There is a huge misconception in our society regarding home births—as well as many other alternative birthing methods. There is also a huge amount of propaganda to reinforce these misconceptions, and unfortunately, most of the population buys into it. After all, if it’s on TV, it has to be true, right? The greatest weakness of the American people is a combination of ignorance and fear. This is not only true in the medical arena, but in government, politics, etc. A very rough synopsis of our situation (with the candy shell removed) would be: “The media can scare us into submission because we are too stupid to know that they’re lying, or we’re too lazy to investigate for ourselves.” There. I said it.
Let’s put this one irrefutable fact out in front: The female body is designed to bear children. Period. End of discussion. This is the foundation of every point that I will make.
We just recently had our 4th child (3rd home birth), so we are accustomed to many questions and concerns. I think the most prevalent question is “What if something goes wrong?” I really want to reply with the same exact question. I could ask that same question about many activities which everyone performs daily. How many risks are taken daily when driving a vehicle, working, or walking down the sidewalk. What about weather-related deaths and injuries? Life itself is one big risk, but are you going to hire a dedicated physician and climb in a bunker? What if something happens to the doctor while you're in there? These questions may sound silly, but the truth is that complications are actually statistically rare. A mother is more likely to die by some other method than childbirth. If you believe that, you’re one step closer to being informed, and you’re slightly less controlled by the medical industry’s propaganda.
According to a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology in Sep 2010, it was determined that compared with planned hospital births, fewer maternal interventions were associated with planned home births, and women who delivered at home had lower rates of lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections, and their offspring had lower rates of prematurity, low birth weight, and assisted newborn ventilation. Did that study just suggest that there are less complications when doctors aren’t around?! Why is it that the U.S. ranks so low in infant mortality rates? I think the evidence speaks for itself:
Marsden Wagner, formerly of the World Health Organization, states that every country in the European Region that has infant mortality rates better than the US uses midwives as the principal and only attendant for at least 70% of the births. He also states that the countries with the lowest perinatal mortality rates in the world have cesarean section rates below 10%. Now there’s an interesting thought. In order for cesarean section rates to be below 10%, they would have to be restricted to dire situations where they were a necessity. Unfortunately, women are steered toward the c-section by doctors for various frivolous reasons, and I must also point out that a c-section (with no complications) costs roughly double what a vaginal delivery costs. Amidst our current economic woes, I can't imagine why more c-sections are being done... Oh, and by the way, for those who came looking for facts, the c-section rate in the U.S. in 2006 was 32%! That's 1 out of every 3 births.
A European study in 2009 showed that a cesarean section increases the risk of infection by five times! The study also showed that 19% of women who had a c-section reported an infection. Based on the aforementioned stats, we can say that roughly 1 out of every 15 women giving birth suffers an infection as a result of a c-section surgery. In addition to the infections, there is a myriad of other issues that have been known to surface days, weeks, or months down the road.
An interesting conclusion can be drawn from the following historical example which took place at Madera County Hospital in California, where there is a transient, high risk population. In 1959, when doctors did the deliveries, the neonatal mortality rate was 23.9/1,000. During 1960-1963, midwives had a rate of 10.3/1,000. When OB-GYNs took over again in 1964, the rate skyrocketed to 32.1/1,000. Does anyone else notice a problem with that??? (Hint: The statistics are correct.)
My wife was interrogated by an OB-GYN when she went to get some stitches after our recent home birth. The doctor was violently opposed to the idea of a home birth and gave “statistics” to back up her theories. I wasn’t present, and my wife isn’t nerdy enough to remember exactly what was said, but I’m not sure where she would find much support to prove that there is less risk at a hospital. I’ve looked for solid evidence to refute my pro-home birth views, but even the medical journals themselves lead me back to where I currently am.
If the U.S. has such a bad infant mortality rate, and out-of-hospital births account for less than 1% of all births, then that leaves only the hospital births as the contributing factor. We are made to think that it’s stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous to give birth at home for the same reason a mortician doesn’t want anyone to discover a fountain of youth or immortality. The OB-GYN community needs job security too! Like many other industries, rather than relying on ingenuity and finding ways to improve and expand their services, they sacrifice integrity, abuse the trust of the American people, and resort to scare tactics to keep from losing business. Your personal OB-GYN might very well be just as misinformed as you are by the skewed information and statistics that are propagated throughout the industry. The bottom line, as I mentioned above, is that a c-section costs approximately double that of a vaginal delivery— That’s like being offered the same job twice, but one salary is doubled. It’s instantly obvious which job a person would take, but would you still take the higher-paying job if the health of thousands of babies and their mothers were at stake? Don't get me wrong, I don't think doctors are evil, but I do believe that they are often misinformed of the facts and restrained from doing the right thing by the FDA and the healthcare industry.
Somewhat-related Soapbox Moment:
If our natural approach to child birth and health in general is so crazy and dangerous, then why are our children ill less often than any other children that we know? Call me irresponsible for not putting toxins (pharmaceutical drugs) into my precious babies' bodies because they cough or sniffle once or twice, but unless they are chronically ill like everyone else, your criticism falls on deaf ears. Our bodies were beautifully designed to take care of themselves as long as we take care of them. Everything our bodies need was put here on the earth, and we were given dominion over it. To think that our bodies need artificial chemicals instead of- or in addition to- the natural elements already provided is to question the competence of the Creator. He designed us and the earth, with all of our systems working in perfect harmony, but he must have gotten confused when he told Adam to work the land. Adam was supposed to be a pharmer, not a farmer, so instead of drugs, he ended up cultivating food. In His excitement, God must have gotten "ph" and "f" mixed up. This also explains why Eve tricked Adam into eating the forbidden fruit when he told her that her new fig leaf made her look "fat".
I’ll summarize everything with a quote from Marjorie Tew, a British research statistician who did long-term studies of the safety of various birth methods:
The danger of home as a place of birth does not lie in its threat to the healthy survival of mothers and babies, but in its threat to the healthy survival of obstetricians and obstetric practice.
You're welcome.
