# scary birth stories



## llwr (Feb 24, 2009)

I believe that birth is normal and possible and not an emergency. So the stories about babies from normal, healthy pregnancies ending up in the NICU are bothering me.

I'm not pregnant and thus hearing everyone's stories; they're just happening.

This one in particular is upsetting to me and I'm feeling some sort of need to work through it:

Everything was normal and healthy and the labor was going well until the mom stalled at 9 cm. She had no epidural. She accepted pitocin. At some point between this and the birth the heartrate dropped very dramatically. There was absolutely no time, no warning. The got the baby out ASAP with the vacuum. The cord was around the neck several times. Baby had multiple apgars of 1 and was in the NICU for a couple of weeks. But no long term complications are ecpected.

I just can't seem to stop imagining how terrible it must be to almost succeed in an unmedicated birth and expect a healthy baby right up to the very end and then the baby is barely even alive. This was a full term pregnancy and a normal weight baby.

And then that's why home birth isn't safe.... And that's not the point I want to get stuck on, because I do believe in home birth. But when they say this baby would have died at home, I certainly can't disagree. And after thinking about it, I suppose I could say that if you were able to have your homebirth midwife in the hospital and she was allowed to do (or not do) everything she normally does, maybe the hospital would be safer. And yet you can't discount just being where the mother is most comfortable no matter where that is.

I know there are many different scenarios. Maybe without the pitocin, it would have been different, but as far as pitocin goes, being stalled at 9 sounds like a reasonable use of it.

I know that nuchal cords are common and rarely dangerous. Is this just a rare case where it was? Would the same thing be likely to happen without pitocin, just more slowly?

Maybe getting stuck at 9 was the body's way of not having this emergency, but you can't stay there forever. What is a safe thing to do if you get stuck at 9? Even if a nuchal cord was known, they're normally not a problem.

I don't have all the details, and even if I did, my DH and I perceived our children's births a bit differently, so I realize that how fast or how dramatically it happened could be a bit of opinion. But the bottom line is that this was healthy and normal and appears to be minimally managed followed by a true emergency and almost lifeless baby. I guess I know that this happens, but it really bothers me.


----------



## phoebemommy (Mar 30, 2006)

How long was she stalled? Was she given a reasonable amount of time and space to get unstalled? Did she feel like pushing and was told not to? Was she free to move around? Was she being checked incessantly? Was there something in the room bothering her (bright lights, an anxious husband, a pushy nurse, the sight of medical equipment)?

These are just things that come to mind that could have helped stall labor. I think in a homebirth, you'd be free not to know how long you were at 9, or you'd have support getting through the stall naturally. Also, if everything's fine, and then she's given pitocin, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, everything goes bad, it seems logical to think maybe the pitocin caused the catastrophic reaction.

There's just really not enough information about the story to draw huge conclusions about the safety of birth or homebirth, in my opinion. A hospital person could make a big case for "thank God it was in the hospital"; a homebirth person could make the same case that the hospital caused it.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phoebemommy* 
There's just really not enough information about the story to draw huge conclusions about the safety of birth or homebirth, in my opinion.

I'd like to offer the perspective that birth isn't 100% guaranteed "safe" under any circumstance.

*Life* isn't "safe."

It _*is*_ scary to think that suddenly, out of nowhere, something terrible could happen. Not just in birth, but as you're walking down the street, driving your car, sleeping, whatever...

That's why we have religion, philosophy & art. It takes courage to live in the face of the truth that we all die someday, and there's really nothing we can do about it.

And that's why birthing babies is courageous work, no matter where it happens, no matter whether it goes without a hitch or takes a turn down a scary path. We can do a lot to mitigate our risks, but there just aren't 100% guarantees.


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *llwr* 
Maybe getting stuck at 9 was the body's way of not having this emergency, but you can't stay there forever. What is a safe thing to do if you get stuck at 9? Even if a nuchal cord was known, they're normally not a problem.

There's always several perspectives to view births. I can tell you some frankly pretty frightening stories that were really not at all emergent. Perception makes a huge difference in whether or not a birth story is scary.

In the births that I have witnessed (hundreds) women who are experiencing a healthy, normal, unhindered birth do not get stuck at nine. They may have a "rest and be thankful" period, where contractions seem to peter out, or seem to not do much dilation, but the care provider honestly doesn't know what's happening inside the uterus.

Perhaps this baby needed to rotate, maybe his or her head needed to mold a bit before the cervix opened all the way. We don't know why she had a break in her dilation. All in all, arrest of dilation doesn't really matter at 9 cms. As you saw, babies can still come through a nine-cm cervix.

The doctor or midwife likely gave her pitocin not because something was WRONG, but because she was off the curve and they were uncomfortable. Progress is measured in dilation, but there's a lot more than that going on.

Quote:

I don't have all the details, and even if I did, my DH and I perceived our children's births a bit differently, so I realize that how fast or how dramatically it happened could be a bit of opinion. But the bottom line is that this was healthy and normal and appears to be minimally managed followed by a true emergency and almost lifeless baby. I guess I know that this happens, but it really bothers me.
Giving pitocin is not "minimally managed." If the baby needed time for head molding or for rotation, those rough pitocin contractions might have distressed him or her unnecessarily.

I do know what you are saying... It can be scary to hear of what appears to be normal, healthy births going south. And, it does happen sometimes. Adding pitocin into the mix, however, can cause problems.


----------



## curiouscanadian (Aug 28, 2009)

I feel like I have an interesting perspective on this because that's essentially what happened to me, minus the horrible dropping heart rate and terrifying ending. I stalled out at 10, and was given Pit. and ended up with a vacuum delivery. BUT I've come to believe it was at least in part _because_ of the hospital environment.

Quote:

How long was she stalled? Was she given a reasonable amount of time and space to get unstalled? Did she feel like pushing and was told not to? Was she free to move around? Was she being checked incessantly? Was there something in the room bothering her (bright lights, an anxious husband, a pushy nurse, the sight of medical equipment)?
For me at least, a lot of the above were factors. When after the birth I was trying to puzzle out the "why did I stall?", I came to realize that (except for the first couple times) I had been pushing because I felt like I "should", not because my body was telling me to. My brain got in the way of my instincts; honestly, all I wanted at the time was a nap!

I now believe that if I had been left to my own devices as I would've been at home with a midwife, I could've had a short nap and the contractions would've started up again once I was better rested and feeling able to carry on with the birth. At the time I stalled, there was no real reason to push the labour along, baby's heartrate was fine, my water hadn't even broken, it was just the expectation of myself and everyone around me that labour should keep progressing. It was a huge lightbulb moment for me when I read something that made me wonder why and I realized there wasn't any good answer!

Quote:

Maybe getting stuck at 9 was the body's way of not having this emergency, but you can't stay there forever. What is a safe thing to do if you get stuck at 9? Even if a nuchal cord was known, they're normally not a problem.
No, you can't stay stuck at 9 forever, but my point is, who's to say you will be? Maybe you just need a little more time to work through some things (or baby to shift position) before labour carries on.


----------



## *MamaJen* (Apr 24, 2007)

It's true that birth can be dangerous, just like life can be dangerous. Things like placental abruption can come out of nowhere, and can be fatal in a home or hospital birth. There are no guarantees in birth, just like there are no guarantees in life. You just have to accept a certain amount of risk in birth, just like you accept the risk that you could get hit by a bus or diagnosed with cancer.
But that said, I believe that for 1. a low risk mother, 2. attended by a qualified midwife, and 3. with procedures in place to enable a quick hospital transfer, I think that home birth is as safe or safer than hospital birth, and studies show that. In this particular birth story -- and I'm not a medical professional and I don't know all the details -- but I would strongly wonder if the pitocin contributed to the fetal distress. I think it's very common in hospital births to perform an intervention, have an iatrogenic complication, rush the baby off to the OR, and then say, phew, what a good thing it was that the baby was in the hospital where we could save it (from the complication we caused).
Also, there are a lot of things that may feel scary, but can capably be handled with minimal action. The baby can come out with low apgars, need a resuscitating breath, and be fine 10 minutes later. Babies have really high oxygen saturation levels to protect them from some distress during the birth.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

I DO believe there are some births where the baby could have died at home or lived at the hospital.

I also believe in the reverse, though.

I can't really comment on the story you told, though. It's possible the baby was saved by the hospital. It's possible the hospital caused this issue.

I don't know what "stalled" means in this case, how long it supposedly "stalled" for. Maybe it stalled maybe it didn't. I don't consider a stall to be inherently problematic (though of course it CAN indicate a problem).

It does seem very likely to me that the pitocin caused the baby to crash. But I don't know that for sure, of course.

Was the nuchal cord really a problem or did they just say that? Every nuchal cord birth I've heard of (and I've heard of quite a few, they are common after all) ends with "thank god we were at the hospital." My SIL, for example, had a nuchal cord and it's a running family joke that she tried to strangle herself at birth. However, as you've said, a nuchal cord is rarely a problem, and when it is, it's because either it's wrapped enough that the cord is too short and hinders descent, or because something got pinched.

It's possible we had a too-short-cord problem in the example you described, but we don't know that for sure.

I do know that those issues can be dealt with at home, though. Midwifes can clamp and cut a nuchal cord just like the doctor can, if they think there's an issue and they can't just unwrap it.

I hear what you're saying though, but we've got two conclusions and we don't know which it is. One conclusion is that medical management of this birth caused the problems, and that's certainly a possibility. The other conclusion is that some births are very problematic, and some of those can be helped by hospitals and some can't be helped by anyone.

When I chose to homebirth, I did so knowing that there are some situations where only being in a hospital would help. But I also knew that the hospital causes problems in many cases. It seems like the risks are roughly balanced. So I prefer home, where I can be in peace and not harrassed.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MamaJen** 
But that said, I believe that for 1. a low risk mother, 2. attended by a qualified midwife, and 3. with procedures in place to enable a quick hospital transfer, I think that home birth is as safe or safer than hospital birth, and studies show that.

Yes, agreed.









I don't feel like there's enough information about this particular case to know what the real situation is.

It is scary to think that some women don't have a real choice about where to give birth. It is scary to think that some women don't have a support system that allows them to advocate for themselves at the times when it matters most. It is scary to contemplate the reality of medical mismanagement that is re-told as "rescue mission." And if you're the mom who experienced all this, it can be overwhelming to process all the "what ifs" that such a situation inevitably raises.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

not enough info-even in what you do have it isn't enough
multiple apgars of 1 you mean apgar of 1 at one minute and an, apgar of 1 at 5 minutes, what was the 1 given for? heart rate ? an apgar of 1 if given for heart rate means that the heart rate is below 100 but above 0-- some places will do a 10 minute apgar and if that is below 2-3 it usually does not bode well even for long term outcomes of surviving infants--
did the camp and cut the cord right away? it could be that the cord was compressed during delivery and with the heart rate low and no tone or breathing efforts they clamped and cut the cord right away- this can compromise the resuscitation efforts in that the fluid resuscitation to be had via cord blood would not be there- hospitals are completely set up for someone at a remote table to work on the baby and there is no simple way for those people to be able to start working on an attached baby--it is a rare thing to happen to a full term baby with no other s or s of problems- in general 10% of all infants born will need some type of resuscitative efforts/ from physical stimulation to puffs of air- 1% of babies will need something more done like chest compressions and meds - so it is hard to say if it was just a rare unpredictable/no explaination experience of if they over did the pit or there are some other elements to the story we don't know and it could be that the people telling you the story have the facts wrong--


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

That's true, premature clamping of the cord (which almost certainly happened) could have also negatively affected the outcome, though clearly it didn't cause the original issue. In fact, I would say it almost certainly had a negative affect - removing a distressed newborn's life support at birth is simply counterintuitive. But it's all done in the name of convenience - easier to move a baby to a table than care for it on mom's belly.

So many factors, so many unknowns. But this still COULD have been 100% iatrogenic (pit plus premature clamping). It might not have been, but if your point is that you feel you are hearing of all these babies that might have died at home, keep in mind that you really, truly don't know - they might have indeed been better off at home.


----------



## Cheshire (Dec 14, 2004)

My second son's pregnancy was uneventful except for diet maintained gestational diabetes. No medication necessary. His birth was fine until the very end when his cord tore around the time I was reaching 10 cm (it was a velamentous insertion we didn't know about and possible vasa previa, which we and the docs pretty strongly suspect from the pathology findings). I pushed him out as fast as I could but it still took 8 minutes. He lost the majority of his blood in a few heartbeats.

If I had been at home he would have had no chance. Being in the hospital he had a small chance. But, he still died. It was a complete and total shock. Almost two years later it still is.

As others have said there are no guarantees in life, including birth.

What deciding on a home birth or a hospital birth you have to do your research but in the end you and your partner have to consider what choices you can live with in case something does go wrong because you are the ones that will live with it.

Some babies do die when birthed at home and some die when birthed at a hospital. The best thing to do when pregnant is to be your own advocate no matter who you choose or where you choose to have your baby.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm so sorry, Cheshire. It's one thing to talk about the what-ifs, it's another to have it happen.


----------



## jengacnm (Oct 26, 2006)

Great thread with thoughful responses. I can't really add much that hasn't been said already. I have lots of home birth stories that COULD have ended, "...and thank god we trasnferred to the hospital." But the problem got handled, a slow labor progressed to a great birth with a little patience and lots of support, or whatever. And we stayed home.

That magical line of what is a reasonable amount of time to wait before inntervening is between the mother/family and the midwife/care provider. How long is it ok to be stalled at 9 cms? For most hospitals it's 2 hours. For a mom who's had a three day prodromal labor, 24 hours to get from 5cms to 9, then stalls, her limit of how long she's willing to wait before going to the hospital is going to be different from the woman who went from 2 to 9 in 3 hours.

That's the great thing about home birth. If a woman ends up going to the hospital for an intervention, she can be reasonably assured that those interventions were very likely actually needed. If the pitocin caused the distress, well, what was the alternative? For her to be at 9 cms for 4 or 8 or 24 hours?

The point being that even the crunchiest of midwives and the mom with the most endurance is going to have a limit somewhere. When that limit is reached, thank god we live in this day and age rather than 100 years ago.


----------



## MyFullHouse (Apr 23, 2010)

I've had a scary birth (2x nuchal cord w/ true knot) with a mw in the hospital. My midwifery team is now offering homebirths in addition to hospital births. I'd absolutely choose homebirth if I lived closer to potential transfer hospitals.

I'm more concerned about post-birth complications (even though I haven't had any) than I am delivery complications (even though I have had one!) so it isn't exactly the most rational thinking, and I own that.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

Life isn't "safe."

It is scary to think that suddenly, out of nowhere, something terrible could happen. Not just in birth, but as you're walking down the street, driving your car, sleeping, whatever...

Yep. Sometimes poop happens. It can happen at home. It can happen at the hospital. Almost everything we do comes with risk, because we live in an imperfect world and cannot create circumstances that are 100% perfect and risk free. We try. We can reduce risk. But we can't eliminate it.

So some people are going to have scary births. Sometimes it is the fault of caregivers. Other times it's just a poop-happens moment.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

jengacnm ,I agree with you. I also wanted to comment on pit, it may have to do with dosage, it doesn't have to be an on-off ,all or nothing proposition we don't know amount or duration, I have seen all sorts of dosages used when we have transferred care. At home depending on the labor length, baby's position-is this baby at -2 or a +, is there an ear presenting or baby is op or do we have a canted pelvic inlet that mom needs to be flat on her back to get the baby low enough there may or may not be things we would try like having mom sleep or eat, drink or get in a tub or walk/dance, cry , sing, discuss some serious fears/concerns , mom by herself for a little bit maybe in the shower or the couple alone, or transfer for some pit and/or pain meds, oxygen for mom. What we know is that the numbers are pretty close as far as infant mortality somethings are better at home others are better managed at the hospital and some it may not matter where you are.

Cheshire, I don't even know what to say,what happened at your baby's birth is sad and humbling for me, I am sorry for your loss but also thank you for sharing with us your views.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

my baby *did* die because of a homebirth. she was my fourth pregnancy, after 3 normal vag births (two at home). her pregnancy was perfect. i abrupted in the last hour of labor and she was born before we transfered. dead. she would have certainly been alive had we been at the hospital. every one of my close friends who know the whole story will *never* birth at home, not one of them (even thought they all had previous homebirths) because of how clear it was that she would have lived if we had been in a hospital.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phoebemommy* 
Also, if everything's fine, and then she's given pitocin, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, everything goes bad, it seems logical to think maybe the pitocin caused the catastrophic reaction.










Exactly.
Actually I'm pretty sure there's lots of research that backs up a higher rate of fetal distress when pit is used. So this seems an extremely reasonable conclusion to me. The exact _opposite_ conclusion you made, OP, that the baby would have died at home.

The fact alone that she was "stalled" tells me she absolutely MUST have had repeated VEs. So, yeah, sounds to me like it wasn't very much of a 'no-pressure' "hands-off" "just do your thing-so long as baby & mama are fine" sorta birth atmosphere.

Great post from CI Mama!


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

In some situations, yeah, you'd have been better off in a hospital and you or your baby might have lived where they died at home. That's just the way it is. Massive PPH requiring immediate surgery? Mom could easily die on the way to the hospital. Catastrophic placental abruption or uterine rupture? Baby could easily die due to transfer when said baby could have lived had birth happened in the hospital.

The deal is that there are tradeoffs, even if the overall mortality is about the same (which has not been satisfactorily proven with U.S. homebirths, in my opinion).

I don't for one second believe that having a perfectly handled, totally normal birth with a perfectly healthy, totally normal low-risk pregnancy = always a manageable outcome at homebirth. Sometimes being in the hospital IS the difference between life and death. But at what cost? And is the choice to birth at home anyway reasonable, or not? And quantifying the risks, exactly how bad is it, anyway? And in what ways can a particular woman minimize those risks?

At the end of the day, either choice is reasonable, but there are no guarantees, and there are unquestionably some rare (but real) situations where I'd much rather be in a hospital. If a woman isn't comfortable with that reality, she shouldn't be birthing at home, in my opinion. Ignoring the unique risks of home versus hospital birth doesn't help anyone - not moms, not babies, not midwives, and not doctors or hospitals, either.


----------



## Magali (Jun 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CI Mama* 

It is scary to think that some women don't have a real choice about where to give birth. It is scary to think that some women don't have a support system that allows them to advocate for themselves at the times when it matters most. It is scary to contemplate the reality of medical mismanagement that is re-told as "rescue mission."

Wow, you totally hit the nail on the head about what scares me about my upcoming birth.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

"Sometimes being in the hospital IS the difference between life and death. But at what cost?"

i can absolutly assure you that there is no higher cost than the life of your infant. i cant give you the name to one woman who has lost a baby who wouldn't agree.

once you've experienced the highest price, how a baby gets out is no longer even a factor. they could pull my next baby out my nostril and i wouldn't bat an eye.

modern obstetrics is highly focused on the outcome of a living mother and baby. period.

do i think that there are some changes that could be made to it to make it a better experience for mothers and babies- yes! but when you get down to the bone- having a living baby is worth all the other junk.

i used to be one of the woman on this board, picking apart birth stories, and even birth/death stories- thinking that i was so right and "medicine" was wrong. --if the mom just had a had a homebirth than she wouldn't have needed a c-section!-- oh that baby who died at that homebirth? must have been something "wrong" with the baby, or the mother.

the OP has every reasonable reason to be scared when these things are happening around her. it is scary! and "trust birth" ? please! birth has been the leading killer of moms and babies since we walked upright.
it's really easy to cover your ears and say "lalalalala" when death hasn't stared you in the face.
if anyone is planning on flaming me for this , they are welcome to read back in my posts and see that i was just as crunchy as you.


----------



## *MamaJen* (Apr 24, 2007)

I cannot imagine anything worse than losing a baby. No flames here. My heart aches just thinking about it.
But placental abruption can kill babies in the hospital as well as at home. I can think of at least two women here on MDC who lost babies due to abruption in the middle of the hospital, and two who lost babies due to abruption at home. It's one of those absolutely terrifying things that can happen during birth. Being in the hospital may raise a baby's odds of surviving, but it's not a guarantee.
I think often the women whose baby died at home feel guilty, like they or the midwife were responsible, while the woman whose baby died in the hospital can say it was just one of those horrible things that nobody can do anything about, even if the cause of death was exactly the same.
There are babies who die at home who may have lived in the hospital. There are babies who die in the hospital from botched Cytotec inductions or drug-resistant infections who may have lived at home. Every year there are multiple women who die in car crashes on the way to the hospital. There are physician errors that contribute to deaths; there are midwife errors that contribute to deaths. One of my best friends lost her baby at 25 weeks to a cord accident -- nobody was at fault there, it was just one of those awful things that can happen. (She has a rainbow baby now).
Looking at the best studies that exist of homebirth safety, homebirth has approximately the same mortality as hospital birth, and I believe it has lower rates of harmful interventions that may cause long-term morbidity.
Is homebirth safe? No. Hospital birth isn't safe either. Life isn't safe, and birth is one of its riskiest moments. We do what we can to minimize risk. We make the best decisions we can based on the information at hand. That's life.


----------



## mamabear0314 (May 13, 2008)

Liz, no flames here. I read your story yesterday and cried, I'm so sorry for your loss.
I do have to wonder, why do you think she would have lived in a hospital? If she was born before you even got to the car how would they have time to prep you for a csection?


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

"But placental abruption can kill babies in the hospital as well as at home. I can think of at least two women here on MDC who lost babies due to abruption in the middle of the hospital, and two who lost babies due to abruption at home. It's one of those absolutely terrifying things that can happen during birth. Being in the hospital may raise a baby's odds of surviving, but it's not a guarantee."

this is the picking apart i am talking about.
you dont know my story. my full story with details is not even on my blog. i am waiting till after the review hearing my midwife has against her in june. but i do know i would have had a c section about an hour before she was born and she would have been alive.
i have spoken with three obs , one LD Rn, and one midwife about my case. she would have lived at the hospital. read the comments for my baby's birth "story" on my blog. you will see several comments from people who had a dead baby from a homebirth, or a baby with severe brain damage because of one. i have yet to meet (in person or online) ONE woman who has lost a baby "because of a hospital birth".

but yes, bad things happen in all situations, to random people. i just want to throw some caution to all of you that i used to think like you, talk like you , and rationalize like you. therefore YOU have just the same chance of this happening to you. you can try to pick things apart to assure yourself that you are safe- but (God forbid) if something like this happens to you, and you do find out it was 100% preventable (like if your baby died because it wasn't in a carseat)- you would be left with only your own choices to blame.

i got on here because OP was wondering about safety because of scary stories, and it irks me to no end to listen to everyone pick apart the story to maintain to "trust birth" mentality


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

jen- did you used to be in the "diaper free" group here in austin? cause your son's name sounds familiar, and i am trying to figure out if i have met you before


----------



## Climbergirl (Nov 12, 2007)

Liz, your story is absolutely awful and honestly, my worst nightmare.

I almost paid the other ultimate price at the hospital, my life. I had a c-section I should not have had (after talking with several midwifes and OBs as well). I had complications from that c-section and almost died from them. I don't trust doctors or hospitals to do anything that is in my best interest. Yes, they want live babies and moms, but we have the worst record of any developed nation. But, in my case, things were done in order to CYA and their brushing off of obvious signs almost cost me dearly. But no one holds them responsible for what they did to me.

I am planning a homebirth. Because I think I have a better chance of not having a c-section by staying at home. And since I think that c-section almost killed me last time, I want to maximize my chances of not having one.

I am 6 miles from a hospital and 1 mile away is the ambulance service. I know I can get to the hospital within the 30 minute "decision to incision" window and they can prep an OR while I am going there. Yes, they will have to knock me out, but I am ok with that.

For me, it is scary either way. I am damned if I do, damned if I don't.


----------



## smeisnotapirate (Aug 24, 2007)

I "stalled" at 9 during my HBAC just a couple weeks ago. Turns out, Naomi had her arm across her face, so when we got to that point and there was little more than a "lip" yet, it took LOTS of moving around to bring her elbow down around her chin. Took us about 2 hours of constantly switching positions, but I felt a pop, and was pushing almost immediately. We only found out when she was born with her left hand up on her right cheek that that was probably what had happened.

I'm inclined to think that in the story the OP posted, if baby was able to be brought out by vacuum extraction, then baby was probably able to be birthed vaginally.

My son reacted severely during birth to pitocin - a very dramatic heart rate drop - but since I was only at 5cm at that point, all they did was massage my belly, flip me over, and wait for his heartrate to come up.

Sounds like this story really has nothing to do with whether birth itself is inherently safe - which it's not, not really, no matter how you choose to birth.


----------



## smeisnotapirate (Aug 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
i have yet to meet (in person or online) ONE woman who has lost a baby "because of a hospital birth".

I have. One of the women in my choir lost her baby in the hospital because she and baby were given penicillin during labor (water broke early, no signs of infection - just a routine abx thing they did in the hospital). Baby reacted, mom reacted, baby died, mom spent a month in the hospital recovering from the crash c-section and the effects of the penicillin.

It really can happen anywhere. To any one of us here - I totally agree with you on that.


----------



## SublimeBirthGirl (Sep 9, 2005)

There have been many instances of babies dying in the hospital who would have lived at home. Every once in awhile a decision turns out to be the wrong one despite it being an educated choice. That's just the way life goes. It's a terrible thing but babies can die in any setting. Medical mistakes kill people all the time. It's one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.

This has probably been said already but it's unlikely anyone would have noticed her "stalling" at 9 cm at home, where they don't obsessively do exams. She would not have received Pitocin at home, which has a clear and proven link to fetal distress. It's entirely possible that if she'd been at home, her baby would have been 100% perfect and never needed a NICU. There is no way to know for sure.


----------



## *MamaJen* (Apr 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
jen- did you used to be in the "diaper free" group here in austin? cause your son's name sounds familiar, and i am trying to figure out if i have met you before

Nope, though we are in the same city. I don't know you IRL that I know of.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
my baby *did* die because of a homebirth. she was my fourth pregnancy, after 3 normal vag births (two at home). her pregnancy was perfect. i abrupted in the last hour of labor and she was born before we transfered. dead. she would have certainly been alive had we been at the hospital. every one of my close friends who know the whole story will *never* birth at home, not one of them (even thought they all had previous homebirths) because of how clear it was that she would have lived if we had been in a hospital.

I am so sorry.

OP, my first baby, Emily, died after a hospital birth in very similar circumstances to your post.

To make a long story short, I had a great early labour, fine transition. We did have trouble pushing. She had a 2X nuchal cord that was missed on the monitoring (human error) and then when the distress was caught, the OB was in surgery on a case that had come through the ER. The L&D team was also, perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, crazily focused on NOT doing a c-section since they wanted to keep their rates low and had had several already in that 24 hr period.

Since Emily's heart actually stopped while she was in the canal and I panicked and pushed her out, she was ultimately a vaginal delivery.

She was revived in the delivery room and lived four days, but the oxygen deprivation had been too profound. She was a beautiful, healthy baby and up to that point we had had 7 miscarriages before. It was a total shock for sure.

I really can't comment on home birth vs. hospital birth. A more attentive midwife might well have caught the bad heart decels earlier (we know a better nurse would have).

However, things can go wrong in transfer too (in my case the ER case was a transfer, but a few minutes' difference and I would have been the one who got the c-section). I believe people have to make their own decisions. Most cases will not be like mine and my daughter's.

That said, what bothers me the most is people who think they can avoid problems because they do _____ (manifest, consume fish oils, birth in hospital/at home/in a car/whatever). When you say "I believe birth is not an emergency," I get what you are saying. My son's delivery was uneventful. I do believe the cascade of interventions can be totally wrong. But - remember that death is a natural process too. Mother Nature only cares about enough babies making it to reproductive age; she does not care about your one child.

It was only after I lost my daughter that many women I had known a long time talked about babies they had lost. I also generally don't bring my daughter up with a pregnant woman unless she asks or unless there's some obvious question that's related to it - on the one hand, I don't like participating in the silence around perinatal loss. On the other, I don't like giving pregnant women nightmares. And it is rare.


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MamaJen** 
Also, there are a lot of things that may feel scary, but can capably be handled with minimal action. The baby can come out with low apgars, need a resuscitating breath, and be fine 10 minutes later. Babies have really high oxygen saturation levels to protect them from some distress during the birth.

And the current common practice of cutting the chord immediately and whisking the baby off to NICU is actually detrimental to babies. Babies in distress especially need those first couple minutes of chord blood. Babies in distress should be kept warm next to mother, below placenta, with pulsating chord attached, and be worked on by resuscitation teams at that spot. I think that would prevent a lot of NICU stays.

But I also agree that in some rare cases, babies born at home with a last minute emergency might have been saved in the hospital... and in some rare cases babies born in the hospital die BECAUSE they were born in the hospital, when they would have been healthy if born at home without interference. And, I think it's pretty obvious from our dismal maternal mortality rates that many women in this country are dying from childbirth BECAUSE they are birthing in a c-section happy hospital with virutally nil follow-up post partum care.

I tend to believe the statistics rather than the anecdotes. Yet, speaking of anecdotes, I've heard a lot of homebirth stories from friends and midwives. I know of a baby transferred by air-med after a homebirth... who only ended up in the NICU because the paramedics did not protect the baby from breathing in the bitter cold winter air. I know of a mother doing a UC who nearly died of hemorrage. I know another few who transferred after birth due to hemorrages. I know of emergent and non-emergent transfers. I know of one baby who died at home due to a shoulder dystocia. I know of another mom who transferred due to heart tones and after trying for a bit in the hospital ended up with an emergency general anesthesia c-section and a baby needing major medical assistance to live (due to a genetic issue). I also know of many amazing, wonderful, and empowering births. Every story I have heard only gives me more confidence that competent midwives know what they are doing and take appropriate action when things start to go wrong.

No, they can not guarantee a perfect outcome, but neither can doctors in a hospital. Life is messy. No one place of birth is safer for all women.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
modern obstetrics is highly focused on the outcome of a living mother and baby. period

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Just wrong. This is just not true.

If modern (American) obstetrics were highly focused on achieving a living mom & baby as their #1 objective, the CS rate wouldn't be so high.

CS _increases_ the risk of death for BOTH Mom & baby. So they would only be done in true necessity (and, as we all know, WHO did lots of research to conclude that "true necessity" is really closer to 10-15% - higher than that & the risks outweigh the benefits.)

With a national CS rate at over 32%, I absolutely don't buy that modern obstetrics is highly focused on the survival of mom & baby.

Great link:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._neonatal.html

Quote:

The CDC conducted research on cesarean section and neonatal mortality, expecting to find that the neonatal mortality rate (defined as death within the first 28 days of life) following cesarean section correlated directly with medical complications of the mother and baby. What they found, instead, was that regardless of risk factors, babies born by cesarean section face a risk of death nearly three times that of vaginally born babies.
As MamaJen continues to wisely state - No, HB is _not_ safe. But neither is hospital birth. Life isn't safe!

& finally, I really don't think any women on here honestly think birth is 100% risk free at home and birthing at home guarantees a good outcome.







So, I really don't think we need the "Public Service Announcement" that things can go wrong at home. Actually, quite on the contrary, we come to MDC because probably 95% of Americans think HB is totally insane, reckless, dangerous & crazy. While there are indeed risks, it's NOT totally insane, and we come here for support of like-minded people.

In other words, Fear-mongering on MDC about HB= unnecessary.


----------



## Surfacing (Jul 19, 2005)

subbing to come back later and read


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MegBoz* 
In other words, Fear-mongering on MDC about HB= unnecessary.

IMHO:
Fear-mongering about hospital birth is also unnecessary.

What I find helpful about MDC is the opportunity to hear stories from real women about the huge variety of ways that we experience our birthing journeys.

I don't think any woman shares her story because she wants to engender fear. I think that if we could, we would all create a positive, empowering birth experience for every woman, every time.

But no one has that power.

So in the absence of perfection & in the presence of the humbling mystery of birth and its shadow, death, it is helpful to create space for all stories, even "scary" stories.

There are places where we can make positive differences for ourselves & for others. It takes wisdom to figure out where those places there. Personally, I feel like that wisdom is more likely to emerge if we can openly share our real experiences.


----------



## PlayaMama (Apr 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CI Mama* 
IMHO:
Fear-mongering about hospital birth is also unnecessary.

What I find helpful about MDC is the opportunity to hear stories from real women about the huge variety of ways that we experience our birthing journeys.

I don't think any woman shares her story because she wants to engender fear. I think that if we could, we would all create a positive, empowering birth experience for every woman, every time.

But no one has that power.

So in the absence of perfection & in the presence of the humbling mystery of birth and its shadow, death, it is helpful to create space for all stories, even "scary" stories.

There are places where we can make positive differences for ourselves & for others. It takes wisdom to figure out where those places there. Personally, I feel like that wisdom is more likely to emerge if we can openly share our real experiences.











as always, you say what i'm thinking in such an eloquent way that all i can really do is say


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MegBoz* 
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Just wrong. This is just not true.

If modern (American) obstetrics were highly focused on achieving a living mom & baby as their #1 objective, the CS rate wouldn't be so high.

CS _increases_ the risk of death for BOTH Mom & baby. So they would only be done in true necessity (and, as we all know, WHO did lots of research to conclude that "true necessity" is really closer to 10-15% - higher than that & the risks outweigh the benefits.)

With a national CS rate at over 32%, I absolutely don't buy that modern obstetrics is highly focused on the survival of mom & baby.

Great link:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._neonatal.html

Just so you know that study was found to be really flawed: http://homebirthdebate.blogspot.com/...rmined-by.html


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MegBoz* 
& finally, I really don't think any women on here honestly think birth is 100% risk free at home and birthing at home guarantees a good outcome.







So, I really don't think we need the "Public Service Announcement" that things can go wrong at home. Actually, quite on the contrary, we come to MDC because probably 95% of Americans think HB is totally insane, reckless, dangerous & crazy. While there are indeed risks, it's NOT totally insane, and we come here for support of like-minded people.

In other words, Fear-mongering on MDC about HB= unnecessary.

Also, no one was fear-mongering. Did you miss where this woman lost her baby? Of course that changes her perception. But her truth is important.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Correlation does not equal causation.

High-risk births are more likely to be c-sections, therefore increased infant and maternal mortality would be expected.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Also, no one was fear-mongering. Did you miss where this woman lost her baby? Of course that changes her perception. But her truth is important.


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

I just wanted to say that I hadn't read the entire thread when I posted earlier... so when I was talking about anecdotes I was referring to the OP. I do think it is important to hear the first-hand accounts of losses, too. None of us is immune.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bokonon* 
Correlation does not equal causation.

High-risk births are more likely to be c-sections, therefore increased infant and maternal mortality would be expected.

Sure. But in the study they calculated (if I remember correctly) odds ratios, and eventually interpreted as risks. So it's not a (by common definition) situation where they are saying "there is a correlation between CS and death".

They are saying that, after holding all other things constant (depending on what they put in the model), the odds of dying were greater for women in the 'had a CS' group than for women in the 'didn't have a CS group'.

It's a logistic regression, which is used to predict the probability of something happening given certain 'risks'. So they aren't really saying that CS cause death, only that they increase the probability of death.

But I totally agree with the second part of your statement. And they do to, and tried to control for it (by assuming that they are studying the group 'women who had a CS but were not high risk').

Now whether or not they actually studied that group is the question. The point the homebirthdebate article made was that their assumption was faulty.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
" the OP has every reasonable reason to be scared when these things are happening around her. it is scary! and "trust birth" ? please! birth has been the leading killer of moms and babies since we walked upright.

I could see how someone could view the above statement as fear-mongering.


----------



## *MamaJen* (Apr 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Just so you know that study was found to be really flawed: http://homebirthdebate.blogspot.com/...rmined-by.html

Jenn, you are one of my very favorite posters on MDC and I love what you write, but I have to point out that Dr. She Who Shall Not Be Named's website is not an acceptable or trustworthy source of information. She's overtly anti-homebirth in her agenda and I don't trust her analysis. That particular study may not have been good science, but I would need to see another analysis, other than one by Dr. You Know Who.
And as far as the other topic goes...I want MDC to be a welcoming place for all women who are willing to think intelligently about birth. That includes women who have lost a baby and no longer believe homebirth is their best option, as well as women who believe hospitals pose a danger to most laboring women, and other viewpoints in between. I reserve the right to respectfully express disagreement with any of those viewpoints.
The point is that we're having a thoughtful, largely evidence based discussion about birth, which is not something you can find on most web forums.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MamaJen** 
Jenn, you are one of my very favorite posters on MDC and I love what you write, but I have to point out that Dr. She Who Shall Not Be Named's website is not an acceptable or trustworthy source of information. She's overtly anti-homebirth in her agenda and I don't trust her analysis. That particular study may not have been good science, but I would need to see another analysis, other than one by Dr. You Know Who.

Thanks for the compliment.







It's definitely returned.

I don't know much about her but I did do a fast Google scholar run before posting that link and she is right - the data was _very_ soft in spots, with very poor assumptions. If people are quoting the UNREVISED study then that needs to be corrected, IMO, and I thought that was a good summary of the flaws in the study.

Regardless, other studies in other countries still bring in the result that cesarian delivery does have more risks than vaginal which just makes sense if you think about it - surgery is a big deal no matter what kind of surgery it is for what reasons. It's just that the risk spread is not necessarily that wide apart. Let's look at the good data and studies - you don't have to find the one big discredited scary one to make your point.

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MamaJen** 
And as far as the other topic goes...I want MDC to be a welcoming place for all women who are willing to think intelligently about birth. That includes women who have lost a baby and no longer believe homebirth is their best option, as well as women who believe hospitals pose a danger to most laboring women, and other viewpoints in between. I reserve the right to respectfully express disagreement with any of those viewpoints.
The point is that we're having a thoughtful, largely evidence based discussion about birth, which is not something you can find on most web forums.

I think the evidence is often very cherry-picked on MDC (as it is pretty much everywhere) so I cringe a bit at the evidence-based phrase. I know I cherry-pick because I'm a lay person not investing weeks of research, or because someone has a really good summary. Hopefully if we all are willing to put a bit of time in the whole will be better than the sum of the parts.









I also think that stats are helpful but as someone who lived through losing my daughter (and watching her have seizures and be on morphine and poked and prodded during her short life), I also think that in our culture we gloss over what those stats really mean and these threads are an opportunity to stop doing that.

We just don't deal with death much or well - and death is not the only negative outcome in birth where brain damage is involved. We initially thought my daughter would live but be very, very handicapped (not able to swallow own saliva, hear, speak, or see).

These are rare outcomes, truly. But in absolute honesty in my case that was a *fifteen minute difference*. A c-section fifteen minutes earlier would have corrected the earlier mistake. And the on the other end, another *five minutes* and she probably would have been stillborn and we might not have asked as many questions although the outcome would have still be somewhat the same (although I do, weirdly, treasure those days.)

I have come to believe -- just as I believe in the cascade of interventions -- that one good way to look at risk is not just to look at the stats for each thing, but to consider how the pieces fit together too and what you can live with as failure points.

In order to do that you kind of have to understand how the pieces fit together, which is hard to do until you've been through it. That's why people's stories - biased and flawed as they are - are so important. They are more holistic in that way.

The downside is - normally, speaking for many women who experience perinatal loss - we just don't talk about it. The first response of many, many people -- and not just on the internet, trust me -- is to try to distance themselves from that experience and why it would never happen to them. I could tell you brutal stories.

When a woman reports a "good" birth here (even if there were, in fact, complications) it's "yay! for you!" - of course because we all revel in the joy of that child. And if that woman chooses that moment to share her personal truth in an advocacy way, it's acceptable.

But when it's a bad birth, suddenly the stats get trotted out and all kinds of accusations get levelled about fearmongering. *IMO, it's not right.* It's just not. If natural birth advocacy is about reality, then make room for that too. Everyone on this forum can understand that I personally will be insane about fetal monitoring and someone else will be biased about home birth - but our points of view, though from the minority (thank goodness) are just as valid as someone who had a really bad hospital experience. There is room for that.

The OP's question seemed very honest to me. Are there cases where in any birthing situation a different situation would result in a better outcome? Yes, totally.


----------



## equilibrium (Apr 25, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bokonon* 
Correlation does not equal causation.

High-risk births are more likely to be c-sections, therefore increased infant and maternal mortality would be expected.

Exactly!


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I think the evidence is often very cherry-picked on MDC (as it is pretty much everywhere) so I cringe a bit at the evidence-based phrase. I know I cherry-pick because I'm a lay person not investing weeks of research, or because someone has a really good summary. Hopefully if we all are willing to put a bit of time in the whole will be better than the sum of the parts.









I also think that stats are helpful but as someone who lived through losing my daughter (and watching her have seizures and be on morphine and poked and prodded during her short life), I also think that in our culture we gloss over what those stats really mean and these threads are an opportunity to stop doing that.

We just don't deal with death much or well - and death is not the only negative outcome in birth where brain damage is involved. We initially thought my daughter would live but be very, very handicapped (not able to swallow own saliva, hear, speak, or see).

These are rare outcomes, truly. But in absolute honesty in my case that was a *fifteen minute difference*. A c-section fifteen minutes earlier would have corrected the earlier mistake. And the on the other end, another *five minutes* and she probably would have been stillborn and we might not have asked as many questions although the outcome would have still be somewhat the same (although I do, weirdly, treasure those days.)

I have come to believe -- just as I believe in the cascade of interventions -- that one good way to look at risk is not just to look at the stats for each thing, but to consider how the pieces fit together too and what you can live with as failure points.

In order to do that you kind of have to understand how the pieces fit together, which is hard to do until you've been through it. That's why people's stories - biased and flawed as they are - are so important. They are more holistic in that way.

The downside is - normally, speaking for many women who experience perinatal loss - we just don't talk about it. The first response of many, many people -- and not just on the internet, trust me -- is to try to distance themselves from that experience and why it would never happen to them. I could tell you brutal stories.

When a woman reports a "good" birth here (even if there were, in fact, complications) it's "yay! for you!" - of course because we all revel in the joy of that child. And if that woman chooses that moment to share her personal truth in an advocacy way, it's acceptable.

But when it's a bad birth, suddenly the stats get trotted out and all kinds of accusations get levelled about fearmongering. *IMO, it's not right.* It's just not. If natural birth advocacy is about reality, then make room for that too. Everyone on this forum can understand that I personally will be insane about fetal monitoring and someone else will be biased about home birth - but our points of view, though from the minority (thank goodness) are just as valid as someone who had a really bad hospital experience. There is room for that.

The OP's question seemed very honest to me. Are there cases where in any birthing situation a different situation would result in a better outcome? Yes, totally.

Thank you for talking about something that is hard to talk about, and for sharing your experiences and insights with such clarity. I really appreciate what you bring to these forums.

I agree with everything you're saying about the uses & limits of statistical evidence, the importance of personal story telling in creating a holistic view of an insanely complicated process, and the difficulty of talking about death without "fearmongering."

One dynamic that I've noticed that seems as prevalent at MDC as elsewhere is a tendency to praise the _method_ when something goes right, and to blame the _woman_ when something goes wrong.

In other words, when there's a good outcome, we praise the worthiness of home birth/water birth/hypnobirth/Bradley method/UC/insert-your-preferred-method-here. When there's a bad outcome, there's a tendency to focus on the woman and how she was unprepared/uneducated/not trying hard enough/not "open" to the experience/not making the right choices/not advocating for herself/caving in to pain/you-name-it.

It's not so different than the medical model of focusing on heroic hospitals & OBs, sometimes to the point of ignoring the work of the laboring woman herself!

No matter where you're coming from, it can be hard to account for the random things that happen. Random good things happen & random difficult things happen. This doesn't sit well with our cultural obsession with control.

I think that this dynamic gets back to what the OP was asking about...our difficulty in knowing how to respond to things that are scary. Especially in a culture where the realities of death are as hidden and mysterious to most of us as the realities of birth.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UmmIlyas* 
I could see how someone could view the above statement as fear-mongering.

well that someone might need to think twice and realize that my baby DID die because of birth, and could have been "saved by modern medicine" and without modern medicine- no thanks to my midwife- i did not die. 100 years ago? i would have been dead too. i have no fear mongering agenda, just the wish that no one else should have to go through what i went through for an "birth experience"


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Also, no one was fear-mongering. Did you miss where this woman lost her baby? Of course that changes her perception. But her truth is important.

apparently not on MDC, although fear mongering about hospitals is widely practiced- mostly by people who have not lost anthing-

no big suprise here.if it weren't for the few understanding kind people on here, i would be gone in a heartbeat.


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Liz, FTMP I agree with you. The point I was making was that a reasonable woman may choose a slightly increased risk of perinatal death to avoid a much higher increased risk of injury to herself and/or her baby. While obviously there is nothing worse than losing a baby, that risk (and the risk differential between home and hospital birth) is very small. A reasonable woman could choose to accept that slightly higher risk of perinatal death at home in exchange for lowering other, more common risks. Obviously anyone who has had a baby die at home would find it unacceptable, but I don't think that means we should make homebirth illegal. My point is that any woman choosing homebirth must be aware of exactly what she's choosing and be certain she wants to make those specific choices.

Also, I would say that the primary focus of modern obstetrics is on saving babies, not mothers. In fact, there is a very willing tradeoff wherein the threshold for substantially injuring the woman (c-section) is very low and modern obstetrics is also quite willing to risk the mother's life to save the baby. The ultimate unacceptable outcome is the preventable death of a baby. Therefore, heroic measures are employed, and a lot of technology, to try to always save every baby you possibly can. Even Dr. Amy has looked at this question and the diminishing return of doing more and more c-sections to save fewer and fewer (but still some) babies.

The philosophy is a bit different elsewhere - in other countries, such as Canada and the UK, there is a little less emphasis on always saving every possible baby. You can see this in the protocol for GBS+ mothers. In the US, the protocol is every woman who tests + gets prophylactic antibiotics, even though you're treating a tremendous number of women who ultimately won't need treatment and there are consequences to the treatment (though those consequences don't involve the death of an infant). In the UK, although a few more babies will die under this approach, they handle GBS+ mothers with expectant management and only administer antibiotics if the mother is symptomatic or has extended ROM or other additional risk factors. Under the UK approach, more babies die. Just a small number, but more babies die.

It isn't a cut and dry issue - the questions are complex. There are tradeoffs. There are risks and benefits. Reasonable people may differ. For the few who end up with the catastrophic, worst-case outcome, that is awful and no one wishes it on another person. Still, those few babies that didn't make it, or those few mothers who died on the table from the unnecessary c-section, shouldn't determine what care everyone else gets. It still has to be a balancing act, and a patient should still have the autonomy to choose and play an active role in her care and her baby's care.


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CI Mama* 
One dynamic that I've noticed that seems as prevalent at MDC as elsewhere is a tendency to praise the _method_ when something goes right, and to blame the _woman_ when something goes wrong.

I have seen this attitude far too often in the natural birth community. It is unhelpful and unacceptable.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Wow. A lot in this thread and a lot I could comment on, but I'm short on time.

Basically, OP:

Birth is not safe. Life is not safe. There are no guarantees and nothing you can do to prevent something truly unexpected from coming up.

However, the odds are far in your favor that your birth will go just fine. Most births go just fine. By far.

The important thing is that you trust the people taking care of you to do what is best for you and your baby, and you make choices that you know, in the extremely extremely small and rare chance that something bad happened, you could look back and say "I did everything I could with the information I had."


----------



## *MamaJen* (Apr 24, 2007)

Thanks, Romana. That was a good post.
In some ways, for me I think the question in part is how much maternal morbidity is acceptable to reduce a small amount of infant mortality.
Would there be fewer numbers of infant mortality if every woman had a scheduled C-section at 38 weeks? Possibly. Would that lead to much higher maternal morbidity and likely maternal mortality? Definitely.
I do believe, based on studies that I have seen, that mortality rates are similar for home and hospital births, but homebirths have lower morbidity rates and much higher rates of maternal satisfaction. I do not believe that homebirthing is intrinsically and across the board more dangerous than hospital birth.
Also, some homebirth deaths are a result of malpractice, just like some hospital deaths. Liz, I don't know everything about your experience, but I know a little about it, and I know it sounds like better actions on the part of your midwife might have saved your baby. I guess some of that will be determined at the hearing. But the point is, the better trained and regulated midwives are, and the better the procedures are in case of transfer, the better the outcomes are overall.


----------



## SC_Jan (May 19, 2010)

I would just like to say that I am so sorry for any family that has lost a child. I am reading some unintentionally (I hope) cruel phrasing in some of these posts. I have lost children through miscarriage and helped several women who had stillbirths. After those experiences I am certainly aware of how words can make a mother's pain worse. Please remember that these "few more babies" have families that will be impacted for life. I realize no one is trying to be unkind but I think we can all make our points without sounding breezy about the loss of a child


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
i have no fear mongering agenda

That is clear.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UmmIlyas* 
That is clear.

are you being sarcastic?


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liz-hippymom* 
are you being sarcastic?

No. I'm not sarcastic. I am serious.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MamaJen** 
Liz, I don't know everything about your experience, but I know a little about it, and I know it sounds like better actions on the part of your midwife might have saved your baby. I guess some of that will be determined at the hearing. But the point is, the better trained and regulated midwives are, and the better the procedures are in case of transfer, the better the outcomes are overall.

i agree 100% .but the OP was questioning the safety of homebirth. the US simply isn't there yet where i could say "yes it is just as safe". i know lots of people will pull up studies saying it is, but there are just as many saying it isnt.
and especially here in Austin where NO midwives (except the one practice _in the hospital_ have OB backup. none. if my midwife had had OB backup, and therefor someone she had to check in with when things went bad, i would have been i the hospital almost from the begining of when she got there. but she did not. to homebirth here in austin (for sure) you must give up the safety net that is needed to keep babies from dying and being injured. there is a better way to do it. in other countries they do have better systems- but HERE? not right now. it is not as safe as it is touted to be on MDC. every midwife has a different experience level, and there is no way to know for sure what you are getting. stories like mine don't make the news. my midwife is still taking clients and i have heard from THREE interviewing mamas that she is not disclosing that she recently had a baby die, or that she is going in for a review that will probably cost her her license. so am i going to say something? yes! who else will?


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

I have never lost a full term baby. I have had 4 miscarriages. I do have close friends who have lost babies, at home and in hospital. In a few cases a different setting might have made a difference, in some it would have made none.

ALL of those women have been berated at some point for their choices - including one woman who was *planning* a homebirth (in the UK so under the normal NHS care everyone gets, but with the intention of calling the labour ward for a midwife to be sent out in labour, rather than going in to birth) whose baby was stillborn due to a cord accident which struck when she was 37+4 weeks pregnant. She was not in labour, she gave birth to him 4 days after he died, vaginally, in hospital following induction, there were two true knots in his cord, it seemed descent for engagement had pulled them tight. Still, people hinted that PLANNING a homebirth had caused this baby to die.

Likewise i know a woman whose baby died of cord prolapse in hospital after AROM (done by a midwife who missed the prolapse until it was too late, baby was delivered by csection, and never breathed, mama woke from the GA to be told her son hadn't made it) who has been told that she should have stayed home (she'd been in labour for days and they suggested the AROM as a way to help speed things up - the head was a little high, but he was her 3rd baby, it turned out at the section he'd had his elbow by his head and the cord had slipped through a gap between the arm and the head) and her baby would have lived.

The horrible fact is that some people will die. Some of those people will be tiny babies who never even got a chance at living. It's awful, it's probably one of the most unbearable facts of life there are. In specific cases, in retrospect, some deaths could have been prevented by a different setting, or a different care-giver, but sometimes nothing could have prevented them, and often there is no way of knowing ahead of time which setting or careprovider will be the "safest".

There is no silver bullet to protect ourselves from this. It's a risk we HAVE to take, no matter where we birth. For every woman the answer to the question "where is safest" is going to be different. I'm in the UK where homebirth is supported to an extent - midwives are all trained to the same standards and held to those standards, all the NHS midwives have automatic OB back-up at the hospitals they work for/at, and independent midwives can negotiate back-up with individual clients (i have an IM - i also booked with an NHS OB in case i needed one), and perhaps that DOES make homebirth safer here than it is in the US. On the other hand, some of the best midwives in the Western World live and work in the USA, and they would undoubtedly be a safe choice to birth with. There are certainly some midwives working in the UK who despite being well-qualified and monitored aren't a safe choice for homebirth. I was attended by one at my last birth, a midwife who was so lost without CFM and the ongoing access-to-VE's of an epidural'ed woman that she insisted i wasn't in labour until DD's head crowned. I was lucky, my birth was normal and she didn't intervene in any dangerous way. I have chosen a different care-model this time, in the HOPE that it will be safer for us, but i acknowledge that it is hope, and nothing more.

Scary birth stories exist because birth can be scary, terrifying, tragic. Just as joyful birth stories exist because birth can be peaceful, joyous, blissful. Both are incredibly important for women to tell and to hear, only if we hear both can we know the outer truth, and only by understanding that outer truth can we find our inner truths about how OUR births should be. The truth is not scaremongering, it is just the truth.


----------



## bicyclingbethany (Sep 11, 2009)

This was such a sad sad thread to read. ):

It makes me realize how much women go through, every day. We risk our whole selves when we choose to conceive and birth a child.
I wish we could be like other mammals and birth by ourselves, push the baby out in a minute flat, eat the placenta and be on our way. But unfortunately we have to walk upright and have big brains!

We all need to support each other. It makes me very sad to see how defensive and cruel pro-homebirth vs. pro-hospital birth mamas can be to each other. Each is probably coming from a unique experience that led her one way or the other.

Hugs to all the posters who have lost a child.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Coming from a family full of vets, farmers and biologists, actually lots of animals die during pregnancy and birth too. And not just those animals we have domesticated (and arguably manipulated in ways normal evolution wouldn't have) but wild creatures. And lots and LOTS of young baby animals die. I can remember hearing about a friend's horse who nearly died during labour (the foal's forefeet tore through into the rectum, labour arrested, the foal died, come morning they found her and the vet came up and cut the foal out piece by piece to save the mare, it had gone so badly and been so long since the initial fistula they couldn't even sew her shredded vagina and anus up properly, she had to have major reconstructive surgery 6 months later. Her pregnancy was normal, the foal was not over-large, there was no reason to suspect anything would go wrong. It just did. My uncle was a vet, his c-section rate for cows was 10% for heifers, around 3-5% for cows, but he never did a c-section when the calf would probably die anyway, they were cut out like the foal, to save the cow the surgery. Birth is dangerous, all births, for all creatures.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana* 
I have seen this attitude far too often in the natural birth community. It is unhelpful and unacceptable.

Unfortunately, I doubt that is restricted to MDC, or the natural birth community.

It sounds like Attribution Theory (AT). AT attempts to explain how people interpret success and failure. Some studies suggest that women tend to attribute success to outside sources (in our example, the method of birth) and failure to internal sources (lack of ability).

You may notice it more on MDC or the natural birth community as these groups are predominantly female.


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Liz, I am very, very sorry that you lost your sweet child. I am especially sorry that you didn't get the care you needed and deserved. Although, my son didn't die, it was a close call with weeks in NICU. He was harmed by my OB. Born healthy and then damaged. I was also harmed by this same OB, and have experienced the lasting effects of that for the 14 years since his birth.









It's all about experience and risk/benefit relationships. I would have NEVER used another OB, though I know in my rational brain that different OBs would have treated my son and I differently. I have seen OBs take such sweet, careful care of mothers that our birth center transferred, and give them and their babies EXACTLY the care that they needed, that our MW staff couldn't provide. But for me and mine, the risk is just too high to chance. So, I do understand your perspective, though I cannot imagine your pain at losing your child.

And, I fully, completely agree (and this will likely get me some flames) that the vast differences in midwifery education for professional (non-nurse) midwives and the lack of a consistent back-up system does more harm than good for mothers and babies. If a midwife is worried about or scared to transfer a woman in a timely manner, or she's practicing without protocol or a system of accountability, women and babies are not safe.

It's why I feel that legislation is very important. It protects consumers, their babies, the midwives and the profession. It only takes one bad apple, well, you know the rest.

My sincere condolences on your child, and I hope you're on your way to peace.


----------

