| Reply To Message: |
| Posted By |
70745 on 7/7/2008 8:24:21 AM |
| Subject: |
RE: two questions |
| Message: |
lol........ Maybe I'm missing it completely but he didn't ask for clarification. He posted the links that we've been asking for you to post. And then you refuted his well written piece with nothing but accusations and nothing to prove what you are saying, followed by a link to your own blog, again.
(This message is hereafter directed to Tienchin.)
Thank you, Tienchin for your post. It is exactly what I wanted to see. It feels like to me that these numbers really aren't a fair comparison to each other because there are entirely too many variables in the first place. What I wish these studies included was perhaps quality of prenatal care. I've been running this through my head time and time again while watching this conversation and it feels like these studies are simply looking at the wrong things. It seems rare to me that a neonatal death be directly linked to the actual birth when it gets as far as 28 days after, so how can that be used? (Or maybe there are factors that I'm not aware of?) That said, I don't think that these comparisons can be fairly used for either side of the debate.
If there is proper prenatal care in a low risk woman, and proper monitoring during labor, it seems to me that an intrapartum death would be unlikely both at the hospital and at home for any other reason beyond a complication that would have ended in death anyway. A well trained midwife will see that there is a problem in time to transport the laboring woman while (if necessary) an operating room can be prepped for cesarean. If the woman is within an adequate amount of distance of the hospital, it doesn't seem to me that there would be any difference at all between hospital and home because even if she were in the hospital there would be a wait for the OR to get prepped.
So really, the only difference that I can see is the type of fetal monitoring being used. A doppler doesn't print out a pretty piece of paper like a TOCO does, but you can still monitor the heart rate well, even during a contraction. In a hospital, they would basically do no differently than they would do at home, they just have more gadgets and infections laying around.
So, if you have a well trained midwife, and you're within, lets say, a half hour of a hospital (enough time to prep the OR), and you've done well to take care of yourself and get adequate prenatal care.....what exactly is the advantage of a hospital birth? Because for me, those numbers say nothing.
Tienchin, I think my question is what is the general consensus of what can be done better for a low risk, well prepared woman in labor in a hospital?
I can't remember if I read that you are an advocate of home birth or not. I live in a state that outlaws home birth, and we now have a growing culture of unassisted births, which actually makes me a little scared. I think that home birth is a beautiful thing, but unassisted birth is not the way to go! I can understand the apprehension that may surround the idea of home birth, but I also feel that a woman's right to choose where she births should be number one. I don't know how it is that lawmakers can interfere with that.
|
|