By: reidsays
13/06/2009
9:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
More than 80 per cent of global births happen in the home. This is natural, normal and how birth is meant to be.
Compare that to the modern world, where only 3 per cent of western women give birth naturally without medical assistance.
Almost all women in hospital receive an injection of a drug, a synthetic hormone, syntocinon, to speed the birth of the placenta.
In the homebirth model of care, time for physiological preparation and allowance for birth to unfold naturally occurs with often other family members present.
Birth in the western world today has become affected by insurance demands which have lead to women having to fit into the hospital's fears of accusations of malpractice.
QUOTE "If labour is not progressing at the required rate then it is just sped up. Indeed, if labour has not started at the required time then induction is on the menu and if the induction fails, because mother and baby were not quite ready, then a caesarean section will be done.
Australia has one of the highest rates of operative birth (caesarean, forceps, or vacuum delivery) in the world. The caesarean section rate rises each year. It was 21 per cent in 2000, 27 per cent in 2004, and 40 per cent in 2007.
And all this with healthy women? With an already stretched health care system, should it not be reserved for those that need it?
How has it come to this? Indeed, one could ask how the global population rose to six billion if birth was as dangerous as our obstetricians would have us believe, that the only safe birth is a hospital birth. The argument from the obstetricians runs on fear. Better a live baby than a dead one, but most of the fears stem from the fact that very few doctors today have ever seen a natural, normal birth.
Few if any have seen a homebirth." end quote |
|
By: reidsays
13/06/2009
10:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There is a place for hospital birth AND for homebirth.
But in Australia birth is medicalised to the max. and the few women who choose to birth at home are marginalised, considered hippies or reckless, and are required to fund this venture themselves. Our low homebirth rate, 0.28%, is no doubt due to zero government funding for women who choose this option and the perception, driven by vested interests, that birth is scary and dangerous!
A manifested belief that women are not capable of birthing their babies without medical assistance.
In fact, extensive overseas and Australian studies have consistently shown homebirth for low-risk women to be a better and safer option. The World Health Organisation actually rates homebirth as six times safer than hospital birth.
Why then at a time of national, state and local health care crisis has a new committee, the Maternity Services Review, appointed by the minister, Nicola Roxon, set to restrict the choices even more?
The care of a woman by her midwife from early pregnancy through labour, birth and the early post-natal period benefits not only the baby, mother and her family but also the wider community. These benefits can be measured financially through a reduction in unnecessary surgical birth, drugs and other interventions and by freeing up hospital beds for those that require a hospital birth.Â
More subtle but infinitely more important benefits are increased rates of bonding and breastfeeding, lower rates of post-natal depression (considered by some as post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from a traumatic, stressful birth experience) and greater satisfaction with the experience of childbirth.
This greatly assists a woman and her loved ones entering motherhood empowered. |
|
By: pathogan70
14/06/2009
8:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
pathogan70 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Home birth hey... The answer is so blindingly obvious, its called medical insurance. Unfortunately, although most women would be fine with home birth, some complications could occur and the woman will then make a massive claim. Say the cord goes around the neck, and the oxygen does not get where its needed in time, theres a risk of brain damage to the baby. A brain damaged baby equals a multi million dollar payout, and the rest of your life as a carer. Thats just one possibility this bloke can think of off the top of his head.
Most hospitals seem to have "birthing centres", which are a bit nicer (but still kind of hospitally). My experiences are that nobody will allow a home birth for twins, and the other had very long painful labour (20 hours +). At the end of the day, its only a few days in hospital, and I was just relieved to have all parties home and healthy. |
|
By: reidsays
14/06/2009
5:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
lol Path......there is incredible FEAR in western women about giving birth at home (even about their bodies and natural functions?)....many think the caesarian option a consumerist choice!...pity the medical profession cannot put a zipper in for the following birth!
if home birth was an acceptable matter then most may well not need to attend hospital?
with my first birth it was as if I wasn't even there....had nothing to do with the proceedings and was all in the hands of more Knowledgeable people:(
the second birth 8 years later saw changes in attitude and I was actually considered as a participant, infact the MAIN activator and those others there to assist....hehe
but as you say, with medical insurance fears it has gone back to the medical pr0fession IN CHARGE....(even down to fitting in with their golf!).....sad cause it does seem a vital part of entering this worldy existence...to be an active participant with mother and 'others present'...the baby does play it's own part intune supposedly with 'mum'
the medical profession originally stepped in to assist those women having complications...perhaps their heart was in the right place?
but today......the professionals rule and mothers and babies have to fit into their schedule rather than tuther way around:(
Insurance requirements has a lot to answer for.....in many areas besides birth,,,,,
as for the cord around the neck...midwives were used to this and unwound the cord between 'breathes'...hhmmmm
in my mother's day the women were knocked out cold and delivered a clean pure bundle of joy.....my joke always was..."are you sure we were the children you gave birth to" lol.....after all it was only the name bracelet that linked mother to child and mistakes WERE made:) |
|
By: oggster8606
14/06/2009
6:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
oggster8606 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I have no idea about the stats of mothers dying during home birth, but as far as the child is concerned there is roughly a ten times higher chance of them dying when compared to a hospital birth.
But meh, if you want a home birth, go for it. Just be aware that if something does go wrong you'll have the time delay of the ambos turning up and getting you to hospital.
My neighbour gave birth at home and while the baby was okay, she ended up being rushed to hospital and ended up spending a couple of weeks in there. |
|
By: reidsays
14/06/2009
6:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| the stats are in the OP quotes Oggster! |
|
By: hiccups1232000
14/06/2009
6:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
hiccups1232000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I had an unexpected home birth with my youngest.
Most horrific experience for me and my husband.
Never is his wildest dreams did my husband ever think he would deliver his own son.
Watching your child not breathing, blue and totally limp until revived by paramedics is not something I would wish on anyone.
Unless you live close to a hospital and have a very very qualified midwife, I wouldnt risk it. |
|
By: oggster8606
14/06/2009
6:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
oggster8606 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You mean this bit of extreme dodginess?
"In fact, extensive overseas and Australian studies have consistently shown homebirth for low-risk women to be a better and safer option. The World Health Organisation actually rates homebirth as six times safer than hospital birth."
Define "low risk".
In actual fact, the WHO say no such thing. Those stats being used are from a study in one particular part of Holland which is quoted amongst many others on the WHO website.
"So where then should a woman give birth? It is safe to say that a woman should give birth in a place she feels is safe, and at the most peripheral level at which appropriate care is feasible and safe (FIGO 1992). For a low-risk pregnant woman this can be at home, at a small maternity clinic or birth centre in town or perhaps at the maternity unit of a larger hospital. However, it must be a place where all the attention and care are focused on her needs and safety, as close to home and her own culture as possible. If birth does take place at home or in a small peripheral birth centre, contingency plans for access to a properly-staffed referral centre should form part of the antenatal preparations." |
|
By: oggster8606
14/06/2009
6:26 pm Yahoo! Profile:
oggster8606 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Ooooops! That quote is from the WHO website.
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publication s/MSM_96_24/MSM_96_24_Chapter2Part1.en.html |
|
By: reidsays
14/06/2009
6:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
lol Oggster...my point is about CHOICE!!!
Something which will be taken away shortly due to the huge insurance payments required.....payments which many midwives cannot afford and will be forced underground if loyal to their knowledge and expertise...
I am not against hospitals as a backup in times of trouble at all........the fact that it is becoming the ENFORCED norm in western countries I view as a definite problem..
birth was not so very long ago - 'secret women's business' - until man stepped into the process and as said earlier...prolly with the best and heartfelt intentions...to assist those women and babies in need?
Balance is required?
Are western women so far removed from their own bodies that they find birth difficult?
Or is it that they are so used to the medical places of birthing...that they 'give up natural inclinations amd proven potentialities' and lay all responsibility at the doctor's feet? |
|
By: bias0007
14/06/2009
6:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bias0007 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
By crikey reids...a one gal revolution you are lol....but swimming against the tide I think
The western world is the western world reids...can't go backwards now
But I agree with you...and for how many millennia have women given birth at home ?
Many Aboriginal women gave birth while sitting in a river...how practical was that? |
|
By: bias0007
14/06/2009
6:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bias0007 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Now it could be a taxi |
|
By: oggster8606
14/06/2009
6:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
oggster8606 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I agree, a woman should be able to give birth at home if she wants.
But as for hospital birth being enforced?
You're getting a bit carried away. |
|
By: oggster8606
14/06/2009
6:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
oggster8606 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Regarding the 2009 Budget announcement of the introduction of subsidised insurance premiums for Midwives (from Wiki):
"The 2009 Federal Budget provided additional funds to Medicare to allow more midwives to work as private practitioners, allow midwives prescribing rights under the Medicare Benefits Schedule and assist them with medical indemnity insurance.[26]. It is likely this will increase the number of midwives available to provide home birth services in Australia." |
|
By: reidsays
14/06/2009
7:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
That's good to hear Oggster and perhaps due to the article I read by a midwife who feared having to go underground...pressure may well have been placed on the govt to be realistic about a midwife's position and wage?
Bias....there was a distinct change in the way hospital births were viewed due to pressure in the 70-80s...the mother became the main focus as the major participant in the birth process...but the youth following and insurance fears soon returned the hospitals and medical staff into the dictators of what and how..... many women do actually WANT caesarians due to fear of v@g.in.al birth and the denigration of men over size and stretching.....not taken from facts but from ignorant people?
Excuse the forthright language but we are talking birth here:::::))
another factor is the scientific ability to do without sex in order to produce an embryo...they have not as yet found a better incubator than the human female....what happens when they do? |
|
By: bias0007
14/06/2009
7:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bias0007 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<< .not taken from facts but from ignorant people? >>
a change of attitudes is needed reids, as usual a societal problem |
|
By: reidsays
14/06/2009
7:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Attitude is most definitely the very thing that needs changing ...over many matters...true Bias..
And where does attitude come from do you think...a combo of parental and societal influences? |
|
By: markuslives
15/06/2009
12:57 am Yahoo! Profile:
markuslives Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
What annoys me is when a mother is booked in for a C-section for subsequent births purely for the fact that she had an emergency C-section with the first baby. No 2 births are the same, and I think it is a shame that women are booked in willy nilly because its suits some obstetrician's schedule. Just because you needed it the first time, doesn't mean you will again. But no, they tend to have a bit of a blanket rule for convenience.
I think it is unfair on the mother. I have given birth naturally 3 times, and while if I had to have an emergency c-section I would accept it as being the best thing for me, I would certainly feel a little ripped off that I didn't complete the birth process. There is no way I'd choose this method electively. In emergency situations fine, but its a bit rich not to have any faith in the woman's ability for every birth thereafter. |
|
By: mrsron1
15/06/2009
1:02 am Yahoo! Profile:
mrsron1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
My kids were all born in hospital due to the Rh Negative factor. I had four kids in six years and actually enjoyed my stay in hospital as I got much needed rest. I had a really bad case of the flu when my youngest was born...sick as a dog...there was no way I could get up and take care of a newborn...a two and three year old and a six year old, plus a husband who couldn't find his a $$ with both hands. (He could find mine OK...but never his...lol)
Again, this should be a matter of choice...if you feel totally safe and comfortable having your baby at home...do so. |
|
By: reidsays
15/06/2009
1:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Yes mrsron...it is all about choice!
And with the hospital infrastructure in dire need one would assume homebiths would be encouraged more....the intial worry was that the midwives would have to go underground due to the high insurance requirements but Oggster has posted that this is being adjusted by the govt....?
Have met women who have had a caesarian and for any following birth - performed it naturally...so it can be done!!!...
Is fear a big factor here?...Plus the multitude of advice hurled at any pregnant woman...often including horror stories of other's experiences:(
I find it wonderful that women are now forming groups of support for each other in the home AFTER the birth...assisting with meals and housework and giving the new mum much needed rest....in days of old women would support a new mum for the duration of the 'cycle of the moon' and these new groups are naming themselves...'the moon group'!!
The pressures on new parents?...are they entirely necessary or a byproduct of social attitudes and 'handling it on their own' assumptions? |
|
By: reidsays
24/06/2009
9:33 am Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Bias "The western world is the western world reids...can't go backwards now
But I agree with you...and for how many millennia have women given birth at home ?
Many Aboriginal women gave birth while sitting in a river...how practical was that?"
But is the western world going backwards Bias?
By loosing contact with it's own natural humanity:(
Funny that many are going back to giving birth in the water, must be something in it that benefits the birthing process eh?
When women hand over their part to play in the birthing process, or it is taken away from them, then wait until science finds a way to incubate their petrie dish babies APART from the womb...... |
|
By: anybuzz
24/06/2009
9:51 am Yahoo! Profile:
anybuzz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
1."Are Women - Women Anymore?"
Depends how you define "women". Semantics again.
2."Indeed, one could ask how the global population rose to six billion if birth was as dangerous as our obstetricians would have us believe"
There are SO many women giving birth every second that the infant mortality rate can still be very high while there is still noticeable population growth. If they all gave birth in hospital, the population might be 9 billion by now. |
|
By: reidsays
25/06/2009
5:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Anybuzz..OP 2."Indeed, one could ask how the global population rose to six billion if birth was as dangerous as our obstetricians would have us believe"
"There are SO many women giving birth every second that the infant mortality rate can still be very high while there is still noticeable population growth. If they all gave birth in hospital, the population might be 9 billion by now."
well that sounds a logical conclusion I suppose...but why is it that countries and cultures living in poverty or under the submission of women to men....have such HIGH pregnancy rates Anybuzz.....never asked that question?
Nah,,didn't think so:( |
|
By: anybuzz
26/06/2009
11:15 am Yahoo! Profile:
anybuzz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"never asked that question?
Nah,,didn't think so"
Because that is a COMPLETELY different topic! Your brain just rambles all over the place doesn't it? |
|
By: littleladyagain
26/06/2009
12:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
littleladyagain Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
the reason I was given that I would need a c section for subsequent births was that as the muscles in the abdominal wall had been cut once, there was greater chance of tearing and causing permanent damage...sound a fair enough reason to me...
and I think Reidy is right, women have much more potential to be in tune with their bodies and their outcomes, something which need to be honored and developed. |
|
