Comments on: Home births safer than hospital births for low risk pregnancies

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:37:34 +0000

Not knowing your story or the details, is there any reason to think a midwife wouldn’t have caught that or wouldn’t have been able to remedy it?

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:36:22 +0000

There was a study published in the British Medical Journal that shows basically the same results for American women. It compared births in North America (USA included for sure, and I think Canada was as well) showing homebirths with a trained attendant had equal if not better outcomes than hospital births.

By: lauredhel

lauredhel — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:30:21 +0000

Rebecca, the British Columbia study did look at birth trauma to the baby as well. The risk of birth injury (brain haemorrhage, skull and clavicle fractures, and nerve injuries) was far greater in hospital, and the difference was statistically significant. I've written a bit of it up here. I put that data table up here for you, also. (If you can't access it, I'm sorry, I can't transcribe it right now - perhaps someone else can?)

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:16:55 +0000

The study reported statistics on infant mortality; just wondering if anyone has come across stats related to infant morbidity (e.g. incidence of cerebral palsy (CP) or other neurological issues) after home birth vs. hospital birth. Given that there were lower rated of infants requiring resuscitation or oxygen therapy after birth at home, I’d suspect that incidence of neurological issues would also be lower, but I’m wondering if there is any evidence to support this. I’ve done some searching but haven’t been able to find anything – any help would be really appreciated!

By: Sam @ babyREADY

Sam @ babyREADY — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:56:34 +0000

Thank you for posting this. The article came out while we were readying our family for a much-needed long weekend away and I haven’t had time to write about it. I am SO glad that the statistical safety of homebirth (compared to being in a germ-infested hospital) is the safest choice for most moms and babies is finally getting some of the recognition and understanding that it needs and deserves.
Thank you for writing this!

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:37:26 +0000

So glad there’s a well controlled, Canadian study showing these results. My first child was born in a mid-wife assisted hospital birth but I am seriously considering a home birth for my next child – I laboured much better at home – my labour slowed significantly once we got to the hospital.

I’m sure Ina May Gaskin would not be suprised by these results! She’s been saying this for years! They’ve also known this in Europe for years – homebirths are the norm there.

By: Mamawork

Mamawork — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:47:07 +0000

This kind of study is essential at empowering women to make choices that are in line with their values and preferences. I think that is what it comes down to, being able to choose. And not have to deal with nay sayers who try and guilt pregnant women in to giving up on some personal quest that is self indulgent to the risk of their child. The more I read about homebirth, the more sense it makes.

Many women would not feel comfortable with home birth, and that is their choice. I am a woman who feels comfortable with home birth, and is still angry at the unhelpful, irrational lines of reasoning that were given to me about how dangerous home birth is.

By: Dreamom

Dreamom — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:53:47 +0000

The answer is no. Since no hospital has staff waiting doing nothing in the event of an emergency they need time to be pulled from their posts and the appropriate steps put in motion; Meds need to be retrieved from locked cabinets or internal pharmacies; the OR needs to be prepped for the relevant procedure… In smaller hospitals the wait CAN be longer if the limited OR’s are already in use – or staff has to paged from off-site… 20 minutes is a very short time to get things pulled together.

By: Lindsay @ Kickypants

Lindsay @ Kickypants — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:05:05 +0000

One thing that helped my husband come on board for the homebirth decision was that regulations require a hospital to be able to stage a crash c-section in 20 minutes. That’s how long it takes to prep the OR, scrub in, get the anesthesiologist there, etc. So we reasoned that if we were within 20 minutes of the hospital by ambulance (we are actually about 5 min away), then in the very unlikely even that I needed an emergency c-section, the MWs would call ahead and the OR would be ready when we arrived, leaving us no further ahead or behind than if we’d been in the hospital in the first place. I thought it was so interested that even though they talk about ‘crash sections’ and ‘emegency situations’, it still take 20 minutes?! I’m wondering if certain bigger hospitals could get things together a little faster, though.

By: Baby blog » Blog Archive » Home Births Safer for Low Risk Pregnancies

Baby blog » Blog Archive » Home Births Safer for Low Risk Pregnancies — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:06:50 +0000

[...] studies that back up the safety of home birth. I was so happy to see news of a study showing that home births are safer than hospital births for low risk pregnancies. Yes! Shout it from the rooftops! Do more studies! Spread the [...]