First I would like to clarify that I am NOT against hospital births, I think that they can be very life saving for high risk pregnancies, and in case of emergencies, and for those who just choose to do so. BUT, that doesn't mean if a woman who doesn't fit into those categories needs to have her baby in a hospital. We hear about the occasional unfortunate (I stress unfortunate, because any loss is sad) tragedies that may happen during a home birth and mark ALL home births as dangerous, but we don't hear or even mark hospital births as dangerous when those same deaths happen in a hospital. The infant mortality rate is still very high for such a developed country as the US, in comparison to other countries who may be "under-developed". There are many developed countries where home birth are a completely normal event, and hospitals are for emergencies.
If you read the studies that ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) have published on the dangers of home births you will see that they lump EVERY birth that takes place outside of a hospital as a home birth. Meaning, those births that happen at home by accident (because baby came too quickly), babies born on route to the hospital (in cars or on the side of the road) etc.(you get the picture) This is entirely different than planned home births in a safe environment, with a trained professional, and even a hospital as a back-up. I just wanted to clarify that.
The sad fact is birth is a huge money making industry in this country. Hospitals can bill more for every intervention a woman has, and sadly there are doctors with years of experience who have never had patients have a "natural" birth. There are some serious holes in our maternal care system, and I'm not saying hospital or home births are going to fix that, but I think we need to work hard to TRULY put mother and baby care first, and not see every birth as a crisis that needs technology to fix it. I hope this added a little more insight...
Comment Reply
First I would like to clarify that I am NOT against hospital births, I think that they can be very life saving for high risk pregnancies, and in case of emergencies, and for those who just choose to do so. BUT, that doesn't mean if a woman who doesn't fit into those categories needs to have her baby in a hospital. We hear about the occasional unfortunate (I stress unfortunate, because any loss is sad) tragedies that may happen during a home birth and mark ALL home births as dangerous, but we don't hear or even mark hospital births as dangerous when those same deaths happen in a hospital. The infant mortality rate is still very high for such a developed country as the US, in comparison to other countries who may be "under-developed". There are many developed countries where home birth are a completely normal event, and hospitals are for emergencies.
May 26, 2011 - 6:12pmIf you read the studies that ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) have published on the dangers of home births you will see that they lump EVERY birth that takes place outside of a hospital as a home birth. Meaning, those births that happen at home by accident (because baby came too quickly), babies born on route to the hospital (in cars or on the side of the road) etc.(you get the picture) This is entirely different than planned home births in a safe environment, with a trained professional, and even a hospital as a back-up. I just wanted to clarify that.
The sad fact is birth is a huge money making industry in this country. Hospitals can bill more for every intervention a woman has, and sadly there are doctors with years of experience who have never had patients have a "natural" birth. There are some serious holes in our maternal care system, and I'm not saying hospital or home births are going to fix that, but I think we need to work hard to TRULY put mother and baby care first, and not see every birth as a crisis that needs technology to fix it. I hope this added a little more insight...
This Comment
Reply