDIBLY safe option for low risk pregnancies.

Studies have shown that homebirths are just as safe (or safer) than births in a hospital for low risk pregnancies.

The least amount of interventions, the better for me!!!

With my first daughter, I went to the hospital, but I choose a midwife instead of an OB. I had a pretty good birth for a first birth for the most part....but I just know that if I had had her at home it would have been a million times better. I don't know that I could have had a homebirth for my first birth at that point in my life, but I do know that all our next children will be born at home (more than likely).

Some info on homebirth:

http://chetday.com/homebirthresearch.htm

Martina - posted on 05/12/2009

I think that if you are comfortable with the whole thing then you need to move forward. I have not heard anything negative about itl

Jennifer - posted on 05/12/2009

Homebirth scares me because of the risks involved. I had an emergency c-section with my son. Who knows what would have happened had I not been in the hospital.

Natalie - posted on 05/12/2009

Hey. I personally would not recommend a home birth incase something went wrong. I mean, if you are dead set keen on one and you live close to a hospital I suppose that there is nothing wrong me that, but in my personal opinion from already having two babies I wouldnt. Nothing went wrong either time but just as a safety precaution,

Jill - posted on 05/12/2009

I would never do a homebirth just because of the "what ifs". I know that everyone says the midwife brings things with her but can they be just as effective as the technology that's sitting in the hospital room at your disposal if needed?

Amber - posted on 05/12/2009

I would have to say it is the most natural and wonderful experience you will ever have in your life. You don't have people pushing you into having any drugs if that is your desire...no one telling you you have to stay in your bed. Your body knows what it needs to get that baby out. Just follow your bodies instinct. Listen to what your body wants. I'm a doula and even if you want to be in the hospital your doula can be an advocate of you and what you want but if I had it to do all over again...I would want to have a home birth. No one bothering you every hour and poking and proding you...you would have peace and quiet to deliver....How awesome does that sound?

Lea - posted on 05/12/2009

Get an appointment with a local midwife. "Shop" around until you feel comfortable with one. Ask lots of good questions...like how many babies have you delivered, what are your limitations, etc.... Get educated about it. Then, go with your gut. I have been blessed to have seven live births at home. All of them have their own story. Sometimes scary moments, but all well-taken care of. I knew that I was in good hands. Don't listen to all of the scary stuff people feed you. You'll just have to get educated and leave the rest in God's hands.

Amy - posted on 05/12/2009

I had all three of my kids naturally. I figured that if other moms could do it I could too, It hurt like hell but it is something I can say I accomplished.

Amy - posted on 05/12/2009

I have 3 girls that were all high risk pregnancies so i insisted on doctor instead of midwives and had them in the hospital. It is true that there is so much that happens in the natural process that is lost with a hospital birth but I always worry if something were to go wrong. If I were you I would check out facilities that offer a more natural setting. It may not be at home but at least it would be more comfortable and it would still be safe in case there were complications.