Anyone want to share a Midwife/Homebirth bad outcome story?

[OH_Homeschooler]

Home-born babies of moms who transfer postpartum can be subjected to mandatory separation and invasive testing. It's common practice to transfer mom solo and then have dad arrive later with the baby so that the baby doesn't get admitted unnecessarily. Home birth is legal in my state, but hospital workers are not always kind or reasonable when they receive a transfer.

 

I get that, and it is not fair, but I still wonder why the mother in this case wasn't forthcoming if her life was in such immediate danger and she had a simple, valid explanation for why she gave birth yet there was no baby there with her.

[MelanieM]

I get that, and it is not fair, but I still wonder why the mother in this case wasn't forthcoming if her life was in such immediate danger and she had a simple, valid explanation for why she gave birth yet there was no baby there with her.

 

I didn't get the impression that the mother was hiding the fact that she'd had a homebirth. I thought the poster was saying that the hospital staff weren't satisfied with the answer that the mother gave and wanted access to the baby before providing treatment. (Obviously I may be wrong here.)

[Joanne]

mentally impaired if I had not been in a hospital. He was my second child (first was hospital delivery natural). My water broke 6 weeks early after a weekend spent feeling like I had a bladder infection (was really labor but I didn't know it.) After getting to the hospital and spending the day in labor my doc said his opinion was that I needed a c-sec. After taking some time to pray we decided to honor his medical judgment. I had a sweet little nurse who came into my room while I was praying. She said to me, "I used to be a cardiac nurse and those patients went into surgery and did not get to come out with a baby." Then I realized: This birth is NOT about me or how I want the baby to come into this world. It is about making sure he gets here healthy! To make a long story short, he had to be removed by forceps in that c-sec. He looked horrible - he had a line around his head marking where he was stuck in my pelvis. He is FINE today. I later met a woman who had a similar delivery and the baby was not taken c-section. The boy has severe cerebral palsy. I credit my doctor and hospital for saving my son. If I had been at home I doubt that the outcome would have been as favorable.

 

The WHOLE point in having a baby is to HAVE A BABY not a birth experience that makes mom feel wonderful. It is really all about having a healthy baby. Really. So, if you do the research and find that more babies are born healthy at home, then that sounds like the best option. But I sure would want to have a hospital and doc with SOUND medical judgment on hand for when that midwife is in over her head.

 

:eek:

 

:banghead:

 

I'll play the red herring/fallacy game:

 

 

• a 6 week premie is not a match for the OP criteria

• that he's fine = excellent choice

• severe palsy is random inclusion

• assumption that a choice to homebirth = a choice for a "nice birth"

• assumption that a homebirth choice can't be made in support of healthy outcomes

 

 

Bonus points for:

 

 

• inclusion of prayer over trusting the dr.

• sweet little former cardiac nurse

• using SOUND medical judgement to p/a prove a point

 

[kubiac]

In addition to Peggy Vincent's amazing Baby Catcher (what a wonderful read!), I highly recommend The Midwife: A Memoir of Birth, Joy, and Hard Times by Jennifer Worth (about midwifery in the 1950s in a poor section of London) and Carol Leonard's Lady's Hands, Lion's Heart (about midwifery in the far northeastern U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s.) Worth's book is excellent and has a great sense of humor, Leonard's book is more poignant but also (much) more painful.

 

And if you are looking for thoughtful exploration of modern American birth practices, do take a look at Jennifer Block's outstanding Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care. There's a tremendous amount of food for thought in this book, and she is thoughtful and balanced in her approach.

[birchbark]

I think a lot of your birth experience depends upon the attendant, not the setting.

 

My first was an attempted homebirth. The midwife let me suffer for 12 hours at 9 cm before admitting that we'd better go to the hospital.

 

We loved both the doc and the hospital and went back for our other babies. Many of my friends and family happily homebirth. Like I said, it just depends.

[Mrs Mungo]

Did she tell the hospital where the baby was ASAP? Was she trying to keep it a secret? You make it sound like the mother was being neglected because she had a homebirth. How would the hospital know that was the case unless she told them?

 

Don't forget that unfortunately, there are such things as dumpster babies. It seems unthinkable to a message board full of caring parents but there are in fact people who give birth then ditch their babies, leaving them to die.

 

So the mother was in a dire situation, but for all the hospital knew the baby was too. I don't understand why the mother would withhold the basic information that she had a homebirth, and that the baby was being cared for by the father. That doesn't make sense to me at all, especially if this smart woman felt like she didn't do anything wrong by exercising her right to give birth at home.

 

This is the same argument people make for homeschoolers having their homes inspected by child protective services.

[Mrs Mungo]

The WHOLE point in having a baby is to HAVE A BABY not a birth experience that makes mom feel wonderful. It is really all about having a healthy baby. Really. So, if you do the research and find that more babies are born healthy at home, then that sounds like the best option. But I sure would want to have a hospital and doc with SOUND medical judgment on hand for when that midwife is in over her head.

 

Wow, seriously? What a crappy thing to imply. My oldest dd was born with a GP who endangered her life and mine through unnecessary interventions. I chose midwives for my other births because I firmly believe natural childbirth is safer for baby. Doctors generally do not allow birth to happen naturally. They constantly try to force birth to comply with a standard. My other babies were born in Europe where midwives almost always serve as birth attendants. When I needed a csection with my middle dd I knew it was necessary because there had been no interventions, nobody was trying to force the birth to happen according to a schedule.

[Heather in Neverland]

I don't have an opinion on home birth vs. Hospital birth. I think it is a personal choice. But I do have to agree that far too many women are more worried about whether or not their "birth experience" measures up to some utopian standard they have set for themselves rather than just being happy the baby arrived safely.

 

My SIL ended up having an emergency c-section after preparing herself for an all-natural, at home, water birth. In the end the baby was perfect but all she could talk about was how upset she was that she didn't have the baby naturally.

 

Give me a break... You have a healthy baby... How about a little more gratitude and a little less navel-gazing?

[birchbark]

What a crappy thing to imply.

 

:confused:

 

I don't have an opinion on home birth vs. Hospital birth. I think it is a personal choice. But I do have to agree that far too many women are more worried about whether or not their "birth experience" measures up to some utopian standard they have set for themselves rather than just being happy the baby arrived safely.

 

My SIL ended up having an emergency c-section after preparing herself for an all-natural, at home, water birth. In the end the baby was perfect but all she could talk about was how upset she was that she didn't have the baby naturally.

 

Give me a break... You have a healthy baby... How about a little more gratitude and a little less navel-gazing?

 

TOTALLY agree. I've been there (unplanned hospital and emotional devastation) myself. I think this point is a missing element in much natural-childbirth education.

 

ETA: And I say this after having a very traumatic birth experience.

Edited July 12, 2011 by birchbark

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it's crappy and rude and nasty to imply women who are proponents of natural childbirth care more about some hippy dippy experience instead of the health and safety of their baby. I CARE about the safety of my babies. THAT IS WHY I chose natural birth. I chose it because I felt it was SAFER after my first birth during which the "medical professionals" endangered my baby.

[ktgrok]

I don't have an opinion on home birth vs. Hospital birth. I think it is a personal choice. But I do have to agree that far too many women are more worried about whether or not their "birth experience" measures up to some utopian standard they have set for themselves rather than just being happy the baby arrived safely.

 

My SIL ended up having an emergency c-section after preparing herself for an all-natural, at home, water birth. In the end the baby was perfect but all she could talk about was how upset she was that she didn't have the baby naturally.

 

Give me a break... You have a healthy baby... How about a little more gratitude and a little less navel-gazing?

 

I'm telling myself you have not had a traumatic birth, so you don't know how upsetting your post was. I'm doing deep breaths. Because, to be totally honest, my reaction to your post was an out loud "F-YOU!". And I KNOW that is innaproppriate, and I'm only sharing so that you realize how hurtful that comments like that can be. I love reading your posts online, and I am positive you didn't mean to be hurtful. But as someone that has had PTSD from a traumatic birth your comment felt like a punch in the gut. Really.

 

A woman can love her baby, and be grateful the baby is safe and healthy, and at the same time be devestated by her birth. One has NOTHING to do with the other. And I'm not saying that c-section equals birth trauma. I know women that have had c-sections that were very healing and positive. And I know women that have had horrible traumatic vaginal births. Please do not discount a woman's feelings on this matter.

 

I'm very very very grateful my son was born healthy. I love him more than life itself. I fell in love with him instantly. But my birth experience was the most traumatic, scary, awful thing that has ever happened to me. Worse by 10 times than when I was raped. So don't presume that I should stop navel gazing and be just happy I have a healthy baby. Don't presume that at all.

 

now i'm crying. And I know you didn't mean to hurt me, or anyone else. Again, i'm sharing so that you will be more aware of the reaction your words may have, and more aware of why women my want to talk about a birth experience that didn't go how they planned.

 

Please refer her to ICAN, there is a national group and local chapters, where she can find women that understand, and won't ever tell her she should just be grateful her baby is healthy. A healthy mom matters to.

[Momof3littles]

I think it's crappy and rude and nasty to imply women who are proponents of natural childbirth care more about some hippy dippy experience instead of the health and safety of their baby. I CARE about the safety of my babies. THAT IS WHY I chose natural birth.

:iagree: Well said.

 

And let's not forget that the unnecessary primary c-sections have an impact on the health of future pregnancies. Many women can't even find a hospital or MD who will "allow" vbac. Her future babies are then at risk of respiratory distress and c-section related complications, because of the primary c/s. Having some worry and concern over what a c/s means for a future pregnancy is just one of many things a woman might be processing post c-section.

 

THat isn't to say that c/s aren't life-saving in some cases, but most research points to the fact that the c/s rate is far higher than is medically necessary. That of course leaves some women wondering if their section was truly necessary, or if they could have done something differently, etc. Sometimes women just need to think through and process those thoughts, even if the c/s *was* truly a medical emergency. The rate of c/s in this country is going to leave some women wondering though...because the WHO and other medical organizations have stated that the rates in the US are unnecessarily high.

 

I think women have every right to grieve the loss of the birth experience they thought they were going to have. Certainly, it is a good idea to realize things don't always go as planned. Women who plan for a vaginal birth in a hospital are often upset by a need for an emergency C. It doesn't mean they don't care about the health and well-being of their baby. Birth brings up a lot of emotions. For many women, having a primary c/s means they will have a tough time ever finding a provider who will "allow" a vbac in the future, so that one c/s may mean she may not ever get to experience a vaginal birth. It may mean that in her future pregnancies she needs to be concerned about respiratory distress or rupture, etc. Feeling grief and sadness over a birth experience, or wondering if it was really a "necessary" emergency c/s, or wondering if things had to transpire the way they did is all very normal, and it happens to plenty of non-homebirthing women. It doesn't mean that a woman isn't concerned with the well-being of her newborn or is hung up on having a hippy-dippy-trippy-groovy birth experience. It happens all of the time to women who were planning on a hospital birth with an epidural. It has nothing to do with homebirthing.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Momof3littles

[celticmom]

I think it's crappy and rude and nasty to imply women who are proponents of natural childbirth care more about some hippy dippy experience instead of the health and safety of their baby. I CARE about the safety of my babies. THAT IS WHY I chose natural birth. I chose it because I felt it was SAFER after my first birth during which the "medical professionals" endangered my baby.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:I have not had a second birth yet but my current plans for future births are for homebirths.

[Momof3littles]

I'm telling myself you have not had a traumatic birth, so you don't know how upsetting your post was. I'm doing deep breaths. Because, to be totally honest, my reaction to your post was an out loud "F-YOU!". And I KNOW that is innaproppriate, and I'm only sharing so that you realize how hurtful that comments like that can be. I love reading your posts online, and I am positive you didn't mean to be hurtful. But as someone that has had PTSD from a traumatic birth your comment felt like a punch in the gut. Really.

 

A woman can love her baby, and be grateful the baby is safe and healthy, and at the same time be devestated by her birth. One has NOTHING to do with the other. And I'm not saying that c-section equals birth trauma. I know women that have had c-sections that were very healing and positive. And I know women that have had horrible traumatic vaginal births. Please do not discount a woman's feelings on this matter.

 

I'm very very very grateful my son was born healthy. I love him more than life itself. I fell in love with him instantly. But my birth experience was the most traumatic, scary, awful thing that has ever happened to me. Worse by 10 times than when I was raped. So don't presume that I should stop navel gazing and be just happy I have a healthy baby. Don't presume that at all.

 

now i'm crying. And I know you didn't mean to hurt me, or anyone else. Again, i'm sharing so that you will be more aware of the reaction your words may have, and more aware of why women my want to talk about a birth experience that didn't go how they planned.

 

Please refer her to ICAN, there is a national group and local chapters, where she can find women that understand, and won't ever tell her she should just be grateful her baby is healthy. A healthy mom matters to.

 

:grouphug:

I have not had a traumatic birth experience w/ any of my 3, but I completely understand why you are hurt by the comments here.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:I have not had a second birth yet but my current plans for future births are for homebirths.

 

Just for the sake of clarity, my other births were in a hospital with a midwife. But, I still think natural childbirth when safe and possible is the best and *safest* option.

[Slartibartfast]

mentally impaired if I had not been in a hospital. He was my second child (first was hospital delivery natural). My water broke 6 weeks early after a weekend spent feeling like I had a bladder infection (was really labor but I didn't know it.) After getting to the hospital and spending the day in labor my doc said his opinion was that I needed a c-sec. After taking some time to pray we decided to honor his medical judgment. I had a sweet little nurse who came into my room while I was praying. She said to me, "I used to be a cardiac nurse and those patients went into surgery and did not get to come out with a baby." Then I realized: This birth is NOT about me or how I want the baby to come into this world. It is about making sure he gets here healthy! To make a long story short, he had to be removed by forceps in that c-sec. He looked horrible - he had a line around his head marking where he was stuck in my pelvis. He is FINE today. I later met a woman who had a similar delivery and the baby was not taken c-section. The boy has severe cerebral palsy. I credit my doctor and hospital for saving my son. If I had been at home I doubt that the outcome would have been as favorable.

 

The WHOLE point in having a baby is to HAVE A BABY not a birth experience that makes mom feel wonderful. It is really all about having a healthy baby. Really. So, if you do the research and find that more babies are born healthy at home, then that sounds like the best option. But I sure would want to have a hospital and doc with SOUND medical judgment on hand for when that midwife is in over her head.

 

I don't think anyone endorsed homebirth in a high risk situation. I think most people would agree that would be crazy. But there is plenty of evidence to support that homebirth in an optimal situation is every bit as safe as a hospital birth, if not SAFER because no one will give her meds that will make c-sections more likely.

 

I find it anti-woman to dismiss other women wishing to have choices in their medical care as "hippy dippy," unless "hippy dippy" means one wishes to be heard, they wish to have their choices respected and they wish to be treated like a person.

 

I was planning a homebirth but risked out and had a planned c-section because of the complications occuring with my son during my pregnancy.

[celticmom]

I'm telling myself you have not had a traumatic birth, so you don't know how upsetting your post was. I'm doing deep breaths. Because, to be totally honest, my reaction to your post was an out loud "F-YOU!". And I KNOW that is innaproppriate, and I'm only sharing so that you realize how hurtful that comments like that can be. I love reading your posts online, and I am positive you didn't mean to be hurtful. But as someone that has had PTSD from a traumatic birth your comment felt like a punch in the gut. Really.

 

A healthy mom matters to.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:You are also assuming that medical interventions do not have a negative impact on the baby as well as the mother and that is not accurate at all. The interventions can cause the baby to go into distress which the doctor then uses as an excuse to "save" the baby with a c-section.

 

And "pit to distress" is even worse, here is further information about that but I will warn you these articles pull no punches. http://keyboardrevolutionary.blogspot.com/2009/07/just-when-id-thought-id-heard-it-all.html

http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/2009/7/6/pit-to-distress-your-ticket-to-an-emergency-cesarean.html

http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/2009/7/10/pit-to-distress-2-why-we-are-all-distressed.html

[Purpledaizy]

Well, this was a "could have been" poor outcome. Ds was born at a birth center with an unforeseen cardiac problem. I specifically chose the center because it was across the street from a hospital with a renowned NICU. However, the center was not affiliated with the hospital. After my son was born and assessed with the problem, the midwife literally picked him up and ran out of the building and across the street to the NICU. He was immediately in the care of pediatric cardiologists.

[Storm Bay]

A friend of mine when I was in Ottawa had one in the late 1980s. She'd been pressured into a home birth by people in her former church (ie they said that if you had faith, etc, you'd have your baby at home & everything would be well, etc.) However, her baby wouldn't come out and after quite a long time she realized she needed to go to the hospital where she had a very necessary C-section. The negative parts here are the pressure others put on her and the fact that the midwife didn't figure it out first.

 

While I know many have had successful home births I see it as playing the odds, especially with a first baby when you have no idea how easily you give birth, but any time. I'm not against nurse midwives, though, as long as they are good at knowing when to call an OB-Gyn & it's in a birth centre where there are OB-Gyns available. While I'm opposed to routine C-sections and over using technology, I am living proof that C-Sections can save lives. There was no way I would have ever come out of my mother naturally because I have a large head (not abnormally, but got it from my dad's side) and it was in the military position. She endured 30 hours of labour before finally getting some anaesthetic to have an emergency C-section (before ultrasounds & she wanted natural childbirth in the days when it wasn't popular.)

[Storm Bay]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:You are also assuming that medical interventions do not have a negative impact on the baby as well as the mother and that is not accurate at all. The interventions can cause the baby to go into distress which the doctor then uses as an excuse to "save" the baby with a c-section.

 

And "pit to distress" is even worse, here is further information about that but I will warn you these articles pull no punches. http://keyboardrevolutionary.blogspot.com/2009/07/just-when-id-thought-id-heard-it-all.html

http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/2009/7/6/pit-to-distress-your-ticket-to-an-emergency-cesarean.html

http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/2009/7/10/pit-to-distress-2-why-we-are-all-distressed.html

 

There has to be a healthy balance, because millions of women and babies have died over the centuries because there was no such thing as a C-section, and I'm not including women who died of childbed fever (much of which was brought about by doctors ignorant of germs, but not all of it was--midwives also passed it along, just not as often) or other complications. Babies can't always be turned, cords can strangle them (my db's first baby died of this in 1994 and had the doctor not played the odds, this baby would have been born by C-section instead of dying), etc. True, interventions can be overused, which is why you have to choose your midwife or OB-Gyn with great care. My OB-Gyn goes natural as much as you want to as long as a life isn't at risk. He saved mine with my first and that of my second dd's with the second (I had a C-section that would have been done 50 years ago when only 4 % of births were done by C-Section. I think 4 % is lower than it should be now, but that it's far too high now for first births.)

 

Blogs can be good reading, but I would never base my final decision on a blog alone. There are a lot of half truths that are tossed around in every discipline, including medicine.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Karin

[Pretty in Pink]

A friend of mine when I was in Ottawa had one in the late 1980s. She'd been pressured into a home birth by people in her former church (ie they said that if you had faith, etc, you'd have your baby at home & everything would be well, etc.) However, her baby wouldn't come out and after quite a long time she realized she needed to go to the hospital where she had a very necessary C-section. The negative parts here are the pressure others put on her and the fact that the midwife didn't figure it out first.

 

While I know many have had successful home births I see it as playing the odds, especially with a first baby when you have no idea how easily you give birth, but any time. I'm not against nurse midwives, though, as long as they are good at knowing when to call an OB-Gyn & it's in a birth centre where there are OB-Gyns available. While I'm opposed to routine C-sections and over using technology, I am living proof that C-Sections can save lives. There was no way I would have ever come out of my mother naturally because I have a large head (not abnormally, but got it from my dad's side) and it was in the military position. She endured 30 hours of labour before finally getting some anaesthetic to have an emergency C-section (before ultrasounds & she wanted natural childbirth in the days when it wasn't popular.)

 

It's incorrect to assume that just because a person chooses to birth in a hospital that they will have immediate access to great medical care.

 

I will be birthing at my local hospital in just under 3 months. There is a 1 in 8 possibility that the provider attending my birth will be a CNM (which I prefer over an OB any day of the week); however, the on-call OB will be at his office seeing patients or out to supper or at home in bed. Being in that hospital will not guarantee that there is an OB immediately available to me should the CNM decide that she is "in over her head" (to borrow from another PP). Furthermore, there is no NICU at this hospital, the anesthesiologist also leaves and goes on-call after a certain time, etc. If something goes wrong I could be stuck waiting for the right people to show up.

 

If there were a CNM that did homebirths living in my immediate area I would go that route. It's no riskier, statistically speaking, that giving birth at my local hospital.

[Heather in Neverland]

I'm telling myself you have not had a traumatic birth, so you don't know how upsetting your post was. I'm doing deep breaths. Because, to be totally honest, my reaction to your post was an out loud "F-you" to.

 

Well, let's see... I had HG through my pregnancy which caused me to be hospitalized three times. I went into early labor at 6 months and had to be on bed rest for the last 3. I had preeclampsia so badly I had to eventually e induced. Hard labor for 23 hours and after he was finally pulled out I nearly died from loss of blood as they could not stop the bleeding and I had to have multiple blood transfusions.

 

So yeah, I know a little bit about traumatic birth experiences. Mine was so traumatic that I adopted twice rather than go through it again. But all I care about now and all I cared about then was my baby was safe.

 

Sure a natural birth followed by going home that same day and making dinner for my family would have been great but it didn't happen. Instead I spent 5 days in the hospital trying to stay alive. Oh well. I chose not to focus on my experience and instead be grateful for my healthy child.

 

So obviously you are very sensitive about this topic as evidenced by the "f--you" but know that I am not discounting the fact that women HAVE bad experiences since I had one myself. I am, however, not impressed with women who tell me they are upset because their birth experience was not the perfect experience they wanted it to be. Yes there are women who are more about the experience than the baby. I have met many... Some who even tell me they are depressed because they had an epidural when they really wanted to go natural. Depressed? Really? Over that?

 

After my pregnancy and delivery I am just grateful my ds lived through it.

[Momof3littles]

Some who even tell me they are depressed because they had an epidural when they really wanted to go natural. Depressed? Really? Over that?

 

After my pregnancy and delivery I am just grateful my ds lived through it.

I don't see why someone can't simultaneously be grateful for their child being alive while feeling disappointed they didn't have the birth experience they were hoping for. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

 

If I trained for a marathon and didn't finish, I might feel some disappointment. I think some people view birth that way. They prepare for the "challenge" of going unmedicated, etc. and may feel a little disappointed, sad, or depressed that it didn't work out. That doesn't mean they aren't grateful that their baby is alive.

 

It is great that you didn't feel depressed over your birth experience. :) That doesn't mean another woman can't have feelings that differ from those you experienced, and it doesn't make her ungrateful.

[ktgrok]

 

So yeah, I know a little bit about traumatic birth experiences. Mine was so traumatic that I adopted twice rather than go through it again. But all I care about now and all I cared about then was my baby was safe.

 

Oh well. I chose not to focus on my experience and instead be grateful for my healthy child.[/b]

 

I am, however, not impressed with women who tell me they are upset because their birth experience was not the perfect experience they wanted it to be.

 

After my pregnancy and delivery I am just grateful my ds lived through it.

 

Well, I was grateful my son lived through it, and traumatized from the surgery where I could feel one side of my body the whole time. I was thrilled to have him, and angry as heck when I found out that the "emergency" surgery was not needed at all. Of course, no one told me that. I didn't find out until I got my records, and found that his heart rate had stabilized after I changed positions and long before he was removed from me. I was totally appreciative that he was healthy, and confused that I felt myself pushing but no one would check me and I was ignored because the doctor had interrupted his dinner to come do my surgery, so we were doing it no matter what. I was happy he didn't need to go to the NICU, and worried that he had to be taken away for treatment for breathing problems he was having that were caused, according to the doctors there, by the surgery itself.

 

I won't even go into the worst parts, because honestly I won't sleep at night if I talk about it.

 

So, I'm happy that you can go through something so awful and then say "oh well". For some of us it isn't that easy. Maybe I'm selfish for caring about my own health, my autonomy, my pain, and my future reproductive options, in addition to caring about my baby. But somehow I don't believe that.

 

 

 

I

Edited July 13, 2011 by ktgrok

[Joanne]

I don't have an opinion on home birth vs. Hospital birth. I think it is a personal choice. But I do have to agree that far too many women are more worried about whether or not their "birth experience" measures up to some utopian standard they have set for themselves rather than just being happy the baby arrived safely.

 

My SIL ended up having an emergency c-section after preparing herself for an all-natural, at home, water birth. In the end the baby was perfect but all she could talk about was how upset she was that she didn't have the baby naturally.

 

Give me a break... You have a healthy baby... How about a little more gratitude and a little less navel-gazing?

 

ALL of the home (or other alternative birth settings) birthers I know made the choice for safety, not for "birth experience".

 

As a former LLL member, alternative parenting, crunchy earth mama type, I've known dozens of such birthers. The "birth experience" was a related add-on, but not the primary, driving consideration.

 

Your SIL chose poorly with regard to processing her feelings.

[Joanne]

While I know many have had successful home births I see it as playing the odds, especially with a first baby when you have no idea how easily you give birth, but any time. .)

 

Just for another perspective, home birthers typically feel it is more safe to birth at home than in the hospital. They don't (usually) choose such a counter-cultural birth setting with a light regard for safety or as a gamble.

[Joker]

It is great that you didn't feel depressed over your birth experience. :) That doesn't mean another woman can't have feelings that differ from those you experienced, and it doesn't make her ungrateful.

 

:iagree: I don't have some of the horrible stories many here have but if I had decided for a third child I would have opted for a midwife. I was so happy to have younger dd but felt horrible for months after her birth because of my dr. and nurses. They laid her on me and then informed me I had a retained placenta. Dr. then gave it a good yank! I've never felt such pain - (even after her natural delivery). I jerked and gasped and arms/legs flailed. Then dr and nurses chided me to be more careful and not to drop my baby. When I woke up from the quick surgery I had so much guilt and felt like a bad mom. I was very grateful to have dd but would have opted not to have an idiot for a dr. again.

[Mrs Mungo]

Let me try this again.

 

Having a legitimate medical condition and legitimate medical problems with a childbirth results in feeling grateful for a healthy baby and your life.

 

Having doctors foist unnecessary interventions upon you and your unborn baby that snowball and almost KILL you and your unborn baby, then you would feel distrustful of doctors. THEN, you might decide that the safety of your baby takes priority over your personal comfort levels and peace of mind and you might then go with a midwife instead.

 

These are DIFFERENT experiences. Stop pretending they are the same thing.

[ktgrok]

Let me try this again.

 

Having a legitimate medical condition and legitimate medical problems with a childbirth results in feeling grateful for a healthy baby and your life.

 

Having doctors foist unnecessary interventions upon you and your unborn baby that snowball and almost KILL you and your unborn baby, then you would feel distrustful of doctors. THEN, you might decide that the safety of your baby takes priority over your personal comfort levels and peace of mind and you might then go with a midwife instead.

 

These are DIFFERENT experiences. Stop pretending they are the same thing.

 

VERY well put. I have the privilege of knowing an amazing woman that had horrible PTSD after her first c-section. She chose a homebirth for her second, but ended up transferring at the advice of the midwife, and had a needed repeat c-section. She was NOT traumatized by that c-section, party because it truly was needed, but more importantly because she was treated with respect, like anyone should be, throughout the process. Her baby was not kept from her. Her bodily integrity was respected.

 

Hospitals and birth interventions don't have to mean trauma...but disregard for a person's body and spirit certainly can.

[MelanieM]

Just for another perspective, home birthers typically feel it is more safe to birth at home than in the hospital. They don't (usually) choose such a counter-cultural birth setting with a light regard for safety or as a gamble.

 

Exactly. Honestly, birthing is not my favourite thing by a long shot. If I truly thought there was an option to have a pain-free, risk-free birthing experience where I just walked into the hospital, got some meds, took a snooze, then later walked out with my baby in arms I'd be all for it. But, from experience, I know that's not quite how it works (and I had what I would consider a reasonably decent hospital birthing experience). So I choose to homebirth, believing it is the best for me, for baby, and for my recovery. It's certainly not a decision I make lightly, without research and lots of thought, or because I have some desire to martyr myself or align with some ideal.

[Soror]

I had Natural Births(hbs for the last 2) because I felt it was the best option for baby and myself. The best option to avoid an unnecessary c-sec(which are at 1/3-1/2 and are not without associated problems). I did it to avoid interference with bf'ing, which not bf'ing is well known to cause many problems including increased risk of death. I did it to make it easier to avoid an epidural, which are not without health risks for baby or mom- not just the shot itself but the cascade of interventions that often follow it. Just as I decided to bf, which with the first, like many moms was through the bleeding nipples and the sleeplessness. Just as I make sure my diet in pregnancy is stellar, as whatever nutrients I get are passed to the baby. Just as I also make sure that I stay active in pregnancy and try to mantain posture and position at all times to ensure the baby has optimal positioning.

[Annabel Lee]

Hospitals and birth interventions don't have to mean trauma...but disregard for a person's body and spirit certainly can.

 

:iagree: Thank you for putting to words what I've long felt. I had 1 medically necessary and pleasant (as can be) civilian hospital birth and 2 traumatic, horrid military hospital births. The last involved severe lack of physical care & outward show of lack of concern by staff/Dr's resulting in 2 surgeries for my son a year later (one minor - but it caused unecessary risk & heartache in the meantime, and one major). The situation resting solely on my shoulders for the following 6 months was a matter of life/death for my son. It was like a bad episode of the Twilight Zone.

 

It goes both ways for both choices. I think medical preparedness & awareness are key in either place. Just because it's a hospital doesn't mean they offer those.

[Storm Bay]

It's incorrect to assume that just because a person chooses to birth in a hospital that they will have immediate access to great medical care.

 

If there were a CNM that did homebirths living in my immediate area I would go that route. It's no riskier, statistically speaking, that giving birth at my local hospital.

 

I don't assume the first :); my brother's first baby died of cord strangulation in a hospital because the doctor played the odds & didn't call in an OB-Gyn. His baby was in distress during contractions when my sil was on her back, but not when she lay on her side. Most of the time there is nothing wrong in this case, but sometimes there is, and in this one the cord was wrapped around the baby's neck. But there are some things you cannot address in a home birth. I'm not against home births, but was answering the OPs question about negative home birth experiences and also explaining why I wouldn't opt for it based on my birth and that of my family, as well as the negative home birth (well it didn't happen, as I mentioned) experience I know. If someone had been looking for positive stories, I have some of those to tell as well.''

 

You must have a very poor hospital and/or OB Gyns, or a dearth of them, for emergencies, and I'm aware that that problem exists. For a long time in the past, midwives were safer than doctors for various reasons; I'm well aware of women's history having minored in it. One of the travesties of the litigiousness of the US is that many OB Gyns will no longer deliver babies and/or practice due to the insane malpractice insurance rates. One of the reasons US health care is so expensive is because we all pay for everyone's malpractice insurance. To give an eg, 25 years ago, before it was as bad as it is now, my family dr in Vancouver, BC earned less in a year than an anesthesiologist paid for malpractice insurance.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Karin

[ktgrok]

I don't assume the first :); my brother's first baby died of cord strangulation in a hospital because the doctor played the odds & didn't call in an OB-Gyn. His baby was in distress during contractions when my sil was on her back, but not when she lay on her side. Most of the time there is nothing wrong in this case, but sometimes there is, and in this one the cord was wrapped around the baby's neck. But there are some things you cannot address in a home birth. I'm not against home births, but was answering the OPs question about negative home birth experiences and also explaining why I wouldn't opt for it based on my birth and that of my family, as well as the negative home birth (well it didn't happen, as I mentioned) experience I know. If someone had been looking for positive stories, I have some of those to tell as well.''

 

You must have a very poor hospital and/or OB Gyns, or a dearth of them, for emergencies, and I'm aware that that problem exists. For a long time in the past, midwives were safer than doctors for various reasons; I'm well aware of women's history having minored in it. One of the travesties of the litigiousness of the US is that many OB Gyns will no longer deliver babies and/or practice due to the insane malpractice insurance rates. One of the reasons US health care is so expensive is because we all pay for everyone's malpractice insurance. To give an eg, 25 years ago, before it was as bad as it is now, my family dr in Vancouver, BC earned less in a year than an anesthesiologist paid for malpractice insurance.

 

I've searched a lot of studies, and never found cord strangulation to be a real thing. 1/3 of babies are born with the cord around their neck. They are not breathing, so it is not possible to strangle them. The cord CAN be compressed or pinched, which it sounds like was the case, but this has little to nothing to do with it being around the neck. I am VERY sorry for your family's loss, nothing is worse than losing a baby. But I did want to clear that up. I hear it a lot, and it just isn't true.

 

"Retrospective data of over 182,000 births, with the statistical power to determine even mild associations, suggest that a single or multiple nuchal cords at the time of delivery is not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, is associated with higher birthweights and less caesarean sections in births"

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Nuchal_cord

http://midwifethinking.com/2010/07/29/nuchal-cords/

Edited July 14, 2011 by ktgrok

[Slartibartfast]

I dont see how you could make an informed decision from asking for negative anecdotal cases here. Of course they are out there, but you won't be able to make an statistical comparison at all, so how would it contribute to an "informed" decision?

 

:iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

I am living proof that C-Sections can save lives. There was no way I would have ever come out of my mother naturally because I have a large head (not abnormally, but got it from my dad's side) and it was in the military position. She endured 30 hours of labour before finally getting some anaesthetic to have an emergency C-section (before ultrasounds & she wanted natural childbirth in the days when it wasn't popular.)

 

I was a nine pound breech baby with a ginormous melon. (to the point where my family still laughs at my baby pics) I was born vaginally. My mom's Dr did an internal version, that is rarely done now.

 

She had a highly experienced old school Dr.

 

He might still be practicing, my mom was still seeing him recently. :lol:

Edited July 14, 2011 by Sis

[hollyandab]

I didn't read all of the responses, but my sister had a co-worker whose first child died during a home-birth. I don't know exactly what happened and I'm not saying it wouldn't have been any different in a hospital. However, if that outcome does happen, I think you have to be willing to accept that outcome. I personally would never do a home birth simply because if something did go wrong, I would always wonder if I made the wrong decision. I couldn't live with that, but that's me. If it's a strong conviction, for whatever reason, to have a home birth, then you have to face the fact that you have to be ok with a bad outcome and not second guess yourself. I think God has given us the wonderful gift of medicine and great doctors in the U.S., so for me, well, I think you get what my decision would be! But everyone's different! You have to really get to why it is you want to have a home birth vs a hospital birth, and be 100% at peace with it.

 

Blessings!

Holly in KY

[Joanne]

I didn't read all of the responses, but my sister had a co-worker whose first child died during a home-birth. I don't know exactly what happened and I'm not saying it wouldn't have been any different in a hospital. However, if that outcome does happen, I think you have to be willing to accept that outcome. I personally would never do a home birth simply because if something did go wrong, I would always wonder if I made the wrong decision. I couldn't live with that, but that's me. If it's a strong conviction, for whatever reason, to have a home birth, then you have to face the fact that you have to be ok with a bad outcome and not second guess yourself. I think God has given us the wonderful gift of medicine and great doctors in the U.S., so for me, well, I think you get what my decision would be! But everyone's different! You have to really get to why it is you want to have a home birth vs a hospital birth, and be 100% at peace with it.

 

Blessings!

Holly in KY

 

God gave a wonderful human body. And in biblical times pregnant women had the wonderful tradition of midwives. :) Just saying. It's a red herring to suggest or imply that contemporary medicine is God's gift but a traditional midwife assisted birth isn't.

 

Let me use your words, and switch them:

 

I personally would never do a hospital birth simply because if something did go wrong, I would always wonder if I made the wrong decision. I couldn't live with that, but that's me. If it's a strong conviction, for whatever reason, to have a hospital birth, then you have to face the fact that you have to be ok with a bad outcome and not second guess yourself.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

 

Let me use your words, and switch them:

 

I personally would never do a hospital birth simply because if something did go wrong, I would always wonder if I made the wrong decision. I couldn't live with that, but that's me. If it's a strong conviction, for whatever reason, to have a hospital birth, then you have to face the fact that you have to be ok with a bad outcome and not second guess yourself.

 

Nope, doesn't work for me at all. When you switch the words, it does nothing for me at all. There are no cases of hospital deaths that a midwife could have prevented. The opposite is true though. And there are cases where newborn deaths would happen either way. But I don't know of and I don't believe that a newborn death in hospital would have been prevented by a home birth.

Edited July 15, 2011 by CleoQc

[Slartibartfast]

Nope, doesn't work for me at all. When you switch the words, it does nothing for me at all. There are no cases of hospital deaths that a midwife could have prevented. The opposite is true though. And there are cases where newborn deaths would happen either way. But I don't know of and I don't believe that a newborn death in hospital would have been prevented by a home birth.

 

I would recommend you educate yourself on the issue a bit more.

 

Birthing in the hospital does make several interventions more likely and those interventions can be dangerous.

 

Cytotec, Pictocin, stadol, demerol, epidurals, c-sections...these have all resulted in the deaths of babies or mothers.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sis

[Momof3littles]

Nope, doesn't work for me at all. When you switch the words, it does nothing for me at all. There are no cases of hospital deaths that a midwife could have prevented. The opposite is true though. And there are cases where newborn deaths would happen either way. But I don't know of and I don't believe that a newborn death in hospital would have been prevented by a home birth.

 

Ah, but that does happen, and the literature shows that. Giving birth at home has risks. Giving birth in a hospital has a different set of risks. There are homebirth scenarios where the baby may have survived if born in a hospital. However, if you look at the statistics, the tradeoff is that giving birth in a hospital comes with its own set of risks. Intervention (often unnecessary intervention, and frequently not evidence-based) comes with its own set of risks. Major health organizations like the WHO have stated that the c-section rate in this country is higher than necessary, and there is no evidence to support a need for such high rates. Unnecessary c-sections come with risks like respiratory distress for the newborn, which can result in illness or death.

 

Yes, giving birth at home has risks. But when you look at a low-risk population, those same risks are offset by the risks that are inherent with hospital births. Hospital policies can cause newborn deaths. When you look at low-risk women, each scenario has its tradeoffs. As a result, statistically, homebirth is not riskier than a hospital birth. It is as safe or safer if you wade through the medical literature.

 

eta: and to reiterate this point again, not only does an unnecessary primary c/s come with risks for the baby delivered via c/s, it impacts the risk factors for future pregnancies (risk of uterine rupture, the need for repeat c/s since vbac can be hard to come by-and the repeat c/s for future pregnancies means increased risk of respiratory distress etc for the siblings of the baby born via the primary c/s).

Edited July 15, 2011 by Momof3littles

[Joanne]

Nope, doesn't work for me at all. When you switch the words, it does nothing for me at all. There are no cases of hospital deaths that a midwife could have prevented. The opposite is true though. And there are cases where newborn deaths would happen either way. But I don't know of and I don't believe that a newborn death in hospital would have been prevented by a home birth.

 

Actually, that is not true. There are deaths, and other types of damage caused by hospital intervention on birth all the time. That's why the switch *does* work.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Yes, giving birth at home has risks. But when you look at a low-risk population, those same risks are offset by the risks that are inherent with hospital births. Hospital policies can cause newborn deaths. When you look at low-risk women, each scenario has its tradeoffs. As a result, statistically, homebirth is not riskier than a hospital birth for this reason.

 

But that's not what I was getting at. hollyandab wrote a few sentences about why *she* couldn't live with the decision to home birth. And Joanne switched the words around. But the switching doesn't work. This is a question of personal comfort, not scientific facts. I couldn't do a home birth. I couldn't live with myself if something went wrong. I could if the birth was in hospital though. I would feel I gave it all its fair chances. I could never forgive myself for a newborn death had I tried to home birth. I am willing to suffer any medical intervention (and I had two CSections, both with complications that threatened my life or the baby's) if it means giving the baby a fair chance. I don't care what they do to me, just give the baby all its chances of survival!

 

This is a very personal thing, and I'm fine with the generic idea of home birthing. Just not for me. When I said Joanne's word inversion doesn't work, I didn't mean to say they were wrong from a scientific point of view, only that they just don't work for me:

if something did go wrong, I would always wonder if I made the wrong decision

 

I wouldn't wonder if it was a hospital birth, I would always wonder if it was a home birth. This is a guts feeling, not scientific fact. For my guts, the inversion doesn't work and is complete nonsense.

Edited July 15, 2011 by CleoQc

[Slartibartfast]

I wouldn't wonder if it was a hospital birth, I would always wonder if it was a home birth. This is a guts feeling, not scientific fact. For my guts, the inversion doesn't work and is complete nonsense.

 

 

If you want to chose your guts over scientific fact that is one thing but then to call it nonsense, knowing you are doing so, that doesn't make sense.

[mommymilkies]

Ah, but that does happen, and the literature shows that. Giving birth at home has risks. Giving birth in a hospital has a different set of risks. There are homebirth scenarios where the baby may have survived if born in a hospital. However, if you look at the statistics, the tradeoff is that giving birth in a hospital comes with its own set of risks. Intervention (often unnecessary intervention, and frequently not evidence-based) comes with its own set of risks. Major health organizations like the WHO have stated that the c-section rate in this country is higher than necessary, and there is no evidence to support a need for such high rates. Unnecessary c-sections come with risks like respiratory distress for the newborn, which can result in illness or death.

 

Yes, giving birth at home has risks. But when you look at a low-risk population, those same risks are offset by the risks that are inherent with hospital births. Hospital policies can cause newborn deaths. When you look at low-risk women, each scenario has its tradeoffs. As a result, statistically, homebirth is not riskier than a hospital birth. It is as safe or safer if you wade through the medical literature.

 

eta: and to reiterate this point again, not only does an unnecessary primary c/s come with risks for the baby delivered via c/s, it impacts the risk factors for future pregnancies (risk of uterine rupture, the need for repeat c/s since vbac can be hard to come by-and the repeat c/s for future pregnancies means increased risk of respiratory distress etc for the siblings of the baby born via the primary c/s).

:iagree: I have had three hospital births-one of which I could sue for because of my son's neurological problems from *their* mistakes. I have had two homebirths. You bet bad things happen from hospital births! It's a choice every woman needs to make, and either way it should be an informed decision with responsible and qualified providers that they choose. And even then, there are always risks. But research shows homebirth is as safe.

[Momof3littles]

But that's not what I was getting at. hollyandab wrote a few sentences about why *she* couldn't live with the decision to home birth. And Joanne switched the words around. But the switching doesn't work. This is a question of personal comfort, not scientific facts. I couldn't do a home birth. I couldn't live with myself if something went wrong. I could if the birth was in hospital though. I would feel I gave it all its fair chances. I could never forgive myself for a newborn death had I tried to home birth. I am willing to suffer any medical intervention (and I had two CSections, both with complications that threatened my life or the baby's) if it means giving the baby a fair chance. I don't care what they do to me, just give the baby all its chances of survival!

 

This is a very personal thing, and I'm fine with the generic idea of home birthing. Just not for me. When I said Joanne's word inversion doesn't work, I didn't mean to say they were wrong from a scientific point of view, only that they just don't work for me:

 

 

I wouldn't wonder if it was a hospital birth, I would always wonder if it was a home birth. This is a guts feeling, not scientific fact. For my guts, the inversion doesn't work and is complete nonsense.

 

Alrighty then.

[ktgrok]

Nope, doesn't work for me at all. When you switch the words, it does nothing for me at all. There are no cases of hospital deaths that a midwife could have prevented. The opposite is true though. And there are cases where newborn deaths would happen either way. But I don't know of and I don't believe that a newborn death in hospital would have been prevented by a home birth.

 

That is patently untrue. Just infection alone makes that untrue. There ARE babies that die from hospital aquired infections, from the super bugs that are there. Those super bugs are not in your home. Then there are the cases of uterine rupture that resulted in dead babies, that were caused by cytotec, a drug being used off label by doctors, but not used by midwives. And the babies that die from respiratory distress from c-sections were never needed in the first place. And the ones that die from cord prolapse from breaking the waters too early, another thing that happens more with doctors. Plus, in the case of something like shoulder dystocia, or other difficult vaginal delivery, I'd put my money on the techniques of a trained midwife any day simply because they have more training in vaginal delivery. Heck, the best maneuver for handling shoulder dystocia is named after a midwife!

 

However, as you said, there are risks at home too. And you are exactly right about one thing..it comes down to which risks you can live with. If you can live with the hopital risks better than the home risks, then birth in a hospital. What bugs me is when people act like choosing hospital birth is without risk, or less risky, which statistically it isn't. It is just different risks.

[Mrs Mungo]

But that's not what I was getting at. hollyandab wrote a few sentences about why *she* couldn't live with the decision to home birth. And Joanne switched the words around. But the switching doesn't work. This is a question of personal comfort, not scientific facts. I couldn't do a home birth. I couldn't live with myself if something went wrong. I could if the birth was in hospital though. I would feel I gave it all its fair chances. I could never forgive myself for a newborn death had I tried to home birth. I am willing to suffer any medical intervention (and I had two CSections, both with complications that threatened my life or the baby's) if it means giving the baby a fair chance. I don't care what they do to me, just give the baby all its chances of survival!

 

This is a very personal thing, and I'm fine with the generic idea of home birthing. Just not for me. When I said Joanne's word inversion doesn't work, I didn't mean to say they were wrong from a scientific point of view, only that they just don't work for me:

 

 

I wouldn't wonder if it was a hospital birth, I would always wonder if it was a home birth. This is a guts feeling, not scientific fact. For my guts, the inversion doesn't work and is complete nonsense.

 

In other words, you believe that trusting medical professionals relieves you of any moral or personal guilt of a bad hospital outcome?

[scrappyhappymama]

God gave a wonderful human body. And in biblical times pregnant women had the wonderful tradition of midwives. :) Just saying. It's a red herring to suggest or imply that contemporary medicine is God's gift but a traditional midwife assisted birth isn't.

 

Let me use your words, and switch them: I personally would never do a hospital birth simply because if something did go wrong, I would always wonder if I made the wrong decision. I couldn't live with that, but that's me. If it's a strong conviction, for whatever reason, to have a hospital birth, then you have to face the fact that you have to be ok with a bad outcome and not second guess yourself.

 

This is actually exactly how I feel about hospital births. With the exception of a specific high risk factor being identified ahead of time, in which the hospital risks were outweighed by the benefit of addressing my high risk status in hospital. But, if I am healthy and my pregnancy is progressing normally, I would absolutely feel that choosing to have my baby in a hospital rather than at home with a trusted midwife would be the wrong choice FOR ME. I feel very comfortable with the inherent risks of childbirth and my midwife's ability to recognize a problem if it should arise and handle it competently or transfer me if appropriate. I feel very uncomfortable about getting the same level of mom and baby-focused level of care, free of institutional bias and insurance concerns in a hospital setting.

 

I speak as a mom who would have certainly had 2 c-sections out of my four natural births, had they been in a hospital or not assisted by a midwife (based on arbitrary institutional standards of care). I also speak as a mom who could have had one of the bad outcomes that the OP asked about. One of my boys did not begin breathing on his own at birth, and had to be resuscitated, and it took him a full five minutes to begin breathing on his own. My midwife and her assistants handled the situation beautifully and calmly, and once my son began breathing on his own, he was back in my arms and never suffered an ill effect from it. However, in the hospital, he would have been whisked away for continued observation, probably subjected to additional invasive tests, all increasing the likelihood of a secondary infection. Instead, he went home with me a few hours later, and we monitored him for the next few days for any signs of infection or further distress, but he was perfectly well. So yes, I feel confident in this case, the outcome for my son was measurably better for having been born outside the hospital.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

In other words, you believe that trusting medical professionals relieves you of any moral or personal guilt of a bad hospital outcome?

yes, I believe that.

 

And you are exactly right about one thing..it comes down to which risks you can live with. If you can live with the hopital risks better than the home risks, then birth in a hospital. What bugs me is when people act like choosing hospital birth is without risk, or less risky, which statistically it isn't. It is just different risks.

:iagree:

 

That's exactly what I was getting at. Joanne's inversion appeals to how each woman would feel, not based on scientific facts, but on feelings. She talks about conviction, second-guessing oneself, not science. So it goes without saying that each one of us will have a different answer.

 

Knowing that all my cousins, my mom and my sister all had difficult births, some with medical intervention, most without anything major, and my grandmother had GD, I just couldn't choose a homebirth. 36 hours labours are the norm in my family. CSections aren't. Sure you can do a homebirth that lasts 36 hours, but it wasn't something I was looking forward to. On top of that, my Ob-Gyn categorized me as high risk for a string of reasons.

 

Nope, I couldn't live with myself had something gone wrong with a homebirth. Sure, it could have succeeded, sure the hospital outcome could have gone wrong. We're no longer talking about that level. We're talking about forgiving oneself in the long run.

 

ETA: my sister had the 36 hour labour. She was offered a csection, she turned it down. Her son has learning disabilities, and she keeps wondering if he would have been different has she said yes to the csection. This is something that one cannot control, the wondering. It's human nature. I was induced with my son, and I keep wondering if the placenta would not have abrupted had I not been induced. In fact, I'm quite sure it would not have. But I had pre-eclampsia. Not inducing me was bringing on other problems. So yes, I can forgive myself for the induction. My sister is not able to forgive herself for turning down the csection. It really, really, comes down to this: can you live with the worst outcome? At this point, scientific facts don't matter.

 

And for the record, I'm not anti-homebirth, I do believe most women can give birth without any invasive medical intervention - that's what our bodies are meant to do!

Edited July 15, 2011 by CleoQc