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. [Texas Lay Midwifery Program, Six Year Report, 1983-1989, Bernstein & Bryant, Appendix VIIIf, Texas Department of Health]UPDATED:
Sorry, Shannon. I thought I put the link on here to the whole article. It addresses your question. The fact is that technology DOES save many babies. However, we take the approach of viewing all moms and babies as needing hospital care instead of the sick moms and babies needing hospital care. What the studies have been finding are not only fascinating, but they have spurred a lot of major universities to begin special programs for midwivery. The U.S. actually has a terribly high mortality rate, despite our medical abilities. The World Health Organization has been making very strong statements against the Western approach to childbirth (all stuff I had not heard or read - not the kind of stuff they're putting on the evening news - thereby: the something new I learned today! ha!) Even having a midwife attend your hospital birth greatly decreases the need for intervention or problems. So, click on over to "Is Homebirth for You?" You can also check out "Homebirth - Safety and Benefits"
I apologize for the snafu. I'm currently in the middle of research to prove that portions of your brain exit your body with each placenta!
4 comments:
I like your facts and figures but don't you think that number is hard to compare because generally home birthers are of a healthy/sturdy nature to decide to have a home birth in the first place? I think a lot of high risk pregnancies would naturally use a high risk O.B. and just plan on hospital all the way. I had one of these such pregnancies, with problems from month 4 that would have probably killed us both in childbirth without all kinds of medical intervention. I have several friends who were young and healthy and having their babes at home was a wonderful experience. But, that study doesn't probably account for the ladies who had no prenatal visits but showed up at the hospital with a baby on the way. Or what about the emergency premies that can be tough to save. I'm not arguing with the numbers, I just don't think it's a fair comparison for the doctors. I'm all for crunchy and natural, but it's nice to have technology when you need it too. :}
I'm so glad there is a study on brain loss. I only have neurons that fire aimlessly after mine. :)
Good info Stine. Thanks
I would love nothing more than to birth this baby at home. I hated the hospital and know for certain that once I got home, my recovery time just doubled.
However, my post delivery with my daughter was awful. I bled out and needed 2 blood transfusions. I'm great at birthing a child, not so much with all the after stuff!
Shannon - while you have a good point, the fact is that there have been several "matched population" studies - where either the midwives were serving "high-risk" populations, or only "low-risk", full-term hospital births were compared with the homebirths. These studies showed pretty much the same results - that homebirth with a trained attendant is just as safe, if not safer than, hospital birth.
In addition, such arguments only prove the point that midwives, generally speaking, are doing a effective job of screening clients for risk factors, and appropriately referring them to OB/hospital care when necessary.
Post a Comment