2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

"Without question, this means delivering in a hospital or delivering in a birth center next to a hospital.   Home delivery is sensible choice only for those mothers who put their personal birth experience above the safety of their children."

Without question? Based on what statistics and/or studies?

posted 4 years ago
view in context

As it was pointed out in the discussion about malpractice rates, there is no way to guarantee a perfect child every time. I have seen home births AND hospital births, and seen things go wrong with both and bad outcomes with BOTH- and being in a hospital did nothing to change tham, in fact a few were caused by the physician's actions.

You are stating this as if chosing a home bith over a hospital birth carries a much higher morbidity and mortality rate- which it doesn't. Please don't make parents who chose homebirth out to be selfish and dangerous when there is no factual basis to your claims.

posted 4 years ago
view in context

I am sorry you had such a scary experience. As a mother who had a child at home that also has some breathing difficulties, my midwives were able to take most of the identical steps a neonatal resusitation team would have taken at the hospital. He recovered nicely and we did not need to transport.

A collapsed lung is indeed a medical emergency in a newborn that would be difficult handling at home. I think my answer (not as a midwife) as to how it would be addressed is that rare things happen rarely. There are risks with every choice we make, and as a parent i looked at the odds of something this rare happening and decided it was safe. A certain number of healthy women die during c-sections. This also is a rare occurance. I don't think that should ever stop a necessary c-section if that's what's needed. I know it's difficult to step back and look at it from this perspective when it's YOU that it happens to but there are risks with all choices.

posted 4 years ago
view in context

I have to disagree with Karen Adams comment on being able to have a beautiful, natural birth in a hospital setting.

I'm a physician who grew up with midwives and chose to have my child at home, because after years of working in various Labor and Delivery wards in the Portland area (prior to medical school) I knew that having a natural birth in a hospital is almost impossible. Even if you have an OB who is supportive, the hospital's protocols will not allow a minimal interference approach. Everyone gets a saline lock IV, everyone gets TOCO monitoring- which absolutely ties you to staying still in bed (about the worst thing you can do for labor). Nurses are swamped with paperwork and only come in and out of your room to check your progress periodically. You are in an alien environment and forced to work against an artificial time table or pitocin will be administered to speed things up. It's no coincidence that most unplanned c-sections occur around shift change.

Of course, having a cesarean section saves some babies in some situations. I've seen many absolutely necessary c-sections and thank the gods they were done! However, subjecting so many healthy women to this unnecessary and major surgery as a side effect of how our Birth Culture exists in this country is like summarily giving mastectomies to all women because some will develop breast cancer. If the rate truly reflected saved lives, why is our infant mortality rate so much higher than Europe, and their c-section rate so much lower?

posted 4 years ago
view in context