• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Homebirths

It's amazing how many men are posting here that they want women hospitalized whether they want it or not.
 
Giving birth is not an illness iguana. It shouldn't be treated like one. Recent research shows there is no difference in infant mortality between home and hospital births amongst normal births.
It's not an illness, it's however a medical situation. Best dealt with in a hospital, in my opinion.

Asking honestly here, why do people feel it's better to deliver at home than in a hospital?

It's amazing how many men are posting here that they want women hospitalized whether they want it or not.
Well, I would wish the mother of my children to deliver in a hospital. The decision would be up to her, obviously, but I would like to be consulted.
 
It's a form of social conditioning. In the Netherlands which is just a spit away from here, the attitudes are completely different.
 
25 years ago when i was pregnant with my son who was my first child. My best friend was pregnant with her third child. Her first two pregnancies and deliveries went very smoothly (she delivered them in the hospital). So for her third she delivered at home. All went well and there were no problems.

Women use to deliver at home all the time. I also believe there were a lot more mother and child deaths as well.

In this day and age there are all sorts of wonderful birthing rooms and centers. I'd stick with the professionals, even with all the downsides. If anything happens to the baby during birth, i want them there at the ready.
 
It's a form of social conditioning. In the Netherlands which is just a spit away from here, the attitudes are completely different.
I'm not sure I'm following you, Deckerd. In my opinion, hospitals are better equipped to deal with birth complications. Of course people will be conditioned to deliver in hospitals. Following your reasoning, you might also argue that people are being conditioned to play cricket in cricket fields, but it's just because it's the best environment for the activity.
 
It's amazing how many men are posting here that they want women hospitalized whether they want it or not.

Just as amazing that you don't think this affects BOTH people in the relationship, instead of being a decision in the sole hand of the mother, I suppose. Not sure anyone said they'd be FORCING the woman into the hospital, either, so pumping some exageration/strawman into your argument doesn't really strengthen it.

The question asked what WE would prefer, so guess what? We stated our preference, and most of us backed it up with WHY we felt that way. Other than being contrary, what are your reasons for seeming to support the home birth as the way to go (regardless of the father's feelings)?

I just feel that the hospital is safer, covers emergencies and contingencies better, and is generally better equiped to handle anything out of the ordinary.

If you could guarantee a perfectly normal birth with no complications, it wouldn't much matter, and I wouldn't really care. Since no one CAN promise that, seems smarter to be prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best. So many little things can go wrong, however, and I'd rather have a hospital full of trained Doctors and expensive equipment ready to go if it turns out to be more complicated than popping a squat...

Everything works out normally, and it's a perfectly routine birth? Nothing lost, really, as I don't see any arguments about what the BENEFIT of the home birth is, anyway. Things DON'T go perfectly? I'd MUCH rather watch a team of doctors running towards an emergency room than a nervous mid-wife fumbling with a cell phone while I watch my wife and child die. Call me old-fashioned that way, or sexist, or whatever. Just feels more like common sense. No reason you can't split the difference and go to a fancier hospital with birthing suites, those water-birth tubs, etc if you want to get some of that, instead of a regular hospital room, but that's more whatever the mother feels comfortable with...
 
It's amazing how many men are posting here that they want women hospitalized whether they want it or not.

I can't speak for others, but in my case, a dear friend nearly lost her child shortly after he was born. If experienced doctors and state of the art medical equipment hadn't been immediately available...

We protect ourselves against tragedy in so many other ways. If we crash our cars, we have insurance to cover damage and liability. If our house burns down, we have insurance to get us someplace new to live. When we get sick we [most of us] have insurance to protect us from massive medical bills. And when we die, we have insurance to provide for those we leave behind.

I see going to the hospital for childbirth as a form of insurance. Sure, everything may go perfectly. But if it doesn't -- if there's some kind of problem -- it's far preferable to be covered.
 
It's a form of social conditioning. In the Netherlands which is just a spit away from here, the attitudes are completely different.
I'm not sure I'm following you, Deckerd. In my opinion, hospitals are better equipped to deal with birth complications. Of course people will be conditioned to deliver in hospitals. Following your reasoning, you might also argue that people are being conditioned to play cricket in cricket fields, but it's just because it's the best environment for the activity.

It's social conditioning to all trot dutifully along to hospital because people have been conditioned to treating a natural function as some kind of medical emergency. The Dutch on the other hand are more liberated, which is why so many of them have perfectly uneventful home births.
 
Again, explain yourself. Why is it that having your bases covered during a strenuous and serious physical ordeal considered "social conditioning"?

And how does having a home birth relate to a "more liberated" Dutch populace? What are the benefits?

And for fun, how do survivors of the non-uneventful home births feel? Is it "liberating" to lose a wife and/or child because you wanted to feel smug about a home birth? What were the benefits that encouraged you to take that risk in the first place? Keep bashing the hospital route as bad, but still haven't seen anything in FAVOR of not doing it...
 
If you'd paid attention upthread you'll have seen that amongst normal pregnancies, there is no extra danger involved in a home birth. In other words if you have a normal pregnancy you are just as likely to have complications in hospital or at home and the end results are statistically the same. If you have a problem pregnancy you will be in hospital anyway. In short the advantages are giving birth in your own home.
 
And the advantage of that, other than not having to be driven home after, is...?

Do you have any of these statistics you're quoting that say the results of complications at home vs those same complications in a hospital are about the same? that one doesn't seem to wash with me...

As for the "If you'd paid attention" bit, back off of that part. Other than you saying so, you haven't provided anything of the sort, and nor has anyone else. just strawmen and rhetoric about social conditioning and liberated women chosing to give birth at home while the sheep trod off to hospitals. If you'd read any responses, you'd ahve seen that everyone kinda agreed that if you could guarantee a normal delivery, most people didn't care WHERE you had it. But more people felt comfortable having their bases covered if there was a problem. Mostly because you can't say you're going to have a perfectly normal delivery until after you've FINISHED doing it...
 
There's one report here but there are dozens if you google

If you don't understand how less stressful it would be to have your baby in your own home surrounded by your family then you clearly have never given birth in hospital.
 
It's the 21st century. Go to a freaking hospital.

Interesting attitude :vulcan: Did you know that (at least in the US) the attitude is changing so that people will do what was once the norm in life --- that is, dying at home? So-called modern times (ie the 20th Century) gave rise to the elderly and the sick to be carted away to a hospital whereupon they would die. Thus came a big mystery about death, and if someone died at home, surrounded by loved ones, it was considered "weird".

Babies were birthed at home for centuries. Why go to a hospital, where mom is expected to spit the kid out and then leave within 36 hours?
 
That, and having a dick, those are two things that would indicate that, yeah :lol: Still not giving anything other than "you're at home" though, as I'd imagine that the friends and family would come to the hospital just as likely as the home, so only difference is the room and bed you're in. Not sure of the stress level difference. Know you won't have to clean up later, at least ;)

And your study is all about low-risk women, so is basically geared towards women who weren't likely to have problems either way. Which, again if you'll read our responses, isn't what anyone is worried about. If you could guarantee a normal labor and birth ahead of time, I wouldn't care as much. Since you can't do that, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
 
Actually, that article on safety ended with this part, too:

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) said it supported home births "in cases of low-risk pregnancies provided the appropriate infrastructures and resources are present to support such a system.
But it added: "Women need to be counselled on the unexpected emergencies - such as cord prolapse, fetal heart rate abnormalities, undiagnosed breech, prolonged labour and postpartum haemorrhage - which can arise during labour and can only be managed in a maternity hospital.
"Such emergencies would always require the transfer of women by ambulance to the hospital as extra medical support is only present in hospital settings and would not be available to them when they deliver at home."

So even then, might have to go to a hospital, even if you WERE a low-risk pregnancy. Personally, I'd feel better if that was already in place and ready to go, rather than waiting for an ambulance and hoping there's not a lot of traffic...
 
I can't take you seriously with that avatar. That Squiggy's got SO much to answer for.
 
European medicine seems to be far ahead of US medicine when it comes to childbirth. When preggers with our first son we were in Germany and we planned to go to the local clinicum which was state of the art and still far preferred by the US servicepeople and their families in spite of the excellent care available at the military hospital-not a joke, that. He was two weeks late and the clinic was full up - so we ended up going to the US milit hosp where complications led to his birth via c-section.

My second son was a planned c-section as there were complications very early in the pregnancy.

Either way I am grateful to modern medicine for both of my sons.

However, when people talk about midwives it's not a babushka in a dirty apron - esp in Europe - they're highly trained, experienced, birthing professionals who love what they do.
 
Personally, I'd rather be in a nice clean hospital with doctors and painkillers available. After spending 9 months pregnant, who wants to have to clean the house for a midwife, etc.? I'd feel pressured to have hors d'ouvres and drinks out, and maybe put up some balloons, make a mixtape... nah.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top