There are no studies that demonstrate that homebirth with a US homebirth midwife is less likely to kill or permanently disable either mother or baby
than hospital birth under the care of an ob.
Not exact matches
My son was born 7 lbs 1oz, he lost more
than 10 % of his
birth weight and they still released him from the
hospital, I gave him a bath the next day by this point 4 days old, he didn't wake up, took him right to another
hospital where the admitted him and put him on an IV and
under the lights, they had me pumping every hour producing a max of 5 ml a time, finally they discovered I had insufficient milk glands, I was not allowed to have a bottle until I got home.
Home
birth is also more economical
than a
hospital birth, usually costing well
under $ 4,000 as compared to a
hospital which can cost over $ 10,000.
Isn't childbirth safer
than it ever has been, with most women going to
hospital and giving
birth under the supervision of well - trained medical health professionals?
What floors me is how people continue to ignore the glaringly obvious fact, that homebirth, even
under the best circumstances, continues to kill mothers and babies at a rate that is far higher
than births that occur in
hospital settings.
And more importantly, rather
than just comparing home vs
hospital overall, it compared midwife - led vs OB - led
births at home vs
hospital (as you should well know, in the Netherlands, low - risk women see a midwife, full stop — you have to be high - risk to see an OB, so
hospital births are a combination of low - risk women
under midwife care and high - risk women
under OB care).
I attempted a home
birth in 2010 in Oregon,
under the belief that it was «as safe or safer
than hospital birth».
The facts are that home
birth in the US is riskier
than hospital birth even
under the best circumstances.