Sad story

"Iuil" wrote in message
...



"MCranEY05" wrote

Show me where it is more safe to deliver a breech baby at home
vaginally,
vs'
in the hospital. I want to see the literature. Please post a link..
something.


Here's three to begin with:

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol15...ryApproach.htm
A
review of "A Day at the Breech" - a presentation given by the foremost
midwife in the UK pointing out the differences. Literature reference at
the
end.

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol14...BreechHome.htm Case
studies, again with references at end.

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol12...swin2000.htm#1 A report on a
study
comparing c/s vs managed vaginal delivery in hospital (*not* at home as is
commented on at the end)

HTH

Jean

Here's one midwife's page, and her criteria as to whether a breech delivery
should be attempted. I found it interesting. We don't know the woman's
situation, beyond being a breech delivery, so we don't know where she fell
on this scale.


http://www.moondragon.org/obgyn/preg...hedbreech.html

"ModernMiko" wrote in message
...
"Iuil" wrote in message
...

"Carol Ann" wrote

I confess to being one of those women. I would NEVER consider
homebirth.


Can I ask why?

If it's because of the monitoring etc, you need someone to be actually
watching those monitors and prepared to act when necessary. I know one
woman whose baby died shortly after birth because, although she was in
hospital being continously monitored, no-one was actually reading the
monitor so when her baby did get intervention it was too late. And
despite
all the machines and doctors in the hospital, there was nothing that
could
be done for him :-(. Complacency can be just as fatal as anything else.

Jean


Unfortunately there can be bad outcome no matter which route you choose.
There are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is research options,
facilities, providers and go from there. I am like Carol Ann in that I do
not think I would ever have a homebirth. I completely support there being
a
choice but I think it's unfair to be looked down upon because I happen to
want to have my child in a hospital. I certainly would not look down on
someone who chose to have her child at home.

--
JennL
DS 06/26/98
1 tiny angel 11/03
EDD December 4 2004



I agree.. while I think it is great that people can have a homebirth I think
it is irresponcable to do so where I live. The closest hospital is 30
minutes away by car so if you figure you need an ambulance right away you
are looking at atleast a 45 minute time frame between when you call and when
you get to the hospital. While many women have homebirths everyday and dont
need anything I have known women in this area that it has gone wrong. I
would rather be in the hospital even if not hooked up to anything. On the
other hand I am looking forward to my 48 hours in the hospital to

Tori
--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier due 10/17/04

"Carol Ann" wrote in message
ink.net...
: I confess to being one of those women. I would NEVER consider
homebirth.

I wouldn't mind a homebirth, as it sounds absolutely lovely and more
comfortable, but I definitely would have it by attended by a legal midwife.
Having an unattended homebirth imo, is more riskier and not the most wisest
decision a woman could make.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

I agree.. while I think it is great that people can have a homebirth I
think
it is irresponcable to do so where I live. The closest hospital is 30
minutes away by car so if you figure you need an ambulance right away you
are looking at atleast a 45 minute time frame between when you call and
when
you get to the hospital. While many women have homebirths everyday and
dont
need anything I have known women in this area that it has gone wrong. I
would rather be in the hospital even if not hooked up to anything. On the
other hand I am looking forward to my 48 hours in the hospital to

Your baby could start to come very suddenly, and there could be a problem
that arises at home, even before you've left for the hospital, and you could
still find yourself too far from the hospital, without any sort of trained
medical professional to attend you. It's unlikely, but it could happen.
With a midwife in attendance, checking on the baby and mom, it'd be
extremely unlikely that any kind of problem would come up so suddenly that
it'd be absolutely impossible to get to a hospital in time. I'm not flaming
you, Tori, just pointing out the unlikelihood of a major problem arising
immediately when you're at home, whether you're planning to be or not. It
is unfortunate that you know women who have had homebirths go wrong, but we
all know women who have had hospital births go wrong too. It's a personal
choice, home vs. hospital vs. birth center, and midwife vs. OB vs.
unassisted, and each mother has to weigh her own personal pros and cons
about her various choices.

As for that 48 hours in the hospital, that's also a personal choice.
Some people really seem to like being able to have some extra help with the
newborn, and they say they get some extra rest in the hospital. I
personally can't imagine getting a lot of rest anywhere but my own home and
bed, but that's me.


--
-Sara
Mommy to DD, 28 months
And Someone Due in February 2005

Vicky Bilaniuk wrote:

The whole thing is very sad. I wish we had more details. Would be
something to learn from.

Apparently the "fake" midwife is being charged in the death of the baby.
Here are 2 stories I found:

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/ser...idwife20040706
or http://tinyurl.com/2zt4a

http://www.canada.com/victoria/times...3-623133802b6d
or http://tinyurl.com/22fgs

--
Brigitte aa #2145
http://ca.geocities.com/bironmonger/
Please excuse the quality. It is under construction and I am still
learning. :-)

"To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it,
requires brains."
~ Mary Pettibone Poole

Your baby could start to come very suddenly, and there could be a problem
that arises at home, even before you've left for the hospital, and you
could
still find yourself too far from the hospital, without any sort of trained
medical professional to attend you. It's unlikely, but it could happen.
With a midwife in attendance, checking on the baby and mom, it'd be
extremely unlikely that any kind of problem would come up so suddenly that
it'd be absolutely impossible to get to a hospital in time.

Now you know why I wish we could afford to live closer to town. I do have
some benefits of living only 3 miles from my MIL (a nurse) and my best
friend who has had 4 kids (pro) only lives 1/4 of a mile away. My plan
includes calling the hospital then MIL then Best Friend... in that order and
hope that I am not pushing in that time I must admit the fact that my
husband works 3rd shift scares me to no end because I am alone with no car
all night.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier due 10/17/04

Tori M. wrote:
I agree.. while I think it is great that people can have a homebirth
I think it is irresponcable to do so where I live. The closest
hospital is 30 minutes away by car so if you figure you need an
ambulance right away you are looking at atleast a 45 minute time
frame between when you call and when you get to the hospital.

One of our clients' daughters has homebirths specifically because she lives
so far from the hospital. She has fast labors, and the midwife can get to
her before she can get to the hospital.

Phoebe
--
yahoo address is unread; substitute mailbolt

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
. ..

Here's one midwife's page, and her criteria as to whether a breech
delivery
should be attempted. I found it interesting. We don't know the woman's
situation, beyond being a breech delivery, so we don't know where she fell
on this scale.


http://www.moondragon.org/obgyn/preg...hedbreech.html

And we still do not know, after reading the articles where the 'midwife' is
going to be charged with the death of the baby, anything more than that the
babe was breech, and something went wrong. We do know, if this woman had
gone to the hospital, that she would have been sectioned. Period.

Of course, the section rate around Victoria is abysmal. I think it's around
33%. Yeah. 1 in every 3 women who walks in healthy and pregnant, walks out a
surgical patient.

I do not grieve for the baby, who will not suffer, but for the mother, who
will suffer for the rest of her life. I'm sure she felt she had made an
informed choice (after all, babies have been born breech for as long as
there have been people, and a very large percentage of those babies lived)
and that her choice was more acceptable to her than, as it appears, a repeat
section.

It's all very easy to say "I'd throw myself on red-hot coals if it meant my
baby would be born safely!" but what if that would compromise future
children and *their* safe births? What if you knew you would have to throw
yourself on red-hot coals *merely because you got pregnant*, and you would
have to do it *every single time you got pregnant*? What if your last
experience was so horrible as to make you willing to try anything, even
something risky, to avoid doing that again?

Ask the moms here who had unanaesthetised sections if they'd willingly do it
again if it meant a safe baby? Ask the ones who got treated like non-humans,
whose pain and terror were ignored, who got military bitches of nurses (yes,
they do exist) who treated them as if they didn't exist, if they'd willingly
go through that again.....even if another, generally-safe alternative
existed?

We still don't know why this woman made the choices she made. We never
*will* know. But I bet this mom didn't just decide one day "Oh, I'll just
hunt up an unlicensed lay-midwife to attend me, because even though hospital
births are so pleasant and safe, I'd just rather take my chances." I'll bet
she made what she thought was the least of all possible evils - just like we
all do.

As for this midwife, I'll bet she's attended a lot of births that went just
fine, and she's being sent to the block because *somebody* has to be,
dammit, it has to be somebody's fault.

--angela

In ,
Buzzy Bee wrote:

*On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:40:38 -0400, "Jenny D"
wrote:
* but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
*I agree with you again. And if she would have gone to the hospital, I bet
*that baby would have lived. Yes, of course, it may still have died in
*hospital but at least she would have done all that she could for him/her.
*
*I cannot believe you are saying that. You have no idea to know
*whether it is true or not. It may well be completely untrue. Not all
*babies would survive if only they were born in hospital. In fact
*hospital protocols *kill* babies every now and then. Some babies are
*safer at born at home.

[[[[[[[[[[[[[Megan]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Please pay no attention to that. She didn't realize what she was saying,
I'm sure.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

Tori M. writes:

: I agree.. while I think it is great that people can have a homebirth I think
: it is irresponcable to do so where I live. The closest hospital is 30
: minutes away by car so if you figure you need an ambulance right away you
: are looking at atleast a 45 minute time frame between when you call and when
: you get to the hospital. While many women have homebirths everyday and dont
: need anything I have known women in this area that it has gone wrong. I
: would rather be in the hospital even if not hooked up to anything. On the
: other hand I am looking forward to my 48 hours in the hospital to

While your arguments sound plausable, they are not borne out by the statistics.
In the first place, some studies were done on emergency homebirth transports
versus emergencies that required an OR in a hospital. The finding was that
if the transport took less than 30 minutes, homebirth transports were actually
in the OR being attended to quicker than hospital emergencies. The transport
had to be longer than 40 minutes before hospital, on the average were faster.
Why?...
1. Homebirthers are continually monitored by the midwife, hospital birthers
are often set to labor with machines monitoring them. Even with severe
problems it took on average 10 minutes for a nurse to notice and assess
the problem and call for help. This is most of the time that gave
homebirthers the advantage.
2. Even after the wheels are set in motion, it takes time to schedule,
set up and sterilize an OR, get a surgeon, anesthesiologist, and OR
nurses. The anesthesiologist is often the long link in this chain.
If he is available immediately, the procedure can be done in 30
minutes, if not, and he has to be called from home, the wait can be
longer. The point favoring homebirthers is that the midwife can call
and set this in motion when she *STARTS* the transport, so that
everything can be ready to go when the mother arrives.
The point of this little exercise is don't expect faster emergency service
just because you are already in the hospital.

Next consider the statistics comparing the *REASON* for transpoert. Bhy
far, the majority of transports is for long labor and exhaustion. Only
a tiny fraction are for emergencies requiring quick action.

However, there are also a fairly substantial number of problems created
merely by virtue of being in a hospital (hospital borne infections,
inappropriate interventions leading to substandard results, etc).
Fortunately, while most of these are "fixable" there are a small number
of infants who suffer because of the problems. This number is AT LEAST
as large at the number of transported infants who suffer because of the
time.

Finally, you don't have to wait for an ambulance. You can tansport in
your own car.

The bottom line is that objectively, even with a transport time of 30
minutes homebirth is still safer/better than hospital birth with a
competently trained midwife. You may still personally not want to
homebirth, but saying that the transport time makes it unsafe is
simply not true.


Larry