From: grun@intellistor.com (Paul Grun)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Homebirth vs. Hospital birth
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:16:07 GMT
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.

In <ANNE.92Dec20213836@dolores.Stanford.EDU> anne@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Anne Paulson) writes:


>Grun@intellistor writes:

>   But what if things start to go wrong [in a home birth]?  
>  I have no statistics, but when
>   things *do* go wrong, (which they do, sometimes, and without regard
>   for the health of the mother) there is frequently _very little time_ in which
>   to intervene.  An ambulance ride would be too long.

>You certainly don't have any statistics.  If you did, you would know
>that when things go wrong, there is virtually always plenty of time to
>intervene, which is why study after study has demonstrated that home
>birth is as safe or safer than hospital birth, for low-risk women.
                  ^^^^^^^^ ???
>[Note that "low risk" is of course decided before the birth;

I think that it can be tough to tell beforehand that the cord is
wrapped around the kid's neck, for example.  This can have potentially
devastating consequences, and may not leave adequate time for transportation.
I could VERY WELL be wrong about that; maybe it's very easy to spot early in
the delivery and handle it.
The point isn't whether or not I can identify a particular problem that
either can't be detected or can't be solved.  The point was whether or not
someone would be willing to take the risk (however small) that such 
an unforseen circumstance _might_ occur.

>obviously home birth is as safe for births that turn out to be
>uneventful, but it turns out that it is as safe for births where
>something out of the ordinary happens.]

>True obstetrical emergencies are quite rare.  Placental abruptio (the
>placenta separting before birth) is one of them, but alas, even for
>planned hospital births, it is usually not obliging enough to occur in
>the hospital.  

(some deleted...)

>-- Anne

Maybe my first post didn't entirely convey my point(s).  Maybe I can clarify..

The first point was, essentially, that the benefits of home birth
ought to be weighed against the risks - however small.  I didn't comment on
the risk level because, as I said, I don't have the stats.  Sounds like
maybe you do.

Speaking only for myself, I felt that ANY risk taken in the name of
homebirthing would be too much. That explains only the decision we
made (Liz, mostly) to deliver in the hospital, and nothing more.
I won't prostelytize (did I spell that right?) as to whether or not
other folks ought do home birth or hospital birth. I think it important for
each of us to weigh, individually and personally, the benefits versus our
tolerance for risk.  And to consider how you'd feel if something does
go wrong - however unlikely that may be.

The second point of my post was that a hospital delivery, for us anyway,
worked out great. What I was trying to convey was that a modern hospital
delivery doesn't always have the negatives associated with it that it
used to. e.g., dad pacing in the waiting room, routine major interventions,
newborns swept away immediately after birth, etc.
The original poster seemed to be asking about practices that aren't
necessarily routine anymore (removing the baby right after delivery is the
only one I can remember right now).  I was trying to allay her fears about
the 'cold, impersonal' hospital.
True, some hospitals/doctors/nursing staffs are still like that, but not all.
Expectant parents need to check it out to know exactly what to expect.

I mostly wanted to suggest that the hospital route shouldn't be rejected
out of hand, particularly if the rejection is based on possibly out-moded
stereotypes.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in the first place.  I hope this helps.

-Paul
'once in a while, you can get shown the light in the strangest of places
 if you look at it right.'  R. Hunter (I think)
-- 

goes to show, you don't ever know...
grun@intellistor.com
Newsgroups: misc.kids