|
You must be a logged in user to report a bad post!
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 2 3 4 [5] |
jennyg
LIF Adolescent
Member since 5/05 633 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
I know a few people who have had amazing, complication-free at home water births. All of those were second or third (or fourth) births after having their first at a hospital, so maybe there's some added confidence knowing you've done it once drug-free in a hospital and can do it again this time in a home setting.
That being said, I had all three of mine in a hospital. I want the doctors there is something goes terrible wrong but could do without the constant monitoring, prodding etc.
The first and last were drug free by choice, they let me walk around, gave me a ball to rock on, went in and out of the shower. No midwife but really there were only nurses until the "baby catcher" doctor came to check me when it was time to push! They were both amazing experiences because I had the least amount of medical intervention possible. I did trust my body and knew when to push etc.
Here's where I have a problem. With my 2nd baby, I wasn't progressing fast enough for the doctor so I let him convince me to break my water and then give me pitocin and I ended up getting an epi. Because of this, my labor progressed too quickly (went from 3-10CM in 20 minutes) and my DS aspirated fluid, was whisked away to the NICU minutes after birth, came down with pneumonia, picked up a secondary infection in the NICU and was spiraling downward for a good two weeks when we didn't know if he was going to make it. I wish I could go back in time and let my body do what it was supposed to do naturally. I feel that the complications could have been avoided if I had less medical intervention.
|
Posted 10/4/12 11:08 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
nycgirl
Angels!
Member since 3/09 7721 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
My last post on this topic...
Here is the "Wax" paper.
It is a metaanalysis. This means it takes the data from many, smaller studies and put them together to come up with an overall conclusion. As with anything, some of the studies conclude home births are as safe & some conclude they are not: the composite is what they base their recommendations on.
The results:
Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions including epidural analgesia, electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, episiotomy, and operative delivery. These women were less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections. Neonatal outcomes of planned home births revealed less frequent prematurity, low birthweight, and assisted newborn ventilation. Although planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates, planned home births were associated with significantly elevated neonatal mortality rates.
The conclusion:
Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.
And, the group of women having home birth had a much lower rate of pre-existing conditions and problems than those having hospital births.
The paper is available a la google:
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)00671-X/fulltext
I believe anyone is entitled to make their own decisions.
|
| Posted 10/4/12 3:14 PM |
| |
|
Sparrow
LIF Adult
Member since 11/10 6826 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
Posted by nycgirl
My last post on this topic...
Here is the "Wax" paper.
It is a metaanalysis. This means it takes the data from many, smaller studies and put them together to come up with an overall conclusion. As with anything, some of the studies conclude home births are as safe & some conclude they are not: the composite is what they base their recommendations on.
The results:
Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions including epidural analgesia, electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, episiotomy, and operative delivery. These women were less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections. Neonatal outcomes of planned home births revealed less frequent prematurity, low birthweight, and assisted newborn ventilation. Although planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates, planned home births were associated with significantly elevated neonatal mortality rates.
The conclusion:
Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.
And, the group of women having home birth had a much lower rate of pre-existing conditions and problems than those having hospital births.
The paper is available a la google:
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)00671-X/fulltext
I believe anyone is entitled to make their own decisions.
See, this is HUGE in looking at outcomes. Of course hospitals are going to have more infant mortality, more negative outcomes becuase they are taking on high risk pregnancies and sick babies!
I was watching a show on home births the other night and they threw up a statistic that "Babies born at home are 6 times less likely to die within the first year". Um, yeah, I would hope so, considering they should be only the lowest risk pregnancies in the first place! To people who don't know much about the medical field or don't give things much though would really take that the wrong way.
|
| Posted 10/4/12 3:55 PM |
| |
|
Paramount
Sweet!
Member since 7/12 4289 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
Posted by nycgirl
The conclusion:
Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.
Do I understand this correctly?
This says, basically, that a planned home birth triples your chances of your baby dying, right?
|
| Posted 10/4/12 4:10 PM |
| |
|
charon54
My two boys!
Member since 5/05 7279 total posts
Name:
Rebecca
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
Not for me. Both my children needed NICU care after their births. I couldn't imagine what would have happened to them had we not be in a hospital setting.
|
| Posted 10/4/12 5:32 PM |
| |
|
ChilisWife
God Bless America
Member since 5/05 3572 total posts
Name:
A.K.
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
I had both kids in a hospital and I'm not really sure what was so horrible about it. It's not like they tie you down and beat you. Yes, they come in a few times to monitor your blood pressure and the baby's heart rate but so what - I had the previous 9 months to sit at home. For the most part at the hospital I was relaxing and watching TV and at the point where it got too painful I wouldn't have been able to walk around anyway. So I guess what I am not getting is why home births are supposed to be so much better.
|
| Posted 10/4/12 7:44 PM |
| |
|
TheDivineMrsM
2 girls 4 me!
Member since 8/08 7878 total posts
Name:
Mama mama mama....
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
Posted by Sparrow
Posted by nycgirl
My last post on this topic...
Here is the "Wax" paper.
It is a metaanalysis. This means it takes the data from many, smaller studies and put them together to come up with an overall conclusion. As with anything, some of the studies conclude home births are as safe & some conclude they are not: the composite is what they base their recommendations on.
The results:
Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions including epidural analgesia, electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, episiotomy, and operative delivery. These women were less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections. Neonatal outcomes of planned home births revealed less frequent prematurity, low birthweight, and assisted newborn ventilation. Although planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates, planned home births were associated with significantly elevated neonatal mortality rates.
The conclusion:
Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.
And, the group of women having home birth had a much lower rate of pre-existing conditions and problems than those having hospital births.
The paper is available a la google:
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)00671-X/fulltext
I believe anyone is entitled to make their own decisions.
See, this is HUGE in looking at outcomes. Of course hospitals are going to have more infant mortality, more negative outcomes becuase they are taking on high risk pregnancies and sick babies!
I was watching a show on home births the other night and they threw up a statistic that "Babies born at home are 6 times less likely to die within the first year". Um, yeah, I would hope so, considering they should be only the lowest risk pregnancies in the first place! To people who don't know much about the medical field or don't give things much though would really take that the wrong way.
But if you look at the individual studies in the meta-analysis on home birth outcomes, the research isn't done properly. Some of the studies included unplanned home births (like the people in "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant" or people that don't make it to the hospital). Also included are people that have "UC" or Unattended Childbirths - people that do their own prenatal care and do not have a medical professional in attendance. These people are definitely going to skew the results.
Other things that need to be looked at are the level of experience and education of the attending practitioners. Not all midwives were created equal. (FTR, most LI/lower NY midwives are Certified Nurse Midwives, and have extensive training as L&D RNs and must then attend a midwifery program). But that's not the case in all places. Some states outlaw midwives altogether, so women looking into this option have to find someone "underground." Other regions/states have limited options. Still others have lots of options but allow "direct entry" midwives (women that learn midwifery through apprenticeships) in addition to CNMs. Home birth is safe, assuming the practitioner knows what she's doing and has access to colleagues that can take her patient in an emergency transfer.
Message edited 10/4/2012 9:05:18 PM.
|
| Posted 10/4/12 8:56 PM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
Posted by ChilisWife
I had both kids in a hospital and I'm not really sure what was so horrible about it. It's not like they tie you down and beat you. Yes, they come in a few times to monitor your blood pressure and the baby's heart rate but so what - I had the previous 9 months to sit at home. For the most part at the hospital I was relaxing and watching TV and at the point where it got too painful I wouldn't have been able to walk around anyway. So I guess what I am not getting is why home births are supposed to be so much better.
I agree. I had my DD in a traditional LI hospital with a traditional OB and I never felt like it was bad at all!
They didn't strap me to the table and force me to labor on my back either.
As soon as I had my epi in, the nurse sat me up in the bed and I stayed that way until I was ready to push. The baby progressed pretty quickly that way too- even with the dreaded epi!!
For me, it was a pretty pleasant experience...at least as pleasant an experience as you can get while pushing a child out!
And in terms of the monitoring- I was DAMN glad for it. I wanted my baby's heart rate to be constantly monitored... God forbid something was off, I wanted them to know about it ASAP.
It's not a bad thing..at all!
Message edited 10/5/2012 8:57:28 AM.
|
| Posted 10/5/12 8:42 AM |
| |
|
Kidsaplenty
Sister love
Member since 2/06 5971 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: Random ?: Home birth
Posted by TheDivineMrsM
Posted by Sparrow
Posted by nycgirl
My last post on this topic...
Here is the "Wax" paper.
It is a metaanalysis. This means it takes the data from many, smaller studies and put them together to come up with an overall conclusion. As with anything, some of the studies conclude home births are as safe & some conclude they are not: the composite is what they base their recommendations on.
The results:
Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions including epidural analgesia, electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, episiotomy, and operative delivery. These women were less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections. Neonatal outcomes of planned home births revealed less frequent prematurity, low birthweight, and assisted newborn ventilation. Although planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates, planned home births were associated with significantly elevated neonatal mortality rates.
The conclusion:
Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.
And, the group of women having home birth had a much lower rate of pre-existing conditions and problems than those having hospital births.
The paper is available a la google:
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)00671-X/fulltext
I believe anyone is entitled to make their own decisions.
See, this is HUGE in looking at outcomes. Of course hospitals are going to have more infant mortality, more negative outcomes becuase they are taking on high risk pregnancies and sick babies!
I was watching a show on home births the other night and they threw up a statistic that "Babies born at home are 6 times less likely to die within the first year". Um, yeah, I would hope so, considering they should be only the lowest risk pregnancies in the first place! To people who don't know much about the medical field or don't give things much though would really take that the wrong way.
But if you look at the individual studies in the meta-analysis on home birth outcomes, the research isn't done properly. Some of the studies included unplanned home births (like the people in "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant" or people that don't make it to the hospital). Also included are people that have "UC" or Unattended Childbirths - people that do their own prenatal care and do not have a medical professional in attendance. These people are definitely going to skew the results.
Other things that need to be looked at are the level of experience and education of the attending practitioners. Not all midwives were created equal. (FTR, most LI/lower NY midwives are Certified Nurse Midwives, and have extensive training as L&D RNs and must then attend a midwifery program). But that's not the case in all places. Some states outlaw midwives altogether, so women looking into this option have to find someone "underground." Other regions/states have limited options. Still others have lots of options but allow "direct entry" midwives (women that learn midwifery through apprenticeships) in addition to CNMs. Home birth is safe, assuming the practitioner knows what she's doing and has access to colleagues that can take her patient in an emergency transfer.
 ONE study that compiles data from ill performed smaller studies does not mean much. Studies that followed exclusively planned home births showed lower complications for mother and baby. How many times do we see on here a perfectly healthy woman with a low risk pregnancy have c-sections? Our csections rates are extremely high for no reason, many are unnecssary and we know that.
|
| Posted 10/5/12 9:24 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 2 3 4 [5] |
Potentially Related Topics:
Currently 439412 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
