Home birth!

[Mark A. Jones]

Dear everyone,

Thank you so much for all of your replies and useful information, I will
look into it more closely as I feel more confident about it. Though my GP
didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....
Good luck to all, may New Year bring you beautiful and healthy babies :)))

God bless you


--
Ana Jones
Athol Marketing Ltd
Fax 01932-859768
Mobile 07799-192748

[Buzzy Bee]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:42:43 -0000, "Mark A. Jones"
> wrote:

>Dear everyone,
>
>Thank you so much for all of your replies and useful information, I will
>look into it more closely as I feel more confident about it. Though my GP
>didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....

Thats pretty normal for a GP, though its nothing to do with them at
the end of the day ;-)

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

[Todd Gastaldo]

Ana wrote:

> Dear everyone,
>
> Thank you so much for all of your replies and useful information, I will
> look into it more closely as I feel more confident about it. Though my GP
> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....
> Good luck to all, may New Year bring you beautiful and healthy babies
> :)))
>
> God bless you
>

Ana,

Good luck - whatever venue you decide upon.

Don't forget the birth center option.

Todd

[Ericka Kammerer]

Mark A. Jones wrote:

> Dear everyone,
>
> Thank you so much for all of your replies and useful information, I will
> look into it more closely as I feel more confident about it. Though my GP
> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....
> Good luck to all, may New Year bring you beautiful and healthy babies :)))

I know there are those who are squeamish about homebirths
for their first, but frankly, I think that it's even more important
to have a homebirth for your first ;-) Homebirths for firsts are
more likely to end up in transports, but the vast majority of these
transports are just for fatigue. First labors are more likely to
be long, which increases the odds that a woman will get tired and
maybe want drugs for pain relief. That's hardly a big medical
risk--if it happens, you just go to the hospital and get pain
relief! Same thing for true failure to progress. It's hardly
an emergency. You just transport and deal with it.
My first was a homebirth, and it was a long labor (45
hours). It was successful and I was happy as a clam to have done
it that way. Had I been in the hospital, I would have had
a very difficult time avoiding all sorts of interventions
with such a long labor, and I could easily have ended up with
a c-section that would have increased the risks significantly
for my subsequent two children!
So frankly, I'd take the worry about birthing a first
at home with a grain of salt. Realistically, you do have a slightly
higher risk of transporting during labor, but that doesn't
translate into a higher risk of bad outcomes.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Cathy Weeks]

Mark A. Jones wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>
> Thank you so much for all of your replies and useful information, I
will
> look into it more closely as I feel more confident about it. Though
my GP
> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....

<Laugh> my GP didn't think too much of the idea of doing a homebirth
with "an unproven pelvis" either. However, having done a lot of recent
research, I knew more about the statistics and risks than she did, to
be quite honest. And her practice did not do obstetrics at all, so she
hasn't delivered any babies since med school, and hadn't kept up on it
at all. So I didn't consider her advice to be particularly informed.

In my midwife's practice, first time moms had a 10% transport rate,
which was slightly higher than 2nd- and more-time moms (multigravidas?
is that the word?) So 90% of their primigravidas had safe home births,
and the rest had safe hospital births. Their C-section rate was only
7% (total for all of their moms).

So, I had my home birth, and my daughter and I came through the
experience quite safely, and comfortably (well, as comfortably as one
can be when in labor) in our own home.
Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

[Todd Gastaldo]

With more and more posts like this, the homebirth rate will rise.

Todd


"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mark A. Jones wrote:
>> Dear everyone,
>>
>> Thank you so much for all of your replies and useful information, I
> will
>> look into it more closely as I feel more confident about it. Though
> my GP
>> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....
>
> <Laugh> my GP didn't think too much of the idea of doing a homebirth
> with "an unproven pelvis" either. However, having done a lot of recent
> research, I knew more about the statistics and risks than she did, to
> be quite honest. And her practice did not do obstetrics at all, so she
> hasn't delivered any babies since med school, and hadn't kept up on it
> at all. So I didn't consider her advice to be particularly informed.
>
> In my midwife's practice, first time moms had a 10% transport rate,
> which was slightly higher than 2nd- and more-time moms (multigravidas?
> is that the word?) So 90% of their primigravidas had safe home births,
> and the rest had safe hospital births. Their C-section rate was only
> 7% (total for all of their moms).
>
> So, I had my home birth, and my daughter and I came through the
> experience quite safely, and comfortably (well, as comfortably as one
> can be when in labor) in our own home.
> Cathy Weeks
> Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
>

[Larry McMahan]

"Mark A. Jones" > wrote in message
...

> Though my GP
> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....

Ana,

I just couldn't let this remark pass. IMO it is probably MORE important to
do a homebirth for a first delivery than for subsequent deliveries because
there
is a larger chance of inappropriate interventions causing even more
interventions.

After a successful vaginal birth medical professions you are more likely to
deliver before they can do something precipitate, and they are more likely
to remain hands off since you are have "proven" pelvis. It is backward
thinking, but it is common.

Larry

[Todd Gastaldo]

"Larry McMahan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark A. Jones" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Though my GP
>> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....
>
> Ana,
>
> I just couldn't let this remark pass. IMO it is probably MORE important
> to
> do a homebirth for a first delivery than for subsequent deliveries because
> there
> is a larger chance of inappropriate interventions causing even more
> interventions.
>
> After a successful vaginal birth medical professions you are more likely
> to
> deliver before they can do something precipitate, and they are more likely
> to remain hands off since you are have "proven" pelvis. It is backward
> thinking, but it is common.

I know everyone will be surprised to see me saying this but... : )

In hospital births, most women are forced to demonstrate a "proven pelvis"
with their pelvis CLOSED UP TO 30% - not to mention the fact that as they
are forced to close their pelvis the "extra" up 30% they are torquing their
sacroiliac joints likely NEUROLOGICALLY inhibiting their labors.

Backward thinking: The first author of Williams Obstetrics demonstrated
MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter - so later authors of
Williams Obstetrics blithely started saying the pelvic diameters DON'T
CHANGE at delivery.

At a homebirth, a woman doesn't have to ask the OB for the "extra" up to
30%.

Todd

[anyone4tea]

I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The doctors
ignore my request at their peril.

[Unadulterated Me]

Mark A. Jones wrote:

> Though my GP
> didn't think it was a good idea this being my first delivery....

Oh they are never happy, you're either to young, to old, to tall, to
short, haven't had enough births, had too many births or whatever in
GP's mind to have a homebirth. You best chance of support for your birth
choice is midwifery care.

Andrea

[Dagny]

"Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
nk.net...

>
> At a homebirth, a woman doesn't have to ask the OB for the "extra" up to
> 30%.

Why do you keep saying this ****? Remember I was positioned horribly
against my will -- after the midwife sarcastically said "Been reading Todd
Gastaldo, have you?"

This woman is in the national direct entry midwifery leadership.

It happens ALL THE TIME.

I could easily say, I have learned the hard way, it is best to have you
first birth unattended.

-- Dagny

[Cathy Weeks]

Todd Gastaldo wrote:
> With more and more posts like this, the homebirth rate will rise.
Why thanks, Todd. I do try.

Cathy Weeks

[Anne Rogers]

> Thats pretty normal for a GP, though its nothing to do with them at
> the end of the day ;-)

I don't think my GP even knows I planned a homebirth and am planning
another.

[Todd Gastaldo]

"Dagny" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>
>> At a homebirth, a woman doesn't have to ask the OB for the "extra" up to
>> 30%.
>
> Why do you keep saying this ****? Remember I was positioned horribly
> against my will -- after the midwife sarcastically said "Been reading Todd
> Gastaldo, have you?"
>
> This woman is in the national direct entry midwifery leadership.
>
> It happens ALL THE TIME.
>
> I could easily say, I have learned the hard way, it is best to have you
> first birth unattended.
>

Dagny,

I completely forgot about your experience!

So sorry!

You may be right about birth canals being closed the "extra" up to 30% ALL
THE TIME at homebirths.

America's most prominent homebirth midwife - Ina May Gaskin - did (does?)
semisitting births - and when I called her - she told me she agreed with
Norman F. Gant, MD who said most women don't need the extra room.

What about the BABIES? I asked.

Another prominent homebirth midwife - Jan Tritten - cancelled my full-length
article on birth-canal-closing/semisitting - then PROMOTED
birth-canal-closing/semisitting.

Jan recently called me "hateful" for pointing this out - and then indicated
she might issue a "semisitting dangerous" press release - but I haven't
heard anything further.

See Bravo Jan! Do it for the babies! (Midwifery Today editor Jan
Tritten)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3067

Regarding unattended births - I like the philosophy of Michel Odent, MD who
says that women should be able to FEEL unattended - unobserved - as they
birth.

Each and every other hombirth midwife with whom I've spoken (about 50 over
the years?) has said that she doesn't do semisitting births.

They could have just been telling me what I wanted to hear though.

Dagny, so sorry.

Sincerely,

Todd

PS My wife's Oregon midwife let her do a squatting birth which turned into a
standing birth.

I guess I need to step back from my blind support of homebirth midwives.

I was really hoping Jan would issue her press release.

[Buzzy Bee]

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:39:43 +0900, "Anne Rogers"
> wrote:

>> Thats pretty normal for a GP, though its nothing to do with them at
>> the end of the day ;-)
>
>I don't think my GP even knows I planned a homebirth and am planning
>another.

Mine did last time round, but didn't put it on my notes. Which meant
when the hospital contacted teh surgery they had no records. As we
pointed out though, we'd had Vitamin K and Anti-D prescribed a month
earlier and thats not the sort of thing you pack in your hospital bag!

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

[Anne Rogers]

>
> Mine did last time round, but didn't put it on my notes. Which meant
> when the hospital contacted teh surgery they had no records. As we
> pointed out though, we'd had Vitamin K and Anti-D prescribed a month
> earlier and thats not the sort of thing you pack in your hospital bag!

Not quite sure how the communication works in Cambridge, but the majority of
people are cared for by community midwives, a lot only go to the hospital
for the scans and the birth, I think when we did the booking in, my midwife
had to fill in a form to return to the hospital, so they know you exist and
are on there system, being the disaster that I am that has already proved
useful having made trips to both the early assessment unit and the materal
fetal assessment unit

[Anne Rogers]

> I know there are those who are squeamish about homebirths
> for their first, but frankly, I think that it's even more important
> to have a homebirth for your first ;-) Homebirths for firsts are
> more likely to end up in transports, but the vast majority of these
> transports are just for fatigue. First labors are more likely to
> be long, which increases the odds that a woman will get tired and
> maybe want drugs for pain relief. That's hardly a big medical
> risk--if it happens, you just go to the hospital and get pain
> relief! Same thing for true failure to progress. It's hardly
> an emergency. You just transport and deal with it.
> My first was a homebirth, and it was a long labor (45
> hours). It was successful and I was happy as a clam to have done
> it that way. Had I been in the hospital, I would have had
> a very difficult time avoiding all sorts of interventions
> with such a long labor, and I could easily have ended up with
> a c-section that would have increased the risks significantly
> for my subsequent two children!
> So frankly, I'd take the worry about birthing a first
> at home with a grain of salt. Realistically, you do have a slightly
> higher risk of transporting during labor, but that doesn't
> translate into a higher risk of bad outcomes.

we learnt in childbirth classes that the first birth is in many ways the
best to have at home, because things tend to go slowly it means you have the
most time to get to the hospital in the event of a problem

though even speed doesn't seem to be an issue, as I had precipitate labour
(1.5hrs) in my discharge discussion from the hospital it was suggested I
have a home birth next time!

[Todd Gastaldo]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>> With more and more posts like this, the homebirth rate will rise.

> Why thanks, Todd. I do try.
>

Cathy,

It's going to be an uphill battle here in the colonies.

Todd

PS From post a few years back...

After OBs hijacked and passed a 1993 "direct entry midwifery" law in
California...


I attended a 1994 meeting of the brand new Midwifery Committee of the
California Medical Board...


I quoted VIVIAN DICKERSON, MD noting that California physicians
had lobbied for "physican supervision" of midwives - "instead of a more
collegial relationship" - "so as not to issue an invitation to homebirths."
[Vivian Dickerson, MD representing 1500 California obstetricians. Quoted in
Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1993]
http://www.goodnewsnet.org/legal_legislative01/mbcjun1b.htm


At that 1994 meeting, I noted there was NO science to back up the California
physicians' anti-homebirth subversion. (Nor was there ever any evidence
for organized medicine's mass libel of homebirth as "child abuse" Homebirth
"child abuse" was the headline of the Oct. 1, 1977 Ob.Gyn.News.)


ACOG Pres. Vivian Dickerson's 1993 homebirth libel ("so as not to issue an
invitation to homebirths") was "nicer" libel to be sure -
but it was libel just the same.


I demanded (to no avail) that the Board not spend the $70,000 loan from the
taxpayers (for
implementation of the 1993 midwifery bill) until the Board found the
homebirth "physician supervisors" that California physicians had insisted
were there.


Surely California physicians would not have lobbied for a bill that required
homebirth
"physician supervisors" unless there were plenty of homebirth "physician
supervisors" to be found. Yeah right...that's been the anti-competitive,
anti-scientific, ANTI-HOMEBIRTH game all along.


At that same meeting, a lobbiest for Doctors' Company, retired appellate
judge Gordon Cologne, told the Midwifery Committee that there are few if any
homebirth "physician supervisors" to be found because malpractice liability
insurers won't cover planned homebirths.


A couple of years later, when I found out that most licensed homebirth
midwives were unable to find physician supervisors, I notified Ob.Gyn.News -
which then did a story on the subject. [Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1996]


I say again: In 1993, California physicians lobbied "physican supervision"
into the law - "instead
of a more collegial relationship" - "so as not to issue an invitation to
homebirths." [Vivian Dickerson, MD representing 1500 California
obstetricians. Quoted in Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1993]

[Anne Rogers]

> In my midwife's practice, first time moms had a 10% transport rate,
> which was slightly higher than 2nd- and more-time moms (multigravidas?
> is that the word?) So 90% of their primigravidas had safe home births,
> and the rest had safe hospital births. Their C-section rate was only
> 7% (total for all of their moms).

10% is very low, we were quoted 40%, though that isn't necessarily in active
labour, I would count in that 40% and my "transfer" was after a long latent
phase which included ruptured membranes.

[Ericka Kammerer]

Anne Rogers wrote:
>Cathy Weeks wrote:
>>In my midwife's practice, first time moms had a 10% transport rate,
>>which was slightly higher than 2nd- and more-time moms (multigravidas?
>>is that the word?) So 90% of their primigravidas had safe home births,
>>and the rest had safe hospital births. Their C-section rate was only
>>7% (total for all of their moms).
>
>
> 10% is very low, we were quoted 40%, though that isn't necessarily in active
> labour, I would count in that 40% and my "transfer" was after a long latent
> phase which included ruptured membranes.

In the US, homebirths are quite rare (only about 1 percent of
births), so those who choose it (and the caregivers) are generally very
committed, hence the low transport rate. Also, in many places people
are somewhat worried at the reception they'll receive at the hospital
in the event of a transport, so there's a lot of motivation not to
transport unless absolutely necessary. A ten percent transport rate
during labor is pretty common among homebirth practitioners in the US.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Anne Rogers]

>> 10% is very low, we were quoted 40%, though that isn't necessarily in
>> active labour, I would count in that 40% and my "transfer" was after a
>> long latent phase which included ruptured membranes.
>
> In the US, homebirths are quite rare (only about 1 percent of
> births), so those who choose it (and the caregivers) are generally very
> committed, hence the low transport rate. Also, in many places people
> are somewhat worried at the reception they'll receive at the hospital
> in the event of a transport, so there's a lot of motivation not to
> transport unless absolutely necessary. A ten percent transport rate
> during labor is pretty common among homebirth practitioners in the US.

I think the 40% was a quite recent statistic for births in our area, I
think, but am not sure that the planned homebirth rate was about 4%. In our
birth class which was definitely quite a progressive one, we had 3 planned
homebirths, out of 10 women, 1 transfer before labour (me), one transfer
during labour (an older mother who spent 24 hours in active labour but stuck
at 2cm), on home delivery, but with postpartum hemorage needing transfer and
I think a blood transfusion. Thankfully that one group of people is a bad
statistic, I know many many people locally who had sucessful homebirths,
which is encouraging as I'll be using the same team of midwives.

[Mark A. Jones]

"Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dagny" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>
> >> At a homebirth, a woman doesn't have to ask the OB for the "extra" up
to
> >> 30%.> PS My wife's Oregon midwife let her do a squatting birth which
turned into a
> standing birth.
>

snip.

Hi, Hubby here (Mark),

Can someone please tell me about this 30% thing, go into as much detail as
you wish, I'm intrigued.

Thanks

Mark

[Jenrose]

"Mark A. Jones" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Dagny" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> At a homebirth, a woman doesn't have to ask the OB for the "extra" up
> to
>> >> 30%.> PS My wife's Oregon midwife let her do a squatting birth which
> turned into a
>> standing birth.
>>
>
> snip.
>
> Hi, Hubby here (Mark),
>
> Can someone please tell me about this 30% thing, go into as much detail as
> you wish, I'm intrigued.
>

Just find any other post Todd's done... you'll have a 80% chance of getting
the info. Although he's also likely to respond directly *and* post a new
topic with your name on it.

The nutshell is that the "traditional" hospital birthing positions
(semi-sitting and lying on the back) tend to immobilize the pelvis and
reduce the pelvic opening significantly. They also tend to move the tailbone
inward, further creating space restrictions. Alternative positions make
birthing easier for mom and safer for baby, positions such as side-lying,
squatting, standing, kneeling, hands-and-knees, or waterbirth in almost any
position, simply by allowing greater pelvic mobility. When there's freedom
of movement, the tailbone and sacrum can easily shift and move out of baby's
way, and the passage is significantly easier for baby to navigate. The
back-lying and semi-sit position can actually cause problems for baby, and
make instrumental delivery (and complications) more likely. Not to mention
increasing physical damage to the pelvic floor.

Those alternative positions may also reduce pelvic floor complications like
tearing, and provide for a more "active" experience for the mother.

I was put onto my back (practically lifted there by about four people) but
because I was not in stirrups, was able to stand within moments of birth,
the placenta delivered very easily in an upright position, etc. I was so mad
at being forced into a back-lying position that it is a major factor in my
decision to do a homebirth this time. My natural inclination was to birth
standing, in a semisquat supported by my child's father. I was pushed onto
my back "to slow things down" so they could suction the baby, which was
completely unnecessary. This caused a nasty tear which will never be the
same. The position I was in created maximum stress on that area.

Jenrose

[Renee]

Jenrose wrote:
> "Mark A. Jones" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "Dagny" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> At a homebirth, a woman doesn't have to ask the OB for the
"extra" up
> > to
> >> >> 30%.> PS My wife's Oregon midwife let her do a squatting birth
which
> > turned into a
> >> standing birth.
> >>
> >
> > snip.
> >
> > Hi, Hubby here (Mark),
> >
> > Can someone please tell me about this 30% thing, go into as much
detail as
> > you wish, I'm intrigued.
> >
>
> Just find any other post Todd's done... you'll have a 80% chance of
getting
> the info. Although he's also likely to respond directly *and* post a
new
> topic with your name on it.
>
> The nutshell is that the "traditional" hospital birthing positions
> (semi-sitting and lying on the back) tend to immobilize the pelvis
and
> reduce the pelvic opening significantly. They also tend to move the
tailbone
> inward, further creating space restrictions. Alternative positions
make
> birthing easier for mom and safer for baby, positions such as
side-lying,
> squatting, standing, kneeling, hands-and-knees, or waterbirth in
almost any
> position, simply by allowing greater pelvic mobility. When there's
freedom
> of movement, the tailbone and sacrum can easily shift and move out of
baby's
> way, and the passage is significantly easier for baby to navigate.
The
> back-lying and semi-sit position can actually cause problems for
baby, and
> make instrumental delivery (and complications) more likely. Not to
mention
> increasing physical damage to the pelvic floor.
>
> Those alternative positions may also reduce pelvic floor
complications like
> tearing, and provide for a more "active" experience for the mother.
>
> I was put onto my back (practically lifted there by about four
people) but
> because I was not in stirrups, was able to stand within moments of
birth,
> the placenta delivered very easily in an upright position, etc. I was
so mad
> at being forced into a back-lying position that it is a major factor
in my
> decision to do a homebirth this time. My natural inclination was to
birth
> standing, in a semisquat supported by my child's father. I was pushed
onto
> my back "to slow things down" so they could suction the baby, which
was
> completely unnecessary. This caused a nasty tear which will never be
the
> same. The position I was in created maximum stress on that area.
>
> Jenrose

When I gave birth to my daughter, I went through most of the first
stage while sitting. When it came time to push, they pushed my knees
towards either of my chest and told me to lean forward. (I was sitting
on the edge of the chair.) Wouldn't this be similar to swatting? I gave
birth in a hospital. I also had asked about epistomies, and they told
me that usually the baby comes out so fast they are unnecessary. The
birth class I took (which was through the hospital), said that lying on
your back wasn't a very good position, and suctions and forceps
ususally did more harm than good (so most doctors didn't use them
anymore - unless the mother insists.)

The only thing I didn't like (which was really just an annoyance), was
that I had to be induced, because my waters broke before I had
contractions. The iv had this alarm attached so everytime I flexed my
hand (usually during a contraction), it would go off. Anyway, I still
plan another hospital birth, but I'm weird in that I actually like
hospitals.

[Todd Gastaldo]

Renee wrote:

<snip>
> When I gave birth to my daughter, I went through most of the first
> stage while sitting.

From the perspective of pelvic biomechanics, sitting is fine in first stage.
The baby is not at the pelvic outlet.

> When it came time to push, they pushed my knees
> towards either of my chest and told me to lean forward. (I was sitting
> on the edge of the chair.) Wouldn't this be similar to swatting?

The semisitting position - which closes the birth canal up to 30% - has been
said to offer the benefits of squatting.

It does not.

"Pushed my knees toward either of [sic] my chest" - that *could* have rolled
you off your sacrum.

"Told me to lean forward" - that sounds like you might have been on your
sacrum.

Hard to tell - though you can tell - by finding your sacral tip - and
assuming the position they put you in - and seeing if you were on your
sacrum.

> I gave
> birth in a hospital. I also had asked about epistomies, and they told
> me that usually the baby comes out so fast they are unnecessary.

Yep, usually episiotomies are unnecessary. Worse, OBs are performing them
with women semisitting or dorsal - surgically/fraudulently inferring they
are doing everything necessary to open birth canals - even as they close
birth canals up to 30%.

> The
> birth class I took (which was through the hospital), said that lying on
> your back wasn't a very good position, and suctions and forceps
> ususally did more harm than good (so most doctors didn't use them
> anymore - unless the mother insists.)

My bet is that OBs at your hospital routinely use semisitting/close the
birth canal up to 30%. I'd be interested to know for sure.

Eventually the tide will turn. Maybe OBs at your hospital have stopped.

>
> The only thing I didn't like (which was really just an annoyance), was
> that I had to be induced, because my waters broke before I had
> contractions. The iv had this alarm attached so everytime I flexed my
> hand (usually during a contraction), it would go off. Anyway, I still
> plan another hospital birth, but I'm weird in that I actually like
> hospitals.
>

I don't think this is weird at all. I think most women in this culture
prefer hospital births - though that preference (IMO) amounts to
manufactured consent.

Todd

[Larry McMahan]

I'm sorry, I can let this one pass...

"carl jones" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The birth center option, in my opinion, is not different than home. The
one
> distinguishing feature of the birth center is there they clean; at home,
you
> clean up.

Bzzzt. Wrong! In the first place, the midwifes cleaned up for us on both
occasions. However, it's not like there was a lot of mess. Second, a birth
center, no matter how mother centric is NOT the same as home. The three
most imporant things I can think of:
1. Not having to go out and *drive* somewhere in the middle of labor.
If you go too soon, you have to spend a long time in a uncomfortable
environment; if you go too late the write is excrutiatingly
uncomfortable!
2. Home is the woman's natural environment. She is the queen of the
castle there. No how much the birth center people try to make you
comfortable. As Tim Leary used to say: " A good Set and setting
(comfortable place and soothing environment make for a good trip as
opposed to a bad trip." That goes double for labor! :-)
3. "These germs are my germs." No matter how "clean" the birth center
setting, the germs may well be strange germs you haven'g acquired an
immunity to yet. You already have met and acquired an immunity to
the
germs at home.
>
> Unless the birth center is in a hospital. Then it is a good option for
women
> who are high risk - too high risk to give birth safely at home

I'd like to see what you think are risks that would warrant a birth center,
but
not a hospital. Honestly, I can't think of one. The only valid reason I
can think
of for going to a birth center is having a bad setting at home because of
fear of
not having technology available if you want or need it. For overcoming that
fear,
a birth center can be a godsend, but as I said, I can't think of another
valid reason.
> >
> >
> Carl
>
>
>
Larry

[Anne Rogers]

"> I'd like to see what you think are risks that would warrant a birth
center,
> but
> not a hospital. Honestly, I can't think of one. The only valid reason I
> can think
> of for going to a birth center is having a bad setting at home because of
> fear of
> not having technology available if you want or need it. For overcoming
> that
> fear,
> a birth center can be a godsend, but as I said, I can't think of another
> valid reason.

possibly if you thought there might be a problem with the baby, the deliver
the baby close to the hospital but not actually in the hospital, assess and
transfer if necessary

might be suitable for a straightforward VBAC, many people are not willingy
to provide care for HBAC

it's not really up my street for the reasons you mention, we don't have one
locally anyway, so it's not an option

[Iuil]

"Anne Rogers"

> might be suitable for a straightforward VBAC, many people are not willingy
> to provide care for HBAC

IME, VBACs get risked out of birth centre, leaving a choice between straight
hospital care or HBAC.

While I had a midwife willing to provide antenatal and perinatal care at
home, I had postnatal complications last time that made me reluctant to risk
HBAC this time around.

Jean

[Buzzy Bee]

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:30:24 -0000, "Iuil" > wrote:

>
>"Anne Rogers"
>
>> might be suitable for a straightforward VBAC, many people are not willingy
>> to provide care for HBAC
>
>IME, VBACs get risked out of birth centre, leaving a choice between straight
>hospital care or HBAC.
>

We have considered a birth centre if either of us are not feeling
comfortable about another homebirth and a new one, based on the same
site as one of the better consultant led units particularly appealed.
However as we were risked out of there on account of the previous
neonatal loss, we're sticking with home (since our problems were with
the baby, not me, so recurrence is less likely).

Seems like the people who most need a little bit of extra medical back
up (but not full consultant led care) are the least likely to be able
to actually get it.

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

[Jenrose]

> I'd like to see what you think are risks that would warrant a birth
> center,
> but
> not a hospital. Honestly, I can't think of one. The only valid reason I
> can think
> of for going to a birth center is having a bad setting at home because of
> fear of
> not having technology available if you want or need it. For overcoming
> that
> fear,
> a birth center can be a godsend, but as I said, I can't think of another
> valid reason.

I have a friend who lives about an hour away from the tertiary care center
in my area. There are two birth centers in town, nearer the hospital than
her home. She's not comfortable with homebirth.

Jenrose

[Ericka Kammerer]

carl jones wrote:

> The birth center option, in my opinion, is not different than home.

Depends on the birth center. Some are very close to a home
setting and others are *very* different.

> The one
> distinguishing feature of the birth center is there they clean; at home, you
> clean up.

Not with any homebirth practice I know about. I don't
know any that leave you to clean up.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Ericka Kammerer]

NotMyRealName wrote:

> Depends. My midwives claim they'll clean up after our planned homebirth.
> They suggest specific things to have on hand to make it easier on them, but
> it sounds to me like they take care of it, or at least a large percentage.

They will. There wasn't any mess left at our house ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[NotMyRealName]

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message
...
> NotMyRealName wrote:
>
>> Depends. My midwives claim they'll clean up after our planned homebirth.
>> They suggest specific things to have on hand to make it easier on them,
>> but it sounds to me like they take care of it, or at least a large
>> percentage.
>
> They will. There wasn't any mess left at our house ;-)
>
Yay! That sounds great to me!

I'm running around this week, tracking down all the stuff they listed for us
to have on hand for the birth, since I'll be 36w (!) on Saturday. And then
I've got to get some food ready, meals for after the baby comes,
snacks/drinks for during labor/immediate postpartum, and stuff for the
midwife and birth assistant. No idea what sorts of things I should have on
hand for them, though. Ideas?


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 3/4
And Someone Due 2/05

[Ericka Kammerer]

NotMyRealName wrote:


> I'm running around this week, tracking down all the stuff they listed for us
> to have on hand for the birth, since I'll be 36w (!) on Saturday.

Yeah, it's a bit of a list, isn't it! We didn't get
around to using most of it, but I suppose better safe than
sorry.

> And then
> I've got to get some food ready, meals for after the baby comes,
> snacks/drinks for during labor/immediate postpartum, and stuff for the
> midwife and birth assistant. No idea what sorts of things I should have on
> hand for them, though. Ideas?

That's a toughie. People tend to have such different
tastes! They were only with us for lunch, and Mom made a run
to Balduccis for sandwiches. I think having sandwich fixings on
hand would probably be good. Unfortunately, those can spoil
so it's hard to stock up. Do you have any other support people
around who could be detailed to make a run for whatever folks
want when the time comes?

Best wishes,
Ericka

[NotMyRealName]

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message
...
> NotMyRealName wrote:
>
>
>> I'm running around this week, tracking down all the stuff they listed for
>> us to have on hand for the birth, since I'll be 36w (!) on Saturday.
>
> Yeah, it's a bit of a list, isn't it! We didn't get
> around to using most of it, but I suppose better safe than
> sorry.
>
I kind of figured that some of it is going to be unnecessary, but at least
it'll mostly get used eventually.

>> And then I've got to get some food ready, meals for after the baby comes,
>> snacks/drinks for during labor/immediate postpartum, and stuff for the
>> midwife and birth assistant. No idea what sorts of things I should have
>> on hand for them, though. Ideas?
>
> That's a toughie. People tend to have such different
> tastes! They were only with us for lunch, and Mom made a run
> to Balduccis for sandwiches. I think having sandwich fixings on
> hand would probably be good. Unfortunately, those can spoil
> so it's hard to stock up. Do you have any other support people
> around who could be detailed to make a run for whatever folks
> want when the time comes?

Not really, unfortunately. I was thinking sandwich fixings would be good
too. We buy those each week anyway, so it's not too tricky to have enough
on hand. And we always have fresh fruit on hand too. Plus I figured I'd
make some banana or cranberry bread or muffins or such to freeze ahead of
time so that I can just pull out a package and have it ready for whenever
anyone wants to snack. I suppose they're probably not too picky, but it
sounds like you think along the same lines as I do, so that'll probably be
good. I'll see if they have any thoughts for me though. And we can always
order pizza or something to be delivered. Thanks!


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 3/4
And Someone Due 2/05

[Ericka Kammerer]

NotMyRealName wrote:

> "Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message
> ...

>>That's a toughie. People tend to have such different
>>tastes! They were only with us for lunch, and Mom made a run
>>to Balduccis for sandwiches. I think having sandwich fixings on
>>hand would probably be good. Unfortunately, those can spoil
>>so it's hard to stock up. Do you have any other support people
>>around who could be detailed to make a run for whatever folks
>>want when the time comes?
>
> Not really, unfortunately. I was thinking sandwich fixings would be good
> too. We buy those each week anyway, so it's not too tricky to have enough
> on hand. And we always have fresh fruit on hand too. Plus I figured I'd
> make some banana or cranberry bread or muffins or such to freeze ahead of
> time so that I can just pull out a package and have it ready for whenever
> anyone wants to snack. I suppose they're probably not too picky, but it
> sounds like you think along the same lines as I do, so that'll probably be
> good. I'll see if they have any thoughts for me though. And we can always
> order pizza or something to be delivered. Thanks!

I think that would be fine. I'd have plenty of drinks
on hand as well. I've never met a midwife who was all *that*
picky as long as she had *something* reasonable to eat. I've
always been fortunate to have a crowd around. Mom organizes
mean take-out/delivery so all the midwives were always well
fed. This last time, though, it was pretty easy as there was
only one meal involved. Actually, I didn't get to eat my
sandwich and I think Eileen only got a few bites of hers before
the birth (she finished it up afterwards). The first time around
was more challenging, as the midwives were there for two and a
half days ;-) I'm not really sure what they were eating, but
they seemed happy. I suspect Mom was feeding them Zingermans
and goodness knows what else (Mom ordered, Dad picked up ;-)
So, now that you've had a chance to meet more of
them, who are you hoping will be on call when you go into
labor? ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[NotMyRealName]

>> Not really, unfortunately. I was thinking sandwich fixings would be good
>> too. We buy those each week anyway, so it's not too tricky to have
>> enough on hand. And we always have fresh fruit on hand too. Plus I
>> figured I'd make some banana or cranberry bread or muffins or such to
>> freeze ahead of time so that I can just pull out a package and have it
>> ready for whenever anyone wants to snack. I suppose they're probably not
>> too picky, but it sounds like you think along the same lines as I do, so
>> that'll probably be good. I'll see if they have any thoughts for me
>> though. And we can always order pizza or something to be delivered.
>> Thanks!
>
> I think that would be fine. I'd have plenty of drinks
> on hand as well.

Oh, we'll have lots of that on hand, including coffee and tea for anyone who
prefers that. I stocked up on Capri Sun juice pouches for myself (and
anyone else), since they were so handy for my first labor. Nobody'll go
thirsty around here. :)

> I've never met a midwife who was all *that*
> picky as long as she had *something* reasonable to eat. I've
> always been fortunate to have a crowd around. Mom organizes
> mean take-out/delivery so all the midwives were always well
> fed.

That's very handy! Not having that sort of help is the downside, I suppose,
to DH and myself being very private sorts of people when it comes to
birthing. But it'll all work out, I suppose. :)

> The first time around
> was more challenging, as the midwives were there for two and a
> half days ;-) I'm not really sure what they were eating, but
> they seemed happy. I suspect Mom was feeding them Zingermans
> and goodness knows what else (Mom ordered, Dad picked up ;-)

:) Two and a half days, wow! That quiet place for them to lie down that's
on my list to prepare would definitely come in handy then!

> So, now that you've had a chance to meet more of
> them, who are you hoping will be on call when you go into
> labor? ;-)
>
Y'know, I was thinking about that the other day actually, and I can't
decide. I really like Eileen a lot and would love to have her be on call.
I don't know if you knew that Kate left and Alice is attending births again
or not, but I really like Alice too. My DD loves Alice, and Alice is
especially great at including her in the appointments, so we'd be happy to
have Alice at the birth too. And Cyndi and Susan are both really nice, and
I can see them being great for labor as well. I haven't had a formal
appointment with Marsha yet, but I've met her, and she seems very nice, very
gentle too. Honestly, I think any of them would be great, though I want to
find out a bit more about how much each of them will let my DH do (the birth
assistant says different midwives have different feelings about letting him
catch and that sort of thing). Not that we get a choice of who's on call
anyway, but it'd be nice to know in advance what's likely to be doable. But
thank you again for your fine recommendation -- I really like all of the
midwives a lot and feel really comfortable in their care.


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 3/4
And Someone Due 2/05

[Ericka Kammerer]

NotMyRealName wrote:


> Y'know, I was thinking about that the other day actually, and I can't
> decide. I really like Eileen a lot and would love to have her be on call.

Me too--and we were fortunate that she was on call when
I went into labor. She was great, and very hands off (just like
I like it).

> I don't know if you knew that Kate left

No, I didn't! I liked her very much. Do you know what
she went off to do?

> and Alice is attending births again
> or not, but I really like Alice too.

I only met her for a blood draw, so didn't have much
experience of her.

> And Cyndi and Susan are both really nice, and
> I can see them being great for labor as well.

I got along really well with Cyndi. I found Susan a
bit more conservative than my taste, but she had just started
with them and maybe she has loosened up over time ;-)

>I haven't had a formal
> appointment with Marsha yet, but I've met her, and she seems very nice, very
> gentle too.

I thought she was very down to earth.

> Honestly, I think any of them would be great,

Me too, though I'm still glad we got our favorite ;-)

> though I want to
> find out a bit more about how much each of them will let my DH do (the birth
> assistant says different midwives have different feelings about letting him
> catch and that sort of thing).

Eileen was comfortable with Mom catching, though as it happened,
things moved so fast that it got lost in the shuffle.

> Not that we get a choice of who's on call
> anyway, but it'd be nice to know in advance what's likely to be doable. But
> thank you again for your fine recommendation -- I really like all of the
> midwives a lot and feel really comfortable in their care.

I'm glad it's all working out for you, and I hope it's
a fabulous birth!

Best wishes,
Ericka

[NotMyRealName]

>> I don't know if you knew that Kate left
>
> No, I didn't! I liked her very much. Do you know what
> she went off to do?
>
I actually have no idea. I've never got to meet her. They didn't really
make a big deal out of it, so I'm not sure what was going on.

>> and Alice is attending births again or not, but I really like Alice too.
>
> I only met her for a blood draw, so didn't have much
> experience of her.
>
She's just a lovely lovely person, really relaxed and easy-going.
Definitely on the crunchy side. :)

>> And Cyndi and Susan are both really nice, and I can see them being great
>> for labor as well.
>
> I got along really well with Cyndi. I found Susan a
> bit more conservative than my taste, but she had just started
> with them and maybe she has loosened up over time ;-)
>
:) She still seems more on the conservative side, but not terribly so.

>> Honestly, I think any of them would be great,
>
> Me too, though I'm still glad we got our favorite ;-)
>
I don't quite feel like I have a favorite yet, so we'll see. DD would vote
for Alice, and DH has only met Susan so he doesn't have much of a
preference.

>> though I want to find out a bit more about how much each of them will
>> let my DH do (the birth assistant says different midwives have different
>> feelings about letting him catch and that sort of thing).
>
> Eileen was comfortable with Mom catching

Oh that's cool!

>> Not that we get a choice of who's on call anyway, but it'd be nice to
>> know in advance what's likely to be doable. But thank you again for your
>> fine recommendation -- I really like all of the midwives a lot and feel
>> really comfortable in their care.
>
> I'm glad it's all working out for you, and I hope it's
> a fabulous birth!
>
Me too -- thanks! Our birth assistant came by tonight for the home visit,
and she seems just wonderful. I can't wait!


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 3/4
And Someone Due 2/05

[Sarah Vaughan]

In message >, Larry McMahan
> writes
>The only valid reason I can think of for going to a birth center is
>having a bad setting at home because of fear of not having technology
>available if you want or need it. For overcoming that fear, a birth
>center can be a godsend, but as I said, I can't think of another valid
>reason.

Spotted this rather belatedly, so thought I'd give my reasons for
interest's sake:

Main one was that, with this being our first baby, I felt more
comfortable with the idea of spending the first day or two of parenthood
in the same building with people who had a clue how to take care of
newborns. Two more minor reasons were that we're living in a rented
house and the owner didn't even want us wearing our shoes upstairs on
her carpets, so I'm not sure how she'd feel about me giving birth in her
bedroom, and that DH was totally against the idea and, since there's a
perfectly good birth centre in the area that I was happy with, it just
didn't seem worth the argument.

For me, the only disadvantage to giving birth in a birthing centre
rather than home was having to make the journey in. As for the actual
birth, I couldn't have cared less at the time where it took place.
Really wasn't my priority. ;-)


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

[Anne Rogers]

>
> Main one was that, with this being our first baby, I felt more comfortable
> with the idea of spending the first day or two of parenthood in the same
> building with people who had a clue how to take care of newborns.

The problem with this is do you actually get that? We certainly didn't, no
one even showed me how to change a nappy, I had to change my own bed linen,
get my own food etc. it was an utterly miserable experience. What was
slightly worrying was that even the women who had c-sections got no help.

Cheers

Anne

[Tori M.]

"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
news:1106385382.0f7c9509b82e0a210922fe4b8b03f718@t eranews...
>
>
>>
>> Main one was that, with this being our first baby, I felt more
>> comfortable with the idea of spending the first day or two of parenthood
>> in the same building with people who had a clue how to take care of
>> newborns.
>
> The problem with this is do you actually get that? We certainly didn't, no
> one even showed me how to change a nappy, I had to change my own bed
> linen, get my own food etc. it was an utterly miserable experience. What
> was slightly worrying was that even the women who had c-sections got no
> help.

That sounds like an awful hospital! The only thing I did not like at the
hospital I was at was they rushed you into the shower so they could change
the sheets and clean up the floor. Needless to say after I got done in the
shower the bathroom floor looked like someone was murdered in there. They
asked me if I wanted to watch any routine baby care and I declined since I
knew how to change a diaper and bathe a baby the last time;)

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier 10/27/04

[Sarah Vaughan]

In message <1106385382.0f7c9509b82e0a210922fe4b8b03f718@terane ws>, Anne
Rogers > writes
>
>
>>
>> Main one was that, with this being our first baby, I felt more comfortable
>> with the idea of spending the first day or two of parenthood in the same
>> building with people who had a clue how to take care of newborns.
>
>The problem with this is do you actually get that? We certainly didn't, no
>one even showed me how to change a nappy,

No-one showed me, either, but they were available for me to ask if I had
needed to know. The only thing they specifically showed me was how to
bath a baby, which was something I needed to know a lot more than how to
change a nappy - I'd changed nappies before, and it's not that difficult
to figure out anyway. ;-) It wasn't even that I wanted someone to come
along and tell me how to do everything - actually, if they had I'd
probably just have found it irritating - but that I found it reassuring
to know that they were just outside the room if and when I did need to
ask someone for advice. I'm sure that if I'd had a home birth I could
have rung at any time, but for those first couple of days I felt happier
being there on site.

> I had to change my own bed linen,
>get my own food etc. it was an utterly miserable experience. What was
>slightly worrying was that even the women who had c-sections got no help.

Ouch - that sounds absolutely terrible! Which hospital was this??


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

[Sue]

"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
> The problem with this is do you actually get that? We certainly didn't, no
> one even showed me how to change a nappy, I had to change my own bed
>linen, get my own food etc. it was an utterly miserable experience. What
was
> slightly worrying was that even the women who had c-sections got no help.

Wow that sounds horrible. That doesn't mimick my hospital stays at all. They
provided classes on everything from baby care to postpartum care for the
mom. They changed my linens and the baby could stay in the nursery if you
wanted to take a shower, etc.. They brought food to me. The hospital was
absolutely wonderful ime.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

[Anne Rogers]

>>The problem with this is do you actually get that? We certainly didn't, no
>>one even showed me how to change a nappy,
>
> No-one showed me, either, but they were available for me to ask if I had
> needed to know. The only thing they specifically showed me was how to
> bath a baby, which was something I needed to know a lot more than how to
> change a nappy - I'd changed nappies before, and it's not that difficult
> to figure out anyway. ;-) It wasn't even that I wanted someone to come
> along and tell me how to do everything - actually, if they had I'd
> probably just have found it irritating - but that I found it reassuring to
> know that they were just outside the room if and when I did need to ask
> someone for advice. I'm sure that if I'd had a home birth I could have
> rung at any time, but for those first couple of days I felt happier being
> there on site.

That was partly my point, they didn't even show me something really basic,
let alone something like bathing a baby! You say just outside the room, did
you have a private room?
>
>> I had to change my own bed linen,
>>get my own food etc. it was an utterly miserable experience. What was
>>slightly worrying was that even the women who had c-sections got no help.
>
> Ouch - that sounds absolutely terrible! Which hospital was this??

Rosie Maternity, part of Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge, I think I was
particularly unlucky, but from what my friends say the average isn't much
better. The worst for me was the first 12 hours, I felt so awful and moving
was agony, I couldn't get up to get a drink, so I was desparately thirsty,
nor did I manage to get up to get myself breakfast, so I didn't eat, other
than a few bicuits that I managed to grab from a bag that was left close to
the bed. To be totally honest I would rather have spent that time in my own
bed, with my DH on hand to do all the things I couldn't.

Cheers

Anne

[Sarah Vaughan]

In message <1106556404.b399b5615567413ec49b645fbf7019f3@terane ws>, Anne
Rogers > writes
>>>The problem with this is do you actually get that? We certainly didn't, no
>>>one even showed me how to change a nappy,
>>
>> No-one showed me, either, but they were available for me to ask if I had
>> needed to know. The only thing they specifically showed me was how to
>> bath a baby, which was something I needed to know a lot more than how to
>> change a nappy - I'd changed nappies before, and it's not that difficult
>> to figure out anyway. ;-) It wasn't even that I wanted someone to come
>> along and tell me how to do everything - actually, if they had I'd
>> probably just have found it irritating - but that I found it reassuring to
>> know that they were just outside the room if and when I did need to ask
>> someone for advice. I'm sure that if I'd had a home birth I could have
>> rung at any time, but for those first couple of days I felt happier being
>> there on site.
>
>That was partly my point, they didn't even show me something really basic,
>let alone something like bathing a baby! You say just outside the room, did
>you have a private room?

No - I was in a birthing centre. There were 2 postnatal rooms, one
leading on to the other, 6 beds in each IIRC. I suppose you could call
it a ward, but it just didn't seem big enough for me to class it
mentally as a ward IYSWIM. Actually did have it to myself when I came
in - 1 woman transferred from Colchester later that same day.
>>
>>> I had to change my own bed linen,
>>>get my own food etc. it was an utterly miserable experience. What was
>>>slightly worrying was that even the women who had c-sections got no help.
>>
>> Ouch - that sounds absolutely terrible! Which hospital was this??
>
>Rosie Maternity, part of Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge, I think I was
>particularly unlucky, but from what my friends say the average isn't much
>better. The worst for me was the first 12 hours, I felt so awful and moving
>was agony, I couldn't get up to get a drink, so I was desparately thirsty,
>nor did I manage to get up to get myself breakfast, so I didn't eat, other
>than a few bicuits that I managed to grab from a bag that was left close to
>the bed. To be totally honest I would rather have spent that time in my own
>bed, with my DH on hand to do all the things I couldn't.

Makes me glad I stood my ground about wanting the birthing centre rather
than the hospital! (Mind you, the reports I've heard of Colchester
Maternity from people who've been there are much better.)


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley