Post-edit Homebirth

Apparently I've offended a few with my homebirth post (specifically nurses and other medical professionals). I am truly sorry for this. I really never have the intention to offend, although I understand why my opinions are offensive to some.

I would like to clarify some of my statements and hopefully clear up some things.

In the past, some of my controversial posts have had a bit of humor in them, usually to try to lighten the weight of the heavy emotions that accompany the things I talk about. This is one area that is so close to my heart that I didn't let in much humor, and instead I went too far the other way and was probably too cynical. I apologize for this.

As I stated in the beginning, I am not anti-hospital, nor anti-doctor (male or female), nor anti-Western medicine, and ESPECIALLY not anti-nurse. I have experienced first-hand the difference a good nurse can make on many occasions. Half my family consists of nurses. My sister and 3 sisters-in-law are nurses (and excellent ones at that). I am grateful that there are doctors willing to put so much on the line to help women have babies. My personal opinion is that doctors should only be utilized for high-risk or emergency situations. But I understand not everybody agrees with this. I don't have any ill feelings toward anyone who chooses to have a doctor at their delivery.

I understand that there are many medical professionals who are wonderful at their jobs and always put the patients first. The problem I have is when the hospitals' or doctors' policies conflict with what is best for the patients, which is what I feel happens over and over again during labor and delivery. While the policies may be under the heading "Going to the extreme just in case the worst scenario happens," making it seem like they're going above and beyond to keep mother and baby safe, I don't doubt that MANY of the policies came into effect after lawsuits. After all, while hospitals and doctors are all about saving lives, there's still the bottom line of making money. And they can't stay in business if they're being sued left and right. I don't doubt that our healthcare system would be in a very different place if there wasn't the issue of liability. People expect medical professionals to be gods (and still sometimes treat them as such). But the truth is, they're human. They make mistakes in their jobs just like the rest of us. Only we don't usually cause harm to another person when we make such mistakes. I don't envy them this position.

The other reason for some of the policies, I believe, is to hopefully lessen the amount of lawsuits. If a doctor can say, "Look, I followed procedure, I followed the policies, I'm not at fault." then a parent is less likely going to be able to sue and win. Whereas if a doctor can only say, "I went with my gut." then they're going to be in a world of hurt when a parent decides to sue. The thing is, I'd rather have a doctor who goes with their gut every time.

And I respect any nurse who goes along with the policies, after all, it's his/her job. And since they've been taught that this is what's best for the patient, they usually believe it (there are some nurses who are against a lot of hospital policies....I was lucky enough to get one of them with Lady's birth). But just because they believe it, that doesn't make it true in every case.

Any nurse understands that every patient is different. So why, then, is this not taken into consideration with all of the policies I mentioned? They are one-size-fits-all policies and most of the time not presented to the patient as something about which they have a choice to make. If a policy is presented to a patient as a choice at all, it's usually very one-sided. "Here are your choices, but this one is the right one." This is completely unfair to the patient. Every option should be presented to the patient along with the pros and cons without the underlying message of "this choice is right and this choice is wrong." I presented one side of the issue with regards to each intervention. I'm assuming that most women will find out or have found about the other side of the issue at the hospital.

One of my biggest beefs with doctors (and even hospital midwives as I experienced last week) is that they seem to not take into account that they're the employee. Instead of giving their patients options and letting them decide what's best for themselves, they tell the patient what is going to happen because after all, they know best, right? They may know a heck of a lot more about the medical world than I do, but it's still my body and my baby's body and *I* should get the final say on what happens. I understand there isn't always time for this in life-threatening circumstances, but I'm not talking about those scenarios. I'm talking about the smaller stuff. Like whether or not you get an episiotomy (and like I said in my last post, thank heavens these are rare these days). My (female) doctor didn't ask me if I wanted one, she told me I needed one a half-second before she cut me. This is nothing less than abuse of power and, really, could be seen as assault. Luckily not every doctor is like this. My best doctor-experience was with Tink's birth. My doctor let me be in control and treated me very respectfully. She asked first before doing any procedures and was very respectful of my wishes. I am grateful for that. Unfortunately, in my experience, she is in the minority.


I would like to clarify some of the terms I used. When I referred to myself as a sheep following the herd, it was not meant to put the label of "sheep" on any woman who chooses to have a hospital birth. There are some women who have really thoroughly researched and pondered and prayed about the appropriate place for them to give birth. I would never refer to them as sheep. But let's be honest, there are women who can be called sheep, including myself in the past. I had no idea what childbirth was all about, and I just turned it over to the medical establishment to take care of. I was afraid. I was afraid of childbirth because society told me it was something to be feared. That it was unbearable pain. That I couldn't handle it. That women had lost their ability to give birth without numbing themselves. That science had taken over and made pain-free childbirth available and that it was better than what mother nature (or God) created. That I could possibly be that one out of every 3 women who could not give birth vaginally to her child and the only thing I could do about it was pray that I wouldn't be. There are a lot of women today who can be labeled "sheep." If that's offensive, I'm sorry. I don't blame them. It's scary to take responsibility for something so huge as bringing a life into this world. And when there are doctors and nurses willing to take that responsibility off their shoulders, they give it willingly.

Like I said, there are women who research it out, understand their role as a laboring mother, understand the risks and benefits of each and every intervention, and choose to give birth in a hospital and opt-in or -out of whatever interventions the hospital offers. (My sister was one of these and there aren't very many people in this world I have as much respect for as her.) These are not the women I'm referring to as sheep. But if you believe that these women are the majority, I'd argue that you're very wrong.

Also, by research, I mean more than just listening to stories of homebirths-gone-bad from friends of friends. Because for every homebirth horror story, I can give you many, many more hospital-birth horror stories. The fact is that children have died or been injured during homebirths and children have died or been injured during hospital births. Some of these deaths have been a direct result of where they were giving birth or the skill of their caretaker, and some of these have been the result of nature. Not every baby or mother can be saved, unfortunately. To think that just because you're giving birth at a hospital you're immune from tragedy is incorrect. Also to think that you have the upper-hand should tragedy befall because you're at the hospital is short-sighted. It may very well be the hospital that causes the tragedy.

With regards to the word "idiots" I actually stand by that one. Because I used it in reference to hospitals that continue to offer ice chips as the ONLY means of nourishment during labor besides IV fluids (which have been shown to cause complications of their own during labor and with the baby after). To me, this is pure idiocy. If you're offended by that, I'm sorry, but I stand by my statement. At the very least, juice and water have proven beneficial and are often more helpful/comforting/satisfying than ice chips. (For the record, I'm not calling any one person or medical personnel idiots. The policy is idiotic and any hospital that won't change is, to me, idiotic.)

My use of the term "stupid" was also called into question. And again, I stand by it. If you read the post, it seems clear, but I will further clarify that I was referring to the universal policy of having every baby vaxed against Hep B stupid. I do consider this to be a stupid policy. I don't consider someone who chooses to have their baby vaxed stupid. Again, this is a one-size-fits-all policy, which is what I'm vehemently opposed to. There are babies who absolutely should be vaccinated for Hep B, but there are others (like mine) who there is absolutely no benefit for, and therefore can only be seen as detrimental (for my babies) since there are risks involved with the vaccination.

I'd also like to clarify the "CYA" thing. I don't think that most medical personnel even understand that that's what it's about. (And truly, CYA isn't always what it's about, but even if they do feel a certain policy is best, there's also the added benefit of making them less liable.) They're just following hospital policy and really believing that by doing so they're putting their patient first. Which, for their intents and purposes, they are. So I really have no ill feelings toward nurses just trying to do their jobs. They are doing what they've been taught and I've known my fair share of excellent nurses. One nurse saved my birth experience on one occasion, and another nurse ruined another one. I even don't have ill feelings toward doctors who really believe that they are doing what's right by the patient. The problem is that most doctors believe that they are, even when statistics would suggest otherwise. There really aren't a lot of doctors willing to think outside of the box. So many are stuck in the rut of what's been done for years, they either don't have the willingness or patience or time to consider any other options.

For example, my sister's midwife is currently working on her thesis for her doctorate. It is all about delayed cord-clamping. The benefits are already proven. There are huge benefits and no risks if baby is healthy right after birth. So her thesis wasn't on that. It was on how much time and effort it will take to get the medical establishment (ie doctors) to change the way they do things. Or if they even could get them all to change. Does that tell you anything?


I would now like to clarify a couple of statements made that were either incomplete or incorrect. The first being about the Vitamin K shot. My statement about the shot was incomplete. And for the record, I feel that this is one of the more benign interventions. There is a risk when opting out of it. Some babies may have bleeds internally that could be life-threatening if not stopped. This is a very rare occurrence, as are complications from the shot. My point is mainly to show that this is yet another CHOICE that needs to be weighed and measured before making a decision. But again, it is rarely presented as an option.

The other statement was actually made in one of the earlier posts with regards to women aspirating during an emergency c-section when under general anesthesia. In looking up studies about this, I mis-"spoke" what I had read. This has happened. Women have aspirated during a c-section. What hasn't happened is the mother dying because of this. It may have happened at some point in history here in the US, but there have been no deaths reported in the US in the last 20 years. There was one in Australia in the 80's and one in the UK in the 90's. The reports I did find found that, in the US, between 1979 and 1990, the actual incidence of aspiration during birth is 7 per 10 million births. I'd say those are fairly low odds. And the benefit of good, light nutrition during labor has been shown to increase good outcomes. In fact, the WHO (World Health Organization) states that women need increased energy for the requirements of labor and a woman’s desire for food and liquid should not interfere with the natural process of labor and will ensure both fetal and maternal well-being. If there is a higher probability of a women needing a c-section during labor, then she may be wise to abstain from too much food. But again, the one-size-fits-all policy is what gets my goat.


One issue I'd like to clear up is the misinformation that's out there surrounding homebirth and midwives. Doctors aren't the only ones who know what to do if "crap hits the fan." This is one of the areas where people have the most inaccurate ideas about homebirth. They think that my midwife just comes here to provide comfort measures and to clean up the mess. That idea is entirely off-base. My midwife is highly-skilled and highly-trained. She's been through hundreds of labors from beginning to end. How many doctors can say that? She is trained in infant and mother resuscitation and comes prepared with medical supplies should things take a turn for the worse. She's also trained to look for EARLY signs of complications and to transfer to a hospital at the drop of a hat, should the need arise. It's not like she just keeps the mother at home come what may.

A couple of people feel that I was bashing hospital birth. Or the choices that they, themselves, have made. I am absolutely not doing that. I would never have ill feelings toward someone who CHOOSES a different path than me. What I'm doing is trying to show women that there are CHOICES. That just because your doctor says one thing is best, it doesn't always mean it's best for you. I'm calling into question hospital policies and the reasons behind them. I am not trying to call into question people who choose to adhere to those policies. Nothing will ever change if no one questions the way things are done. And since the US's statistics are so horrendous, I don't think it's harmful to call these things into question. Maybe there are things that could be done differently that would make for better outcomes for women and babies. And I am all-for EVERY woman making her OWN decisions regarding her birth experience. What is right for me is not right for everyone. Having women educate themselves about their options and thereby feeling confidence in their choices is my ultimate goal.

In writing that post I was trying to state the reasons *I* chose a homebirth and to hopefully show what it is and help people see what it isn't. And also to show them that even if they choose a hospital birth, that there are choices when it comes to what interventions they get. And that there are risks and benefits associated with every intervention and they shouldn't make these decisions blindly, just trusting the medical personnel to know what's best for them and their baby.


One other area that I haven't touched on, that I'd like to is giving birth in a birthing center. These are becoming more and more popular and therefore more widely available. It's a great medium-ground for anyone who doesn't like the medical-style of a hospital, but has reservations about having a homebirth. There are a lot that are built right next to a hospital so that transfers are quick and easy should something go wrong. Unfortunately there aren't any near me that are attached to the hospitals and my home was about the same distance as the nearest birthing center to the hospital. So there was really no added benefit of going to one. Again, it's all about the choices. :)