The reason I still think UC adds needless risk is because if you have a home birth with a qualified doctor or midwife, then you have someone there who has clinical training in handling complications of pregnancy and birth. You have someone with experience looking for the warning signs in labor, analyzing fetal heart tones, with third stage delivery, with resuscitating newborns, with addressing postpartum bleeding, evaluating perineal damage etc. Just as important, you are presumably getting prenatal care from someone who knows how to monitor you effectively for PIH, placental issues, growth issues, etc.
If you UP/UC, you don't have those things. So that is why I feel differently about out of hospital birth and UC. Some may find that hyprocritical but I think there is a big difference between a home birth with an experience practitioner and one where you are alone with your husband and a midwifery textbook.
Well said; I agree with this. When I think of UC, I remember that woman on Twins By Surprise (or whatever show it was) who delivered twins - both breech - unassisted. I feel a little bit bad judging her, but wow, all I can think is how completely stupid and irresponsible!
I don't want unnecessary interventions, but absolutely want access to necessary help/interventions.
I am hard pressed to see what type of woman is a good candidate for unassisted birth.
Well, what do you think about the two examples given elsewhere in this thread?
1. Mom with two cesareans and a successful VBA2C (in the hospital), who then got pregnant again while living in an area with limited VBAC options. She ended up going to 43+ weeks, so had she not UC'd, she would have ended up with either a repeat c-sec or an induction -- both of which have their own risks.
2. Mom who had already had one vaginal birth, one cesarean, a successful VBAC. After her VBAC, hospital policy changed to no longer allow VBACs, so she did UC with her last two babies in order to be able to have vaginal births.
iris427:
The reason I still think UC adds needless risk is because if you have a home birth with a qualified doctor or midwife, then you have someone there who has clinical training in handling complications of pregnancy and birth. You have someone with experience looking for the warning signs in labor, analyzing fetal heart tones, with third stage delivery, with resuscitating newborns, with addressing postpartum bleeding, evaluating perineal damage etc. Just as important, you are presumably getting prenatal care from someone who knows how to monitor you effectively for PIH, placental issues, growth issues, etc.
If you UP/UC, you don't have those things. So that is why I feel differently about out of hospital birth and UC. Some may find that hyprocritical but I think there is a big difference between a home birth with an experience practitioner and one where you are alone with your husband and a midwifery textbook.
Well... didn't that experienced midwife start out with a midwifery textbook? Midwives, and OBs, are not magical beings. What they know can be learned. Personally, I have no desire to learn about birth to that level of detail, which is why I don't want to be a midwife, and don't want to UC, either. But there is nothing to say that a woman who does want to UC (and anyone else who might be at the birth, e.g. her husband) can't learn those things.
Also, at least in my state, you can become a licensed midwife by taking a correspondence course and passing a written exam. You don't have to have any clinical training, or even a high school diploma. That means that a homebirth midwife could very well have less experience than some UC'ers -- but it's generally accepted on this board that homebirth is OK, in spite of that fact. Perhaps that's because the underlying assumption is that homebirthers have done their research and have selected a provider who does have more experience than just a correspondence course... but then, why aren't we giving UC'ers the same benefit of the doubt?
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
I am hard pressed to see what type of woman is a good candidate for unassisted birth.
Well, what do you think about the two examples given elsewhere in this thread?
Honestly, there are other steps to get a VBAC friendly provider that I'd take before UC. I've heard of people who have left their family in another country to come to a VBAC friendly provider in the states. A tad extreme, but much safer than unassisted childbirth.
I would sooner find a friend or family member who lived near a VBAC friendly and experienced midwife and have an extended stay, or show up at the hospital as far along as I dared and hope for the best than do an intentional unassisted birth.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
I think the point of most UC'ers is to simply avoid intervention, and the hassle of trying to find a provider that is respectful of birth choices. MOST UC'ers don't even let anyone know their plan, so to say it is for bragging rights or ego is not accurate.
As far as statistics go for UC - that is skewd for the same reason. People not letting anyone know. And if you want to get into that - the US has the worst rate of infant & maternal mortality in all of developed countries. So I don't put much stock in our maternity care system.
Some forego the prenatal care for the same reason. To even call it "care" is a misnomer IMO. I am capable of doing exactly what my OB did during my visits.
To PP - Yes I do raise my children without help. I am their mother & quite capable of caring for them in most ways. I certainly feed & dicipline them on my own.
After having three pregnancies and deliveries managed, manipulated, & complicated with uneccesary tests, stress, & inductions, I considered going unassisted.
I think it is more irresponsible to just go with the flow & take someone elses word for something , instead of doing reseach on it myself.
I know I am in the minority with my opinions, that's okay with me. I respect a womans choice to birth her baby the way she feels is best for her baby.
The reason I still think UC adds needless risk is because if you have a home birth with a qualified doctor or midwife, then you have someone there who has clinical training in handling complications of pregnancy and birth. You have someone with experience looking for the warning signs in labor, analyzing fetal heart tones, with third stage delivery, with resuscitating newborns, with addressing postpartum bleeding, evaluating perineal damage etc. Just as important, you are presumably getting prenatal care from someone who knows how to monitor you effectively for PIH, placental issues, growth issues, etc.
If you UP/UC, you don't have those things. So that is why I feel differently about out of hospital birth and UC. Some may find that hyprocritical but I think there is a big difference between a home birth with an experience practitioner and one where you are alone with your husband and a midwifery textbook.
Well... didn't that experienced midwife start out with a midwifery textbook? Midwives, and OBs, are not magical beings. What they know can be learned. Personally, I have no desire to learn about birth to that level of detail, which is why I don't want to be a midwife, and don't want to UC, either. But there is nothing to say that a woman who does want to UC (and anyone else who might be at the birth, e.g. her husband) can't learn those things.
Also, at least in my state, you can become a licensed midwife by taking a correspondence course and passing a written exam. You don't have to have any clinical training, or even a high school diploma. That means that a homebirth midwife could very well have less experience than some UC'ers -- but it's generally accepted on this board that homebirth is OK, in spite of that fact. Perhaps that's because the underlying assumption is that homebirthers have done their research and have selected a provider who does have more experience than just a correspondence cours+e... but then, why aren't we giving UC'ers the same benefit of the doubt?
Of course an experienced midwife started out as a beginner. But she also has real world clinical experience learned from other midwives and her own experiences.
Anyone can go on Amazon and order a textbook about anything. It doesn't mean they know as much as someone professionally trained in that field. This is a silly argument to make and it hardly makes a compelling argument for UC.
Personally, I wouldn't hire a midwife who has zero hands on experience doing births. If you want to hire that midwife who has only read about birth in a book and never actually attended one, or have a UC, go for it. That is your right. But I still think there are safer ways to have a baby than either of those options.
Big sister {September 2008} Sweet boy {April 2011} Fuzzy Bundle {ETA July 2014}
I am hard pressed to see what type of woman is a good candidate for unassisted birth.
Well, what do you think about the two examples given elsewhere in this thread?
1. Mom with two cesareans and a successful VBA2C (in the hospital), who then got pregnant again while living in an area with limited VBAC options. She ended up going to 43+ weeks, so had she not UC'd, she would have ended up with either a repeat c-sec or an induction -- both of which have their own risks.
2. Mom who had already had one vaginal birth, one cesarean, a successful VBAC. After her VBAC, hospital policy changed to no longer allow VBACs, so she did UC with her last two babies in order to be able to have vaginal births.
iris427:
The reason I still think UC adds needless risk is because if you have a home birth with a qualified doctor or midwife, then you have someone there who has clinical training in handling complications of pregnancy and birth. You have someone with experience looking for the warning signs in labor, analyzing fetal heart tones, with third stage delivery, with resuscitating newborns, with addressing postpartum bleeding, evaluating perineal damage etc. Just as important, you are presumably getting prenatal care from someone who knows how to monitor you effectively for PIH, placental issues, growth issues, etc.
If you UP/UC, you don't have those things. So that is why I feel differently about out of hospital birth and UC. Some may find that hyprocritical but I think there is a big difference between a home birth with an experience practitioner and one where you are alone with your husband and a midwifery textbook.
Well... didn't that experienced midwife start out with a midwifery textbook? Midwives, and OBs, are not magical beings. What they know can be learned. Personally, I have no desire to learn about birth to that level of detail, which is why I don't want to be a midwife, and don't want to UC, either. But there is nothing to say that a woman who does want to UC (and anyone else who might be at the birth, e.g. her husband) can't learn those things.
Also, at least in my state, you can become a licensed midwife by taking a correspondence course and passing a written exam. You don't have to have any clinical training, or even a high school diploma. That means that a homebirth midwife could very well have less experience than some UC'ers -- but it's generally accepted on this board that homebirth is OK, in spite of that fact. Perhaps that's because the underlying assumption is that homebirthers have done their research and have selected a provider who does have more experience than just a correspondence course... but then, why aren't we giving UC'ers the same benefit of the doubt?
Really? That's it? There's no other prerequisite (for instance, being a Registered Nurse or other medical training)?
By my third pregnancy, I really didn't see much point in my prenatal appointments, though. But, it was comforting hearing my baby's heartbeat and having the very few tests I had come back normal/good. When I was in labour, if I hadn't left the house when I did I'm quite certain I would have ended up with a UC. It probably would have been fine, too. My delivery ended up being non-eventful (this time).
But (and this is a big but), no matter how much planning/preparing/reading someone does, no one can know without a doubt that something will not go wrong. This isn't a debate about midwives versus doctors versus birthing centers versus home versus hospitals. It's about the fact that no one is there to assist in the event of complications with Mom or baby and what then? I suppose if someone's support (DH or other) is trained in these matters, then that's different. But simply reading books doesn't really train someone.
I don't get why studies/stats. would have any influence over this, either. Studies and stats. didn't tell me what would happen during/after my three pregnancies and L&D's. In fact, stats. would have told me that Natalie would not have had a brain injury during birth. I see how stats./studies can influence the decision to use and which midwife/birth center/home/hospital/dr./etc., but in all those cases someone is there to help out whereas with UC no one is there. Completely different scenario.
I don't necessarily think it's about ego/bragging rights. I'm sure the women who choose this truly think they are doing right... and they are, as long as nothing goes wrong.
I am hard pressed to see what type of woman is a good candidate for unassisted birth.
Well, what do you think about the two examples given elsewhere in this thread?
1. Mom with two cesareans and a successful VBA2C (in the hospital), who then got pregnant again while living in an area with limited VBAC options. She ended up going to 43+ weeks, so had she not UC'd, she would have ended up with either a repeat c-sec or an induction -- both of which have their own risks.
2. Mom who had already had one vaginal birth, one cesarean, a successful VBAC. After her VBAC, hospital policy changed to no longer allow VBACs, so she did UC with her last two babies in order to be able to have vaginal births.
iris427:
The reason I still think UC adds needless risk is because if you have a home birth with a qualified doctor or midwife, then you have someone there who has clinical training in handling complications of pregnancy and birth. You have someone with experience looking for the warning signs in labor, analyzing fetal heart tones, with third stage delivery, with resuscitating newborns, with addressing postpartum bleeding, evaluating perineal damage etc. Just as important, you are presumably getting prenatal care from someone who knows how to monitor you effectively for PIH, placental issues, growth issues, etc.
If you UP/UC, you don't have those things. So that is why I feel differently about out of hospital birth and UC. Some may find that hyprocritical but I think there is a big difference between a home birth with an experience practitioner and one where you are alone with your husband and a midwifery textbook.
Well... didn't that experienced midwife start out with a midwifery textbook? Midwives, and OBs, are not magical beings. What they know can be learned. Personally, I have no desire to learn about birth to that level of detail, which is why I don't want to be a midwife, and don't want to UC, either. But there is nothing to say that a woman who does want to UC (and anyone else who might be at the birth, e.g. her husband) can't learn those things.
Also, at least in my state, you can become a licensed midwife by taking a correspondence course and passing a written exam. You don't have to have any clinical training, or even a high school diploma. That means that a homebirth midwife could very well have less experience than some UC'ers -- but it's generally accepted on this board that homebirth is OK, in spite of that fact. Perhaps that's because the underlying assumption is that homebirthers have done their research and have selected a provider who does have more experience than just a correspondence course... but then, why aren't we giving UC'ers the same benefit of the doubt?
Really? That's it? There's no other prerequisite (for instance, being a Registered Nurse or other medical training)?
By my third pregnancy, I really didn't see much point in my prenatal appointments, though. But, it was comforting hearing my baby's heartbeat and having the very few tests I had come back normal/good. When I was in labour, if I hadn't left the house when I did I'm quite certain I would have ended up with a UC. It probably would have been fine, too. My delivery ended up being non-eventful (this time).
But (and this is a big but), no matter how much planning/preparing/reading someone does, no one can know without a doubt that something will not go wrong. This isn't a debate about midwives versus doctors versus birthing centers versus home versus hospitals. It's about the fact that no one is there to assist in the event of complications with Mom or baby and what then? I suppose if someone's support (DH or other) is trained in these matters, then that's different. But simply reading books doesn't really train someone.
I don't get why studies/stats. would have any influence over this, either. Studies and stats. didn't tell me what would happen during/after my three pregnancies and L&D's. In fact, stats. would have told me that Natalie would not have had a brain injury during birth. I see how stats./studies can influence the decision to use and which midwife/birth center/home/hospital/dr./etc., but in all those cases someone is there to help out whereas with UC no one is there. Completely different scenario.
I don't necessarily think it's about ego/bragging rights. I'm sure the women who choose this truly think they are doing right... and they are, as long as nothing goes wrong.
Re: Anyone going unassisted?
Well said; I agree with this. When I think of UC, I remember that woman on Twins By Surprise (or whatever show it was) who delivered twins - both breech - unassisted. I feel a little bit bad judging her, but wow, all I can think is how completely stupid and irresponsible!
I don't want unnecessary interventions, but absolutely want access to necessary help/interventions.
Well, what do you think about the two examples given elsewhere in this thread?
1. Mom with two cesareans and a successful VBA2C (in the hospital), who then got pregnant again while living in an area with limited VBAC options. She ended up going to 43+ weeks, so had she not UC'd, she would have ended up with either a repeat c-sec or an induction -- both of which have their own risks.
2. Mom who had already had one vaginal birth, one cesarean, a successful VBAC. After her VBAC, hospital policy changed to no longer allow VBACs, so she did UC with her last two babies in order to be able to have vaginal births.
Well... didn't that experienced midwife start out with a midwifery textbook?
Midwives, and OBs, are not magical beings. What they know can be learned. Personally, I have no desire to learn about birth to that level of detail, which is why I don't want to be a midwife, and don't want to UC, either. But there is nothing to say that a woman who does want to UC (and anyone else who might be at the birth, e.g. her husband) can't learn those things.
Also, at least in my state, you can become a licensed midwife by taking a correspondence course and passing a written exam. You don't have to have any clinical training, or even a high school diploma. That means that a homebirth midwife could very well have less experience than some UC'ers -- but it's generally accepted on this board that homebirth is OK, in spite of that fact. Perhaps that's because the underlying assumption is that homebirthers have done their research and have selected a provider who does have more experience than just a correspondence course... but then, why aren't we giving UC'ers the same benefit of the doubt?
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
Honestly, there are other steps to get a VBAC friendly provider that I'd take before UC. I've heard of people who have left their family in another country to come to a VBAC friendly provider in the states. A tad extreme, but much safer than unassisted childbirth.
I would sooner find a friend or family member who lived near a VBAC friendly and experienced midwife and have an extended stay, or show up at the hospital as far along as I dared and hope for the best than do an intentional unassisted birth.
I think the point of most UC'ers is to simply avoid intervention, and the hassle of trying to find a provider that is respectful of birth choices. MOST UC'ers don't even let anyone know their plan, so to say it is for bragging rights or ego is not accurate.
As far as statistics go for UC - that is skewd for the same reason. People not letting anyone know. And if you want to get into that - the US has the worst rate of infant & maternal mortality in all of developed countries. So I don't put much stock in our maternity care system.
Some forego the prenatal care for the same reason. To even call it "care" is a misnomer IMO. I am capable of doing exactly what my OB did during my visits.
To PP - Yes I do raise my children without help. I am their mother & quite capable of caring for them in most ways. I certainly feed & dicipline them on my own.
After having three pregnancies and deliveries managed, manipulated, & complicated with uneccesary tests, stress, & inductions, I considered going unassisted.
I think it is more irresponsible to just go with the flow & take someone elses word for something , instead of doing reseach on it myself.
I know I am in the minority with my opinions, that's okay with me. I respect a womans choice to birth her baby the way she feels is best for her baby.
Of course an experienced midwife started out as a beginner. But she also has real world clinical experience learned from other midwives and her own experiences.
Anyone can go on Amazon and order a textbook about anything. It doesn't mean they know as much as someone professionally trained in that field. This is a silly argument to make and it hardly makes a compelling argument for UC.
Personally, I wouldn't hire a midwife who has zero hands on experience doing births. If you want to hire that midwife who has only read about birth in a book and never actually attended one, or have a UC, go for it. That is your right. But I still think there are safer ways to have a baby than either of those options.
Really? That's it? There's no other prerequisite (for instance, being a Registered Nurse or other medical training)?
By my third pregnancy, I really didn't see much point in my prenatal appointments, though. But, it was comforting hearing my baby's heartbeat and having the very few tests I had come back normal/good. When I was in labour, if I hadn't left the house when I did I'm quite certain I would have ended up with a UC. It probably would have been fine, too. My delivery ended up being non-eventful (this time).
But (and this is a big but), no matter how much planning/preparing/reading someone does, no one can know without a doubt that something will not go wrong. This isn't a debate about midwives versus doctors versus birthing centers versus home versus hospitals. It's about the fact that no one is there to assist in the event of complications with Mom or baby and what then? I suppose if someone's support (DH or other) is trained in these matters, then that's different. But simply reading books doesn't really train someone.
I don't get why studies/stats. would have any influence over this, either. Studies and stats. didn't tell me what would happen during/after my three pregnancies and L&D's. In fact, stats. would have told me that Natalie would not have had a brain injury during birth. I see how stats./studies can influence the decision to use and which midwife/birth center/home/hospital/dr./etc., but in all those cases someone is there to help out whereas with UC no one is there. Completely different scenario.
I don't necessarily think it's about ego/bragging rights. I'm sure the women who choose this truly think they are doing right... and they are, as long as nothing goes wrong.
Really? That's it? There's no other prerequisite (for instance, being a Registered Nurse or other medical training)?
By my third pregnancy, I really didn't see much point in my prenatal appointments, though. But, it was comforting hearing my baby's heartbeat and having the very few tests I had come back normal/good. When I was in labour, if I hadn't left the house when I did I'm quite certain I would have ended up with a UC. It probably would have been fine, too. My delivery ended up being non-eventful (this time).
But (and this is a big but), no matter how much planning/preparing/reading someone does, no one can know without a doubt that something will not go wrong. This isn't a debate about midwives versus doctors versus birthing centers versus home versus hospitals. It's about the fact that no one is there to assist in the event of complications with Mom or baby and what then? I suppose if someone's support (DH or other) is trained in these matters, then that's different. But simply reading books doesn't really train someone.
I don't get why studies/stats. would have any influence over this, either. Studies and stats. didn't tell me what would happen during/after my three pregnancies and L&D's. In fact, stats. would have told me that Natalie would not have had a brain injury during birth. I see how stats./studies can influence the decision to use and which midwife/birth center/home/hospital/dr./etc., but in all those cases someone is there to help out whereas with UC no one is there. Completely different scenario.
I don't necessarily think it's about ego/bragging rights. I'm sure the women who choose this truly think they are doing right... and they are, as long as nothing goes wrong.