Let’s review: Twelve things you shouldn’t say to Dr. Amy … unless you want to appear very foolish

This piece has received more comments than any other I have written, 1000+ and counting. It first appeared 2 years ago, but rarely a week goes by without someone asserting one or more of the following in the comments sections. Clearly, some people need a review.

It seems like every day a new visitor parachutes in to this blog and attempts to “educate” me. Inevitably, the visitor finds that almost everything she says is false. Indeed, almost everything she thinks she “knows” is false. So to spare these visitors embarrassment, and to reach those who are attempting to “educate” me on other blogs, I have compiled the following list. Here’s what you should not say to me, and why you should not say it.

1. The US does very poorly on infant mortality.

Infant mortality is the WRONG statistic. It is a measure of pediatric care. That’s because infant mortality is deaths from birth to one year of age. It includes accidents, sudden infant death syndrome, and childhood diseases.

The correct statistic for measuring obstetric care (according to the World Health Organization) is perinatal mortality. Perinatal mortality is death from 28 weeks of pregnancy to 28 days of life. Therefore it includes late stillbirths and deaths during labor.

The US has one of the lowest rates of perinatal mortality in the world.

2. The Netherlands, which places the greatest reliance on midwives, has low mortality rates.

No, the Netherlands has, and has had for some years, one of the HIGHEST perinatal mortality rate in Western Europe. It also has a high and rising rate of maternal mortality. The Dutch government is deeply concerned about these high mortality rates and a variety of studies are underway to investigate.

A study published in the BMJ is early November 2010 revealed and astounding finding. The perinatal mortality rate for low risk women cared for by midwives is higher than the perinatal mortality rate for high risk women care for by obstetricians!

3. Obstetricians are surgeons.

I never understand how anyone has the nerve to say this to me. I AM an obstetrician. No one knows better than I what obstetricians are or are not. I went to college. I went to medical school. I spent four years in obstetric training. I delivered thousands of babies. I have cared for thousands of gyn patients. That some doula who is a high school graduate thinks that she can possibly know more than I about the nature of obstetricians defies belief.

Obstetricians do surgery as part of their practice. That does not make them surgeons. If it did, ophthalmologists and dermatologists would be surgeons too, since they do surgery as a routine part of caring for their patients. Is anyone seriously suggesting that you cannot go to an ophthalmologist for an eye exam because he or she will recommend unnecessary surgery?

4. Homebirth is safe.

No, all the existing scientific evidence and all national statistics indicate that homebirth triples the rate of neonatal death. Even studies that claim to show that homebirth is as safe as hospital birth, like the Johnson and Daviss BMJ 2005 study, ACTUALLY show that homebirth with a CPM has triple the rate of neonatal mortality of comparable risk women who delivered in the hospital in the same year.

The Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) is well aware that homebirth is dangerous. That’s why they are hiding their own mortality rates. They spent almost a decade collecting information on more than 18,000 CPM attended homebirths, announcing at intervals that they would use the data to show that homebirth is safe. So why haven’t any of us seen it?

The data is publicly available, but ONLY to those who can prove they will use the data for the “advancement” of midwifery. MANA is quite up front about the fact that they will not let anyone else know what they have learned. Obviously, if homebirth had been anywhere near as safe as hospital birth, they would be trumpeting it from the mountain top. It does not take a rocket scientist to suspect that their data shows that homebirth dramatically increases the risk of neonatal death.

5. Homebirth midwives are experts in normal birth.

This one always makes me laugh. Experts in normal birth? That’s like a meteorologist who claims to be an expert in good weather.

I guess they’re trying to make a virtue of necessity. Homebirth midwives know virtually nothing about the prevention, diagnosis and management of pregnancy complications. That’s a problem when you consider that the only reason you need a birth attendant is to prevent, diagnose and manage complications. You don’t need any expertise to catch the baby and make sure it doesn’t hit the floor. Ask any taxi drive; he’ll tell you.

6. Childbirth is safe.

No, childbirth is INHERENTLY dangerous. In every time, place and culture, it is one of the leading causes of death of young women. And the day of birth is the most dangerous day in the entire 18 years of childhood.

Why does childbirth seem so safe? Because of modern obstetrics. Modern obstetrics has lowered the neonatal mortality rate 90% and the maternal mortality rate 99% over the past 100 years. What has the contribution of midwifery been to lowering those mortality rates? Zero? They’ve invented nothing, discovered nothing and tested nothing that has had any impact on perinatal or maternal mortality.

7. Childbirth used to be dangerous but that is only because sanitation was poor and women were poorly nourished.

No, the great advances of sanitation occurred in the 1800′s and the early years of the 1900′s. Not surprisingly, this had a big impact on deaths from infectious causes. However, rates of perinatal and maternal mortality did not begin to drop appreciably since the late 1930′s and the discovery of antibiotics. In the intervening years, easier access to C-sections, epidural anesthesia, newer and better antibiotics, blood banking, and neonatology led to dramatically lower mortality rates.

8. C-section increases the risk of maternal and neonatal death.

No, women who die in pregnancy are most commonly women with serious pre-existing medical illness (heart disease, kidney disease) or serious pregnancy complications (pre-eclampsia). C-sections are often done in an effort to save the lives of these women. Sometimes it is not enough. The C-section is what is known as a “confounding factor.” Both the C-section and the death can be traced back to the mother’s health status; the C-section did not cause the death.

MacDorman and colleagues have attempted to show that C-sections for “no indicated risk” increase the neonatal death rate. Their papers have been roundly criticized because they used birth certificates, not hospital record. Unrelated investigations of birth certificates have shown that, while they are highly reliable for data like weight and Apgar scores, they are highly unreliable for risk factors. Indeed, unrelated studies have shown that up to 50% of women who have serious medical illnesses like heart disease, have those risk factors missing from the birth certificate.

9. Induction harms babies.

No, induction lowers perinatal mortality. The yearly CDC data on births shows that as the induction rate has risen, the rate of late stillbirth has dropped by 29% and the neonatal death rate has not increased.

10. If childbirth were dangerous, we wouldn’t be here.

This represents a profound lack of knowledge about evolution as well as a profound lack of knowledge about childbirth. Evolution does not lead to perfection. Evolution is the result of the survival of the fittest, not the survival of everyone. Human reproduction, like all animal reproduction, has a massive amount of wastage. Every woman was born with millions of ova that will never be used. Every man produces billions of sperm that will never fertilize an ovum. Even when a pregnancy is established, the miscarriage rate is 20%. That’s right. One in five pregnancies dies and is expelled and yet we are still here. Human reproduction is perfectly compatible with a natural neonatal death rate of approximately 7% and a natural maternal death rate of approximately 1%.

11. US maternal mortality is rising.

Despite a rather histrionic political report from Amnesty International making that claim, US maternal mortality is not rising and has even dropped in both of the past two years. Why does it look like it has risen? Because the standard death certificate has been revised twice in the past two decades in order to more accurately capture maternal deaths. The new death certificate has revealed maternal deaths which otherwise would not have been counted. It is not clear that maternal deaths have increased; it’s merely that reporting of those deaths has improved.

12. Women are designed to give birth.

Women are not “designed”: they have evolved and evolution involves trade offs. Babies with big heads tend to be more neurologically mature, so having a big neonatal head has evolutionary advantages. A small maternal pelvis makes it easier for a woman to walk and run, providing her with an evolutionary advantage. Those two advantages are often incompatible. The woman with a small pelvis may have been able to survive by outrunning wild animals, but when it came time to give birth, she was more likely to die because that small pelvis could not accommodate a large neonatal head.

***

The above statements have two things in common. First, they are wrong. Second, they are passed back and forth between natural childbirth advocates who “teach” each other they are true. That’s why it is impossible to become “educated” by reading natural childbirth books and websites. Most of their information is flat out false, and they are entirely insulated from scientific evidence. Natural childbirth advocates make up their “facts” as they go along. They don’t read the scientific literature. They don’t interact with science professionals. Indeed, professional natural childbirth advocates take special care to never appear in any venue whether they might be questioned by doctors or scientists. They know they’d be laughed out of the room. That’s okay with them as long as there is a large pool of gullible women out there who will believe them and buy their products.

It is important that those who are parachuting in to “educate” me understand that they literally have no idea what they are talking about. Most of what they think they “know” is factually false. And they demonstrate that every time they write one or more of those twelve statements.

  • skepticat

    So… I bounded over here after reading that Time article on the “Lactation police” the doc wrote. So then I got interested in homebirth too, and I also read the Wikipedia article on it for comparison to the material summarized here. Dr Amy you do make good counterarguments against some of the misinfo that is out there probably, but I think the Wikipedia article is probably also well researched (I tend to trust their review process when it is not life or death for me, and many doctors contributed, presumably with good reputations). The Wikipedia article seems to in balance say that that homebirth vs hospital birth isn’t a big deal in the scheme of things as long as good prenatal care is done so higher risk cases are cared for appropriately and some other qualifiers, and a lot of national governmental bodies seem to agree with this.

    So, is this all a tempest in a teapot? Should the goal just be good prenatal care and if low risk cases give birth in a qualified home environment no big deal? Or can you take on the Wikipedia article and maybe get it modified?

    • Susan

      Gosh, I only read Wikipedia for entertainment and it’s worst abuses are when something has a cult following with endless zealots fighting for a cause who will undue every criticism of their cause. I would never spend my time trying to fix a Wikipedia article on something with a cult following either… I think Dr. Amy’s time is far better spnt ignoring Wikipedia! My kids learned in school never to use it as a reference…. I won’t let my son quote it in a debate either.

      • http://twitter.com/UltraVenia Jules

        I edit Wikipedia regularly. For certain scientific subjects, it’s fine. But unless the few, overworked,(99% male) scientific skeptics are diligently watching the page (and no, NCB is not really on their radar), it will be overrun by single issue promoters.

    • http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.dee.71 Lizzie Dee

      Good prenatal care – VERY good prenatal care – would make a difference at spotting when “low risk” can no longer be taken for granted. But it isn’t consistent with the Trust Birth attitude that NCB promotes, and it wouldn’t make any difference to the problems that occur in labour.

      The current politically correct mantra of “Homebirth is safe for low risk women” is correct, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t any kind of big deal, because what it translates to is: “It will likely be disastrous for those who turn out to not be so low risk after all, but that is the price you pay for “choice”.” NCB rests on denial of real risks and wants to claim that homebirth is not just safe if you are lucky, but safer – and they have to lie and bamboozle to sell that. Is THAT a big deal worth arguing against? The stakes are rather high. Homebirth in places with safeguards in place increases bad outcomes.

  • Birth “professional”

    You’re not just a “skeptical” OB, you’re a pompous, one-sided, dangerous, crisis-monger with a clear and erroneous ax to grind. This list is total bunk and a disservice to women and neonates.

    • Dr Kitty

      Yo, wanna come over to today’s post and talk about crisis-mongering?

      It’s about maternal mortality, specifically women bleeding to death at home. You can even educate us on how you’d manage a massive PPH at home if you’d like.

      Do you want to post anything that actually refutes any of Dr Amy’s points above? Anything resembling actual evidence?

      Or are you just another parachuting “Dr Amy is MEEEN- Trust Birth and no one gets hurt!” troll?

  • Ana

    As a medical student who has participated in both forceps deliveries and urgent/emergent c-sections, I think I would rather have a crash c-section than a forceps delivery, if it came down to it. I also would want an OB who is very liberal with medio-lateral episiotomies. The OBs at the hospital that I trained at were quite hesistant to do episiotomies, and I have seen several nasty tears (including a 4th degree tear following a forceps delivery) that most likely would have been prevented by an episiotomy.

    • Susan

      As someone who has cared for a lot of women with fourth degrees and mediolateral episiotomies ..mediolaterals appear to be very painful. I disargree too on crash c/s…if my baby were. in trouble I’d take the fourth degree even if it was a certainty over a longer period of oxygen deprivation to my baby. If the forceps were for a no emergency indication I agree.

      • Ana

        I think the pain of a mediolateral is without a doubt worth avoiding the risk of a fourth degree tear. More than half of women who have a fourth degree tear suffer from permanent issues with bowel control and fecal incontinence. I saw one woman who had struggled with total loss of bowel control, had had multiple surgeries to try to correct it, and eventually gave up and asked for a colostomy.

        I would much rather deal with the pain of healing from a mediolateral episiotomy than risk permanent loss of bowel control.

  • Rachel

    There are no sources cited in your post. At least others back up with relevant, reliable, peer reviewed studies.

    • MLE

      Read some mo posts and you might find what you’re looking for.

  • Rebecca Szajkowski

    I am not seeking to educate you, only ask for a little bit of empathy. I am only even looking on the internet right now for answers, because my own OB will not provide them to me. When inquiring about the Rhogam shot, was simply told that if I do not get it babies die. That’s it. No inquiry into my husbands blood type to see if it is even necessary (which it is,) no information on what the shot is, and what it is made from, and why I even need it at all. I was simply confused as to why I have not needed a shot up until 28 weeks, and found out via my mailbox that I needed to get some arbitrary shot I have never hear of or been informed of. I am not trying to be an expert, however, with an array of virtually unheard of medical problems (including malignant hypothermia, and erythropoetic protoporphyria) I do not take injecting things into my body lightly, as my entire organ structure is a little differently. I find often times people look to the internet because they are not informed, not because they are out to prove their doctors wrong, or to pretend to get a PhD. I greatly admire all of the years all doctors have spent learning on how to save the lives of the rest of us. However, with this being said, while I’m sure my OB is knowledgeable about what she is doing, and clearly has her own reasons for wanting me to get certain courses of treatment, without sharing this information with me, I have no where else to turn except to the internet for answers.

    • Dr Kitty

      Rhogam is a blood product. It prevents haemolytic disease of the newborn due to rhesus iso-immunisation of a rhesus negative mother by a rhesus positive foetus.
      The only contra-indication to its use is the treatment of ITP in Rhesus negative or splenectomised patients.
      None of your medical conditions are reasons not to have it.
      If you want to prevent future babies suffering from potentially fatal haemolytic anaemia, you should get it.
      If you have questions for your OB- why not ask her directly?

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
  • christine

    I’ve stopped reading after #2 bc of the outrageous misrepresentation of the facts! For those who wish to read real statistics and not just Dr Tuteur’s cherry picking to fit her extreme bias, here is the link to the OECD report that shows that France has a higher perinatal mortality rate then the Netherlands. http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Item7ZeitlinPresentationOECD.pdf …And yes, France is a country that medicalizes births almost as much (if not more) than the US. In France, doulas and home births are almost unheard of (in fact, doulas are not allowed in hospitals) and most hospitals have epidural rates of 90% or more.

    Finally, the US has a higher mortality rate than the Netherlands. So using them as an example is funny logic. Here is a recent report so you can verify for yourself. … http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_08.pdf

    • Box of Salt

      Apparently christine didn’t read #1, either.

      • christine

        Apparently Box didn’t click on my links. The links were for reports that cited perinatal mortality rates, not neonatal rates. So yes, obviously I read #1.

        • Expat in Germany

          The links you put up were good, but you need background info to understand the implications. You can’t just attribute all of the differences between countries neonatal mortality rates to birth attendant. The mother’s health and race play a not insignificant role as does the cut off for low gestational age. See slide 20 where the us data compares much more favorably with Swedish data if the cutoff difference is taken into account. France an the Netherlands have different demographics and comparing neonatal mortality tells you something about maternal health and race, but it doesn’t tell you much about the quality of the birth attendant. Perinatal mortality tells you that. You need different links for that comparison.

          • christine

            I agree — you can’t attribute all the differences of mortality rates to birth attendants. this is why, unlike Dr T, I didn’t make any claims. And in fact, I made it clear that I was still undecided on the issue but obviously leaning towards an integrated model of care. I thought that it was clear that I was replying to Dr T’s manipulation of the stats (see my first few posts). She singled out the Netherlands because they have a significant percentage of their births attended by midwives at home and they have one of the highest perinatal death rates in Europe. Yet she doesn’t say that France has a similar rate but different model of care and that the US has an even higher perinatal death rate then the Netherlands. You also didn’t address this.

            And … I was aware that there are a lot of yahoos in the US, I’ve read the horrific home birth stories of incompetent midwives. I find it appalling that there are some midwives who are practicing without proper equipment, training, or insurance. This still doesn’t negate the fact that the majority of studies conclude that home births are just as safe as hospital births. However, the perinatal mortality rate can and should be decreased. It may be helpful for the US to look at the other OECD countries for answers, as I briefly explained above.

            What would potentially be great for the well-being of moms and babies is a concerted effort to properly regulate midwifery in the US, to ensure that they are all properly educated, equipped, insured, and/or integrated into the hospital systems. Wouldn’t that be a better use of everyone’s energies? Trying to bully and shame moms out of the home birth option, as Dr T is currently doing, is not going to accomplish any good.

          • Poogles

            “What would potentially be great for the well-being of moms and babies is
            a concerted effort to properly regulate midwifery in the US, to ensure
            that they are all properly educated, equipped, insured, and/or
            integrated into the hospital systems. Wouldn’t that be a better use of
            everyone’s energies? Trying to bully and shame moms out of the home
            birth option, as Dr T is currently doing, is not going to accomplish any
            good.”

            I think everyone here agrees we should get rid of the CPM “credential” so that only “properly educated, equipped, insured” midwives (that is, CNMs) are licensed to attend births. As they are already integrated into the hospital system, that isn’t an issue. Now, there are not all that many CNMs willing to do homebirth, usually because they find it too risky or the insurance rates are too high (again, because of the risk), or there isn’t an OB and/or hospital willing to provide back-up (real back-up, not the CPM version which usually just means “this is the hospital where I will dump you if you need a “transfer”).

            I don’t find Dr. Amy to be bullying or shaming. I have been reading her for ~5 years now, and originally came to her writing as a strong advocate for homebirth. Sure, she pissed me off (and occasionally still does, lol), but that doesn’t mean she was bullying or shaming me. After learning so much more about birth, learning so much about the statistics and studies done, I can no longer support homebirth. I consider that a “good” that Dr. Amy has accomplished, and there are many here who are in the same boat as me. If a woman truly, truly understands the risks she is taking, I think she should be able to make that choice (so does Dr. Amy), but I do not think CPMs should be attending her.

          • Poogles

            ” It may be helpful for the US to look at the other OECD countries for answers, as I briefly explained above.”

            As Expat touched on, there are various differences between countries that make it very difficult (and sometimes, downright impossible) to directly compare perinatal mortality rates in any meaningful sense.

            For one, a lot of the countries with a lower rate than the US have some form of universal healthcare. Their populations are usually more “white”. They may have different cut-offs for their statistic definitions. We may be able to implement things other countries do (like universal healthcare) that could, possibly, help our rates. There are other differences, however, that cannot be changed (like the ethnic diversity of our culture).

          • christine

            sigh.

            There is ethnic diversity in Europe. Yes, not in the exact proportions as the US but I doubt the gap is wide enough to consider it a factor in the above discussion. Shall we take the example of the US and the Netherlands? I’ll look up the stats for you and come back in a second. …

            Well, here we go: Whites in the US’s equal 78% of the population http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

            In the Netherlands, it’s 80%. … http://www.indexmundi.com/netherlands/ethnic_groups.html

            do you really think a 2% difference is worthy of comment?

          • Dr Kitty

            Christine, you’re rude and hostile, aren’t you?

            I don’t think you’re reading your own cites, dear.

            The 20% non white Dutch population is 5% EU (meaning mostly white Europeans), with Turks, Surinamese and Moroccans accounting for another 7% or so, with less than 1% being Carribbean (one would assume mostly from the Dutch Antilles) and 4.8% being other.

            Meaning that LESS THAN 7% of the Dutch population is African or Afro-Carribbean, and most likely much more like 3-5%.

            Moroccans generally being Berber or Arab, Surinam being a country in South America ( where the population is mixed between Indigenous people 2%, East Indians 37%, Chinese 8%, people of African descent 10%, Javanese 15%, White 5%, Creole 31%) and the population of Aruba (as an example of the most populous Dutch Carribbean Island) having a population which is 80% mixed white/ Arawak.

            Dr Tuteur’s point was that women of African descent are at higher risk of obstetric problems compared to other ethnic groups, that 1 in 6 women giving birth in the US is of African descent, and that this may explain disparity of outcome to some extent.

            Your choice of cites about the ethnic makeup of the Netherlands doesn’t refute that point in the slightest. Would you like to try again?

          • christine

            Yes, I guess the disingenuous replies (show me the bullying; show me the studies that show that home birth is safe) started to wear me down. … and now you. You compared apples and oranges. Your own government would consider Americans with Turkish, Surinamese, and Moroccan backgrounds to be in the non-white category. did you not check out both of the links? btw, I wasn’t replying to Dr Tuteur’s claim re African descent. I wasn’t even aware of this claim. I was replying to Poogle’s claim that European countries are more white.

          • Dr Kitty

            Yup. Rude and hostile.

            Whether or not someone is considered “white” or not by a government is irrelevant.

            Being of Black African descent is an independent risk factor for obstetric complications. I can’t help that you didn’t know that, or that we are discussing demographics specifically because of that.

            By “more white” I think that Poogles meant “less Black”, and in that she is perfectly correct, the USA has a much higher proportion of people of Black African descent than any European country.

          • Siri

            There ARE two of you Christine’s, aren’t there? You aren’t just two radically opposed personalities in the same body?

          • Dr Kitty

            Not my government Christine.

          • Poogles

            “I was replying to Poogle’s claim that European countries are more white.”

            Dr. Kitty is correct, that by “more white” I meant more specifically “less black/African descent” – apologies for the confusion. I would also like to add that I was referring specifically to “a lot of the countries with a lower rate than the US” (not ALL countries with lower rates, and not ALL European countries). It is one of many variables that can effect a country’s perinatal mortality statistics.

          • Poogles

            “Yes, I guess the disingenuous replies (show me the bullying; show me the studies that show that home birth is safe)”

            Well, you mentioned more than once that “the majority of studies conclude that home births are just as safe as hospital births”. Since the vast majority of the readers here (and Dr. Amy herself) obviously disagree with that assesment of the literature, I do not think it was disingenuous in the least to ask you to list the specific studies that led you to that conclusion, and how they did so. You give us nothing to go on except “I simply assumed that you and your followers, before coming to such definitive conclusions, would have already come across the same studies that I have”. So we’re left with not much choice but to conclude you did not understand the research or didn’t read it, since people who understand statistics, researching, and the field of obstetrics have come to vastly different conclusions than you.

          • christine

            see above. In fact, governments around the world have come to vastly different conclusions as you.

          • Kalacirya

            Turkish people are white Christine. They absolutely consider themselves white, and they list as white on the US Census. Unless Dr. Kitty is from another country, and I didn’t think she was, this is the case. Moroccans, if they are not black Africans, are also listed as white. The end.

          • Dr Kitty

            Sorry, I’m not American.
            Irish.
            Living in the bit of Ireland that is British, and hence only too aware of the current demographic boxes.

            It’s why I post at odd times (GMT time zone) and use weird spellings (foetus, paediatrics, etc).

          • Kalacirya

            I think I must have confused you with someone else, because I thought I recalled you talking about being in the USA. Sorry about that. I glaze over the spelling because half the graduate students and professionals I know are expats and don’t use American spellings either. Either way, my point still stands. I’m not sure where Christine is from, but if she thinks that the Netherlands demographics are easily comparable to the USA’s.

          • christine

            Why are you arguing this? I never said otherwise re Turks. and see the above post. You are asked to choose on the census whether or not you consider yourself as “white”.

          • Kalacirya

            I misread something, I apologize. You are still incorrect on your other claims though, not sorry about that.

          • Dr Kitty

            I’ve just looked at the French Wiki page.
            France is 85% white, 10% North African, 3.5% Black African, 1.5% Asian.

            Black African women in France have, on average, 2.8 children, compared to White French women who have 1.7 children.

            Immigrants to France from Africa come from the Maghreb (Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria) or from Subsaharan Africa (mostly Mali, Cameroon, Senegal and Congo).

            France has a better infant mortality rate than the Netherlands.

            Just for completeness.

          • Siri

            Clearly non- white people all look the same to Christine..

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            “women of African descent are at higher risk of obstetric problems compared to other ethnic group”

            Just inherently, regardless of their income level? Again, this seems wrong. “African descent” is so broad, genetically speaking: two sub-Saharan African women may have a greater difference between their genomes than that between a Swedish and a Japanese woman.

          • Dr Kitty

            Higher incidences of non gynecoid pelvis, sickle cell disease, obesity, rdiabetes, pre-eclampsia and pre-existing hypertension in people of African descent. Some studies have also shown highe rates of infection, ante partum haemorrhage, prematurity and fetal demise. Not all of that is completely explained by socio-economic and health disparities.

            I will post cites when I have time.

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            Thanks. I would like to see studies that focussed on African Americans who are multigenerational “Jack and Jill” members, although that would perhaps not completely override potential epigenetic effects of hundreds of years of slavery and Jim Crow.

          • Dr Kitty
          • Dr Kitty

            The last study is a British one, which accounted for socioeconomic factors, age, parity, smoking and BMI and still found an elevated risk of adverse maternal outcome for African and Carribean women.

            Anyway, there you go.

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            Thanks. It sure does appear more work needs to be done.

            The first link goes to an abstract, with no mention of potential confounding factors. The second mentions many possible confounders, but does not appear to have controlled for them. The third (from ACOG) states outright that the disparities “largely result from differences in socioeconomic status and insurance status”. The Dutch study’s abstract says “Low socio-economic status, unemployment, single household, high parity and prior caesarean were independent explanatory factors for SAMM, although they did not fully explain the differences.”

            The last link addressed the issue best, I thought: “The increase in risk of severe maternal morbidities in non-white women seems to be independent of differences in age, socioeconomic and smoking status, body mass index, and parity between ethnic groups.” However, it also states:

            “A recent national survey of women’s experience of maternity care in the UK reported that women from black and minority ethnic groups were more likely to recognise their pregnancy later, access care later, and consequently book later for antenatal care than were white women.”

            Controlled for level of education? That’s a key question; either way we could be drifting uncomfortably close to “Bell Curve” territory, if you catch my drift.

            Plain old racism is another possibility though:

            “Additionally, these women reported that they were less likely to feel that they were treated with respect and talked to in a way they understood by staff during pregnancy, labour and birth, and postnatal care. Their options for care were perceived as more limited, and fewer had the contact details of a midwife available during pregnancy. “

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Note if it were just socio-economic, you would expect to see similar problems in the hispanic community in the US, right?

          • Dr Kitty

            Alan, I know that genetically Africa is more diverse than anywhere else, and that arbitrary assignations of race are not necessarily based on genetics.

            However, even when comparing various groups of women of colour with the same socioeconomic backgrounds, and first or second generation immigrants, it still seems that women of black African origin or descent have higher risks for adverse outcomes. Compared to Hispanic, Asian, South East Asian, middle Eastern and European women, women of African origin (whether Afriacan American, Carribbean, or subsaharan African) appear to be at a disadvantage.

            At the moment we don’t know if race is a surrogate marker for the real underlying causes, of if there is something genetic going on. What we do know is that the association has been shown over and over again, in the USA and Europe, and appears to hold true even when accounting for access to healthcare, poverty and immigrant status.

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            Even when accounting for access to healthcare? The links you posted were interesting reads, but if they demonstrated that point I missed it. Can you quote for me?

          • DiomedesV

            Except that “African descent” is not a random category. Slaves were not imported to the New World randomly with respect to African geography.

            Also, different ethnic groups have different risks for heart disease, diabetes, etc. In some cases, we can actually trace that increased risk to actual alleles that segregate at different frequencies in different populations (eg., diabetes in Native American populations).

            The situation for preterm labor is not as well understood, but there is nothing a priori wrong with suggesting it may have a genetic component.

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            But we got into this because France’s having more black people than the Netherlands; so the geography of New World slave importation should be irrelevant. And while I agree that “there is nothing a priori wrong with suggesting it may have a genetic component”, the great genetic diversity of sub-Saharan Africa would suggest that if this is true, it would almost have to be an *advantage* that developed among the group(s) that forayed out beyond the horn of Africa and whose descendants populated Eurasia. That’s certainly possible, but it would be extraordinary and deserving of specific attention IMO.

            Interesting discussion!

          • DiomedesV

            Also, while it is true that Africa is the most genetically diverse, that does not preclude positive or purifying selection acting on very specific alleles, including those related to childbirth, across the continent, or across wide swathes of the continent (the latter being more likely). More importantly, immigrants are not randomly selected with respect to geography, nor are they randomly selected with respect to their economic status in their own country (thinking specifically of Europe). In short, they’re not a random sample, even though Africa is the most genetically diverse.

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            All good points!

          • christine

            thanks for the correction, yes, I had missed the 5%. btw, it wasn’t clear that poogles was saying that Europe is less black. but thanks for launching an interesting discussion

          • Kalacirya

            Lol,

            For one, Turkish people are white people, I would know. In the USA, Turkish people are white people on the Census. So that’s 2.2%. That other 5% EU group is probably all white. The North Africans are probably fairly white (again, on the Census, North Africans and people with Arabic heritage are considered white. There are a lot of Indonesian folks there as well, they’re also notably not of African descent.

            The Netherlands are not a bastion of ethnic diversity, sorry. 15% of African descent versus 5% or less is a wide gulf.

          • christine

            you weren’t reading in chronological order. my reply was in response to poogles claim that there’s very little ethnic diversity in europe. it was before the conversation turned to perinatal stats and mothers with African descent. … but yes, much to laugh about: i lived in Morocco for two years, Egypt for one, in Palestine for 6 months, and can tell you that they and other Arabs would never check the “white” box on a census form. My guess it that same goes for Indonesians. But perhaps you have different experiences? … more importantly, why did you feel it necessary to correct me on the above post? Why not address the more important questions of home birth vs hospital safety?

          • Kalacirya

            I am talking about the US Census, because this blog is focused on USA homebirth. North Africans and middle easterners check white, they are counted as white people in the USA and in our health statistics. I am middle eastern myself, I am white, I check white on the Census. The Census specifically calls for us to classify as white. Good to know that you know some North Africans, it doesn’t change the fact that if they were of Arab descent and not considered black, they would check white on the Census. This is not too hard, is it? I targeted your statement about the Netherlands, because it was painfully wrong. 80% of the population of the Netherlands is Dutch with no other ethnicity, more than 80% is white. In the USA, the number is in the 70s, but you’re grouping together all types of white people, including white hispanics. There is far more ethnic diversity in that USA 70 something percent than there is in the 80% ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands.

            As to why I don’t address your points on homebirth: I have no interest in arguing with you about your “research”. You don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s obvious from your claims; you post some bibliographical salad without any critical statements as to why you cite the studies. You have nothing of substance to say, yet you claim to be well read on the topic. Somehow you talk in circles with few hard references to your untold amounts of research. You openly say that you don’t care to put the time in to present something more detailed. I am a statistician I don’t care about your opinion, not even a little bit. Condescension from someone such as yourself, with an inferior knowledge base, is not entertaining.

          • christine

            Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the United States Census Bureau, are self-identification data items in which residents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify, and indicate whether or not they are of Hispanic or Latino origin (the only categories for ethnicity).[1][2]

          • Kalacirya

            What is your point? Do you think I’m talking out of my ass here? About my own country, with data that I look at daily in my job?

            ““White” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.”

            http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

            If you are Middle Eastern, European, North African, and you are NOT black African, Central-Southern-Eastern-Southeastern Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander, odds are you are going to be considered white on the census. Those that report “other” are next to nothing.

          • Poogles

            “poogles claim that there’s very little ethnic diversity ”
            Errr….not quite what I said, though I admit my wording may have been a little unclear. I was simply saying that some of the European countries that have better perinatal mortality rates than us are not quite as “diverse” as the US, and this is not something we could try to emulate to bring our rates down.

          • Expat in Germany

            Home birth is not -just as safe-. The birthplace study in the UK tells us that for first-time moms, the rate of homebirth birth injuries was several times higher than for those who went to the hospital. For 2ond or 3rd time moms without so much as a whisper of a risk factor, you might be able to claim -just as safe-. Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter what the stats say if you are the one with a severe post partum hemhorrage or a baby that needs to be intubated.

          • Expat in Germany

            You were making claims about Finland. They struck me as misguided. France and its large population of west Africans aside, it isn’t unreasonable for Dr. Tuteur to point out that the home birth paradise of the Netherlands isn’t a shining star amongst its neighbors.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            And remember, this is not about claims that Dr Amy is making, it is about claims that OTHERS make that are wrong.

          • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

            Is it really true that race in and of itself makes such a big difference in mortality rates, independent of SEC? That would surprise me and if it is true I’d like to understand why.

          • Poogles

            “Is it really true that race in and of itself makes such a big difference in mortality rates, independent of SEC? That would surprise me and if it is true I’d like to understand why.”

            From what I recall, studies that have controlled for SEC factors (as much as possible) still find an increase of complications among mothers of African descent, though I don’t think anyway really understands “why” yet…
            Hopefully someone with quick access/references to the relevant studies can chime in here….

    • Poogles

      “here is the link to the OECD report that shows that France has a higher perinatal mortality rate then the Netherlands.”

      And? This does not change the fact that “the Netherlands has, and has had for some years, one of the HIGHEST perinatal mortality rate in Western Europe.” One of the highest, not the absolute highest.

      • christine

        reread my post

        • Poogles

          I have. Perhaps your point is that because France has a higher perinatal mortality rate and they (according to you) “medicalize births almost as much (if not more) than the US” than obviously that means the “medicalizing” is what causes a higher perinatal mortality rate than the Netherlands? I will disagree again if this is the case.
          If this is not your point, could you please clarify?

          • christine

            It’s not my point. sorry I wasn’t clear. What I had meant to say was that if Dr T is going to use the Netherlands as an example to support her claim that home birth is not safe, when France has an even higher perinatal rate (with an almost non-existent home birth culture), then she’s cherry-picking her stats and misleading her readers.

          • Poogles

            “if Dr T is going to use the Netherlands as an example to support her claim that home birth is not safe, when France has an even higher perinatal rate (with an almost non-existent home birth culture), then she’s cherry-picking her stats and misleading her readers.”

            I disagree. The Netherlands are specifically trotted out by homebirth advocates as a shining example that homebirth with a midwife is as safe as hospital birth; yet, the statistics do not support that HB in the Netherlands is, in fact, as safe as hospital birth with an OB. To refute this obvious mistruth, she is pointing out what the science actually says – that the perinatal mortality rate for low risk women cared for by midwives, whether at home or at hospital, is higher than the perinatal mortality rate for high risk women cared for by obstetricians in the hospital. It’s not cherry-picking to refute a specific claim of the HB movement by showing the statistics that prove that specific claim is wrong.

          • christine

            Can you please post a link to this science that you’re talking about? because I’m very curious, having done research myself and still personally undecided re homebirth vs hospital. The research (more than a dozen studies) that I have found concludes that HB is just as safe, if not safer than hospital births. I’m a bit skeptical of Dr T’s site bc it seems as if she and her followers are extremists. As well, the logic in many of the articles and posts is questionable. Without links to actual studies, I find it difficult to digest someone’s arguments that appear to be more like ranting and bullying (I’m referring to Dr T’s posts, not your above one) than proper analyses of scientific research.

            And in fact, if you would just reread her #1 and #2 points and then click on my links to the statistics, you’ll see how she’s wrong. She claims that the US has one of the lowest perinatal/neonatal mortality rates in the world. The fact is, that it has a higher rate than any of the 20+ OECD countries listed in the above report, including that of the Netherlands. To me that seems to support the notion that perhaps the Netherlands is handling births better than the US. Of course, there is room for improvement but you can bet that the Dutch won’t be looking at the US for answers. They are probably looking at Slovak Republic or Finland, as they have one of the lowest perinatal mortality rates in the world; in fact, more than a third of the US’s — that’s quite impressive, no?

            Shall we look at Finland for a second? Do you know that almost all births there are attended by midwives? However, midwifery is fully integrated into the hospital system. In fact, the research (and common sense) seems to support that midwifery that is fully integrated with hospital obstetric care may be the best option and most countries are moving towards this model of care.

            Unfortunately in the US, a fully integrated system between midwifery and obstetrics seems next to impossible. The US is (as it seems with every other issue from your economics to climate change to gun control and healthcare) a highly polarized nation, a nation of extremists. The middle ground is anathema to most of you, which is quite unfortunate because in most cases the middle ground saves lives.

            I’d love to see Dr T adapt and use her education, time, and energy to truly helping improve the mortality rate in the US. As is stands now, she’s part of the problem.

          • Expat in Germany

            If you knew the difference between what the us calls a midwife (cpm, dem) and what the rest of the world calls a midwife, you might have a tiny bit of credibility. Attributing a country’s mortality rates to whether or not they use midwives is so stupid it boggles the mind. It doesn’t matter who is providing the health care as long as they are appropriately trained (and the moms are healthy to begin with). CNM midwives in the US are well trained and they tend to work in hospitals where they get enough experience to know better than to “trust birth” to any old homebirth yahoo who learned all she needed to know through apprenticing with another yahoo.

          • christine

            “It doesn’t matter who is providing the health care as long as they are appropriately trained” what are you talking about? it seems that you’re saying that the training is universal? is it or is not correct to say that a midwife’s training is different from an obstetrician’s training? did you read my entire post? without bias? because I don’t claim to have the answers. stats show that perinatal death rates vary from country to country, which include countries on the spectrum of home/hospital birth care. Research does seem to support integrated care as a preferred method, something similar to what you described above re CNMs working in hospitals. However, it was my understanding that this type of care is very limited in the US and that there is great opposition by the obstetric community to fully integrate properly trained midwives.

          • Gene

            “…it was my understanding that this type of care is very limited in the US and that there is great opposition by the obstetric community to fully integrate properly trained midwives”

            Incorrect. CNMs are well respected members of the obstetrical community. I’ve been in quite a few hospitals in multiple states where OBs and Midwives work side by side, on the same team, and in concert. In fact, during some of my training, I actually did my L&D rotation ON THE MIDWIFE TEAM instead of the physician/resident team. Imagine that, a doctor learning from the midwives… One of my attendings from medical school (he was the head of OB/Gyn) has all four of his children delivered by midwives.

            But what you are doing is trying to compare a CNM with excellent training in a hospital setting to uneducated people with made up credentials who attend births at home.

          • christine

            I am not. Please see my reply below.

          • christine

            Btw, Dr T must be constantly boggling your mind.

          • Expat in Germany

            Dr. T isn’t comparing midwives to obs where she brings up the Netherlands, she is comparing home birth to hospital birth. Big difference. Hospital midwives aren’t magical, fear and pain dissolving, hand holding soul mates (as some in the us like to believe) they are just regular hospital workers like obs. If it makes you feel better to worship at their altar, go ahead.

          • http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.dee.71 Lizzie Dee

            Would you like to point to examples of ranting and bullying? This is a fairly common accusation,especially the bullying bit, but I find it puzzling. Sure, this is an issue that people can have strong feelings strongly expressed, and those at opposite ends of the spectrum of views on NCB or midwifery may feel that a defence or an attack may read like a rant, but that doesn’t make it one.

            Like many others who come here, you say you have done your research and are undecided. I can sympathise with
            that. For anyone who comes at this topic with a completely open mind, knowing which information to trust must be
            completely bewildering. The appeal of the positive, empowering version of birth is so very seductive. What a lovely start to one’s journey into mothering. What a pity that the other side has such a very sad tale to tell – of grief and bitter regret at worst to disillusion and feelings of failure at best.

            For me, it isn’t a question of who produces the most convincing set of statistics, though. It is about whether
            you can reliably figure out your personal risk.

            Birth is safe for low risk women. I believe that. It doesn’t mean I believe all these lovely stories of the wonders worked by supportive midwives. If you are among those who, arbitrarily, have an uncomplicated pregnancy and birth, you could be watched over by your pet cat and it could still be blissful. What I would very much like to know is EXACTLY what proportion of women are low risk in that sense. In the cautious Brit system, I believe 40% are risked out of homebirth. Some of those may still have an uncomplicated birth – but some of those who are not risked out may not. Now, if I were reading stories of heroic midwives who could actually make a difference when things go pear shaped, in a way that hospitals could not, I might be impressed. But that simply doesn’t, cannot happen, can it? And as far as I can see, not many want to highlight that inconvenient fact – instead, demonise hospitals, and imply that bliss isn’t possible there.

            Your common sense conclusion that midwives in hospitals is a good option is,I think, what happens in most of Europe.
            Which would be fine for those who really are, and stay, low risk. The problem with it is a trend in midwifery to prove something or other – the superiority of natural, perhaps, the problems with “medicalising” birth, some struggle for status, maybe – that leads to a denial that low risk is not a guarantee and variations of normal should not be treated quite so lightly.

            You say the middle ground is anathema. But to which camp? No-one here would argue against natural births in hospitals, as intervention free as is consistent with safety. It is NCB and
            homebirth midwives who argue against that. My own concern is fetishing a natural birth and avoiding interventions on ideological grounds makes some trained midwives as potentially lethal as their amateur counterparts.

            Again, birth is safe when your luck holds. When it doesn’t, ideologies of natural and nice are no substitute for speed and skill.

          • christine

            You wrote: “Would you like to point to examples of ranting and bullying? This is a fairly common accusation,especially the bullying bit, but I find it puzzling. Sure, this is an issue that people can have strong feelings strongly expressed, and those at opposite ends of the spectrum of views on NCB or midwifery may feel that a defence or an attack may read like a rant, but that doesn’t make it one.”

            … really? Are you serious? I guess you haven’t wasted much of your time reading the other incredibly obnoxious posts by Dr T? because I still feel sickened by her post in which she, very much like a schoolyard bully, insulted and tore apart a poor mom who had gone through a traumatic home birth. Her post (and the replies of her followers) were void of compassion and humanity and screamed hate and extremism. I’m always turned off by extremists, aren’t you? Not just for their inhumanity and hate-mongering that seems inherent in their paradigm but because I doubt that their extreme bias can allow them to reason properly, to see the facts as they are, and not manipulate stats and arguments to fit their agendas. And this was confirmed for me after reading her #1 and #2. She manipulated the stats to fit her agenda.

            And no: not just those on the opposite end of the NCB spectrum will feel that her posts are rants and examples of bullying. I, as I have stated clearly a number of times (perhaps in every post), am not on the end of the spectrum. I’m right in the middle and I can tell you: she is a bully who rants. And anyone with a desire for good science and/or any real understanding regarding meaningful education/advocacy work can tell you that a person who bullies and rants is doing a disservice to their agenda. The focus should always be on sharing good science-based research with respect for those you are aiming to help.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            So Christine, can you please get around to answering Lizzie Dee’s question, “”Would you like to point to examples of ranting and bullying?”

            “Are you serious?” is not the same as pointing out an example of ranting or bullying.

          • christine

            i answered. do you want a specific link? Here you go … http://www.skepticalob.com/2013/01/thank-goodness-i-chose-homebirth-for-the-shoulder-dystocia-that-nearly-killed-my-baby.html … There are many other examples on this site, don’t ask me to post more links as you can find them yourself. If you are going to retort that that wasn’t an example of ranting and bullying, then we clearly define those terms differently.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Please explain how that link you provided constitutes ranting or bullying

          • christine

            Let me guess: you’re on the opposite end of the spectrum, aren’t you? If you truly felt compelled to ask me for an explanation, you’re blinded by your bias or … you’re just not clear what the terms mean.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Let me guess: you’re on the opposite end of the spectrum, aren’t you?

            What spectrum? I don’t know what you are talking about.

            If you truly felt compelled to ask me for an explanation, you’re blinded by your bias or … you’re just not clear what the terms mean.

            OK, so explain to me how it is bullying AND ranting. I mean, it’s apparently very obvious to you, so you should be able to help me out.

          • http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.dee.71 Lizzie Dee

            Don’t think I am blinded by my bias. I would say I am very well aware of it – I think safe trumps nice any day, that birth is unpredictable and you need both reliable information and proper resources – i.e., a hospital.

          • Gene

            Well, I basically said that the mother was living in a different version of reality if she thought the midwife saved her child’s life as opposed to the EMTs, the NICU docs and nurses, the vast number of people who have researched cooling techniques as a way to save brain anoxia, etc. So I suppose that would be ranting.

          • http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.dee.71 Lizzie Dee

            Well, it is certainly scathing, and an unpleasant read for a rather wide eyed and innocent mother but in my opinion it is much too controlled to constitute a rant, and in what way is it bullying? I would have thought that bullying would by definition have to be a first person address?

            You are right, we have different definitions – not uncommon – and sadly you are on dodgy ground insisting that yours is definitive.

            Same with extremists, really. Seeing yourself as occupying the middle ground, you seem to imply that it is anyone whose view is at a distance from yours is one. As far as I am concerned, one end is occupied by those who insist that birth is to be trusted, and have some rather strange arguments to support that view, and those like me, Bofa and Dr. Amy who believe that birth is hazardous, who, naturally, I believe can make a rather more solid case.

            If you want to argue that you do not like these posts, fine, not surprising. Don’t read them, or argue a better case against them. Wouldn’t argue that they can be problematic – but they don’t prove a case for bullying.

          • http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.dee.71 Lizzie Dee

            Yes, it was a serious – though not terribly important – question. I understand quite well that Dr. A’s manner
            is acerbic and not to everyone’s taste and that people may well feel insulted and upset – I just don’t get the ranting and bullying bits. And with this post, I would have to add that
            I don’t see screamed hate…hate mongering…extreme bias…either.

            I think the posts that castigate mothers who have suffered greatly as the result of foolish choices do trouble most of us.
            But being critical of the choices, or appalled by the consequences, does not automatically indicate that one has no compassion for the suffering of the parents. If the comments made here were addressed directly and personally to these mothers then that would indeed be wrong. If they choose to come and read them here, then just possibly it MIGHT bring it home that prioritising some abstract ideal of birth over the life of one’s child is not likely to result in universal approval of that choice, but personally I think they would be well advised not to read them. But I find that it is despair at human folly and a desire to stop others making similar bad choices that informs most of the discussions.

            What would you suggest? A tactful silence or complicity that obscures the realities? It isn’t hard to garner a chorus of “So sorry”s that does not serve much of a purpose. When it comes to the wasteful death of a viable child, I am not sure that ranting is entirely without justification, though I think I would claim that a wringing of hands and a level of frustration is just as common here. And nothing that is written here stops those who believe honey works better applying it.

          • Poogles

            “The research (i.e., well-known, respected studies and not the ones like
            the BMJ one cited above) that I have found concludes that HB is just as
            safe, if not safer than hospital births”

            Which studies do you feel were properly done and manage to show (not just conclude, but actually show) that HB is safe or safer?

            I think the closest I’ve seen was the Birthplace study done in the UK, which showed, for ultra low-risk women in the UK who had a previous vaginal birth, homebirth could be almost as safe as hospital (first-time moms had higher incidences of perinatal mortality and neonatal brain injuries). Important points though – homebirth is completely integrated into their hospital system (unlike the US), their transfer and risk criteria are much more stringent then pretty much all CPMs/DEMs/LMs, their midwives are all properly trained (though, I think there are still some rogues out there?). So Americans can’t just look at a study like that and proclaim “Look! Homebirth is just as safe” because homebirth in the UK is nothing like homebirth in the US, and most homebirth midwives in the US are actively fighting against having a system like the UK, because they don’t want the medical education, they don’t want to follow standards of practice, they don’t want to be held responsible for their actions and outcomes.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            “And in fact, if you would just reread her #1 and #2 points and then click on my links to the statistics, you’ll see how she’s wrong. She claims that the US has one of the lowest perinatal/neonatal mortality rates in the world. The fact is, that it has a higher rate than any of the 20+ OECD countries listed in the above report, including that of the Netherlands. To me that seems to support the notion that perhaps the Netherlands is handling births better than the US. ”

            To you, but not to anyone else who understands the statistics. First, the most common causes of perinatal death are prematurity and congenital anomalies. Healthy term babies rarely die. Therefore, perinatal mortality statistics reflect, in large part, two things that have nothing to do with homebirth midwifery: prematurity rates and the ability to care for severely compromised infants.

            Second, in order to compare countries, you must correct for confounders. African descent is a risk factor for prematurity. It is not a coincidence that countries that have lower perinatal mortality than the US are whiter than the US. If you don’t correct for that, and you haven’t, you can’t make comparisons.

            Third, and most importantly, we don’t have to compare countries, nor should we, to evaluate midwifery care. In the Netherlands, Dutch midwives caring for low risk women (home or hospital) have higher perinatal mortality rates than Dutch obstetricians caring for HIGH risk women. That’s a stunning indictment of Dutch midwifery philosophy and skills.

            Fourth, you keep referring to the research that you have done, yet you cite no scientific papers in support of your claims, which suggests to me that you have done nothing more than read the propaganda written by other homebirth advocates. If you wish to have us believe otherwise, please quote the relevant passages of the relevant papers.

          • christine

            Well hello! do you see that your above post can be directed at yourself? I.e., pretend that you’ve written it starting off, “Dear Amy” … I wasn’t citing any papers because I simply assumed that you and your followers, before coming to such definitive conclusions, would have already come across the same studies that I have. It’s easy to find them. However, a bit time consuming to copy the links to the more than two dozen studies that I accessed. But I do remember that one of the sites that I came across had a fairly extensive list of studies … one second, I’ll go find it. …. Here it is copied below for you.

            But I see that you rarely offer the same courtesy to your readers. There was only one link to a study in your above post. And it was a study that has been widely dismissed as being seriously flawed. In their own abstract, they write: “An important limitation of the study is that aggregated data of a large birth registry database were used and adjustment for confounders and clustering was not possible.” … can you reread what you just wrote above about confounders?

            My primary point Amy that nobody seems to pay much heed except for Lizzie Dee (much appreciated her comments) is that I think you could and should be doing important work to regulate the midwifery industry in the US and to also educate mothers about the current risks in your system. However, imo, you’re going about the wrong way. Please reread my other posts regarding tone, respect, and meaningful education/advocacy work.

            I’m sure I’ve just wasted a perfectly good day off. However, it was worth a shot.

            Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ 2009;181:377–83.

            Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2009;36:180–9.

            Janssen, P.A., et al. 2002. Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia. CMAJ 166: 315-23.

            Ackermann-Liebrich U, Voegeli T, Gunter-Witt K, Kunz I,Zullig M, Schindler C, et al. Home versus hospital deliveries Zurich: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures and outcome. BMJ 1996;313:1313–8.

            Lindgren HE, Radestad IJ, Christensson K, Hildingsson IM. Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:751–9.

            Shiftan, A., et al. 2009. Planned home deliveries in Israel between the years 2003-2007. Harefuah 148(6): 362-6, 413. Hebrew.

            Johnson KC, Davis BA. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ 2005;330:1416.

            Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, van der Zee J, Berghs GA. Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in The Netherlands. BMJ 1996;313:1309–13.

            Anderson RE, Murphy PA. Outcomes of 11,788 planned home births attended by certified nurse-midwives. A retrospective descriptive study. J Nurse Midwifery 1995;40:483–92.

            Chamberlain G, Wraight A, Crowley P. Birth at home. Pract Midwife 1999;2:35–9.

            Gulbransen G, Hilton J, McKay L, Cox A. Home birth in New Zealand 1973–93: incidence and mortality. N Z Med J 1997;110:87–9.

            Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study.BMJ. 2011;343:d7400.

            Bastian H, Keirse MJ, Lancaster PA. Perinatal death associated with planned home birth in Australia: population based study. BMJ 1998;317:384–8.

            Kennare RM, Keirse MJ, Tucker GR, Chan AC. Planned home and hospital births in South Australia, 1991–2006:differences in outcomes. Med J Aust 2010;192:76–80.

            Pang JW, Heffelfinger JD, Huang GJ, Benedetti TJ, Weiss NS.Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State:1989–1996. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:253–9.

            Wax JR, Lucas FL, Lamont M, Pinette MG, Cartin A, Blackstone J. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:243.e1– 8.

            Evers AC, Brouwers HA, Hukkelhoven CW, Nikkels PG,Boon J, van Egmond-Linden A, et al. Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2010;341:c5639.

            Tew M. 1977. Obstetric hospitals and general practitioner units: the statistical record. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. 27:689-94.

            Tew M. 1978, The case against hospital deliveries: the statistical evidence. In: Kitzinger S, Davis J. eds. The place of birth: A study of the environment in which birth takes place with special reference to home confinements. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 55-65.

            Tew M 1990. Safer Childbirth: a critical history of maternity care: London: Chapman and Hall.

            Shearer JML. Five year prospective survey of risk of booking for a home birth in Essex. BMJ 1985;219:1478-80.

            MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk,” United States, 1998-2001 birth cohorts. Birth. 2006 Sep;33(3):175-82.

            Anderson RE, Murphy PA. Outcomes of 11,788 planned home births attended by certified nurse-midwives: a retrospective descriptive study. J Nurse-Midwifery. 1995;40:483_92.

            Worth J. District midwifery in the 1950s. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 2002. 12:2:174-6.

            Lindgren HE, Radestad IJ, Christensson K, Hildengsson IM. Outcomes of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004: a population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol 2008;87:751-9.

            Doumouchtsis SK, Arulkumaran S. Head trauma after instrumental births. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35(1):69-83, viii.

            Richardson J. Supervisory issues: lessons to learn from a home birth. 2009. BJM 17:11:710-12.

            Kahana B, Sheiner E, Levy A, Lazer S, Mazor M. Umbilical cord prolapse and perinatal outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;84(2):127-32.

            Landon MB. Predicting uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):267-71.

            Knight M., D. Tuffnell, P. Brocklehurst, et al. 2010. UK Obstetric Surveillance System. “Incidence and risk factors for amniotic-fluid embolism.” Obstet Gynecol 115 (5): 910–7.

            McCormack R, Doherty D, Magann E, Hutchinson M, Newnham J. Antepartum bleeding of unknown origin in the second half of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes. BJOG 2008;115:1451–1457.

            Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(6):486.e1-9.

            Pariente G, Wiznitzer A, Sergienko R, Mazor M, Holcberg G, Sheiner E. Placental abruption: critical analysis of risk factors and perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(5):698-702.

            Landon MB. Predicting uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):267-71.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            How nice for you, Christine, that you know how to cut and paste. How sad that you think that cutting and pasting is the equivalent of “research.”

            This is probably going to come as a major shock to you, but most of what you quoted is crap. For example, Janssen was forced to publicly retract the claims in the 2002 paper because it actually showed that homebirth increased the risk of death.

            Christine, you are just another ignorant layperson prattling about your “research” when you’ve done no research at all and apparently don’t have a clue how to do research. Thanks for proving the point of my post.

          • christine

            Oh Amy. You lose credibility every time you respond like that. The ONE and only study that you cited in your above post is a well known joke. The list in my above reply contains more than 4 dozen studies. You picked out one.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            “You picked out one.”

            And you didn’t read any … which means that you have no credibility at all.

          • christine

            You’re a mind reader? You have spyware on my computer? how the #$% would you know what I’ve read and not read? That is the most ridiculous thing that I’ve ever been told in my life. In fact, I feel like I’ve been conversing with Glen Beck. Do you really exist, Amy?

            Good luck to you.

          • Poogles

            “how the #$% would you know what I’ve read and not read? ”

            Granted, there is no way Dr. Amy could actually know what you have and have not read. However, you have not demonstrated in the least that you DID read any of them. And if you did read some (or even all) of the above listed studies, you again are doing nothing to demonstrate that you understood those studies. Anyone can read, but understanding is a whole other ball game.

            If you want to show you have read and understood the studies, then actually discuss them – the methods used, the populations studied, the results, the analysis of those results, the limitations of the studies and the meaning of those results within the larger context of the entirety of the literature on the subject. Be warned though, most people cannot do that in anything more than a very superficial, cursory way, unless they are in the field themselves, and keep current on the research. I know I can’t.

          • christine

            I may just one day feel silly enough (today I’m in serious work mode) to spend more of my time off replying to all of you and I promise that the first thing I’ll do is write down my analyses of each of the 2 dozen studies that I’ve read. For now, you’re just going to have to take my word for it Poogles that I’ve read and understood them. If only you could see my earnest face, lol. … I was going to leave it at that but just in case you’re truly burning to know more about these studies, but bc you’ve said that you find them difficult to analyze, there’s a well-balanced wikipedia article that you may be interested in that is well referenced and super easy to understand, and includes most of the studies that I’ve accessed (a good comprehensive one is the NICE report – you may wish to take a look at that one if you’re feeling like reading more). Here’s the link to the wiki article … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_birth#Research_on_safety
            … Enjoy! Cheers.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            “For now, you’re just going to have to take my word for it”

            No, your word is worthless. You clearly haven’t read these studies in their entirety (not the abstracts) or if you read them, you didn’t understand them. You have offered no analysis, no relevant quotes, nothing. Why lie, on top of everything else?

          • christine

            Sigh, more insults. My armor is staring to chip, oh no! ;) If my replies bother you so much, why don’t you just delete them? You’re certainly not enlightening anybody with your insults and crazy assumptions.

            Anyhow, I’m also a bit perplexed as to why you haven’t explained why the more than 40+ studies that I’ve listed on this page should be dismissed. You only commented on one of them. I need to analyze all of them first before you can comment on them, is that it? I’m guessing that since you’re the expert that you should be able to recognize them right away and give a quick summary as to why you’ve dismissed them when the majority of experts and governments around the world have used them to inform their policies.

            As well, I’m wondering why you haven’t organized your research into a scientific report, one that can be peer-reviewed?

            Btw, you know, negativity is not a healthy way to live your life. Don’t let that be too much woo for you — studies support this claim — shall I link them for you? ;)

            Cheers!

          • Poogles

            “why the more than 40+ studies that I’ve listed on this page should be dismissed.”

            I don’t believe that Dr. Amy is saying all of the studies listed should be dismissed out of hand, but more that they are mostly not of high quality and/or do not support your claim that HB is as safe or safer than hospital birth. By listing them as proof, you’re showing that you either can’t recognize poorly done studies, can’t recognize when a study does or does not support your argument or you haven’t even read the studies you listed.
            At least, that seem to me to be the point Dr. Amy was trying to make.

          • christine

            over and over and over again the same ridiculous line of attack. I’m starting to think that no one here on this site is real and that Dr A simply has a software program that automatically replies with the same old insults. Or i can only hope that that’s the case. ;)

            why don’t you or Dr A read those studies first before commenting? not one reply to me has analyzed those studies to enlighten us as to why they’re poorly designed.

          • Box of Salt
          • Durango

            For my part, I do not have the background to properly interpret the studies; my intro level statistics is completely inadequate for the task. Therefore, as in every other topic where I don’t have expertise, I rely on experts. I had a home birth, and I was woefully uninformed. It took a long time to change my mind. I had no idea that CPMs were undertrained. I had no idea what obstetric complications could occur in even a healthy young mother. Fortunately, my child did not suffer as a result of my choice.

            I follow Dr Amy’s blog because she walks the reader through a study’s strengths and weaknesses. She doesn’t make money by having women choose hospital birth. She’s seen the train wrecks ( and other OBs and peds docs on this site have contributed their own stories of transfers gone horribly wrong). She doesn’t get get a thrill when women make the same choice as she did (in stark contrast to the self-proclaimed birth junkies). As far as i can tell, she doesn’t ban dissenting opinion. All of the above are reasons I trust the information here. The tone is unique and many find it off-putting but I think it serves its purpose: it makes people pay attention. Given the strong propensity of NCB advocates to sweep all negative outcomes under the rug, I’m glad someone is putting this information out there.

          • Poogles

            “I’m starting to think that no one here on this site is real and that Dr A simply has a software program that automatically replies with the same old insults.”

            I’m not aware of having aimed any insults your way. And I am most definitely a real person, LOL.

            “why don’t you or Dr A read those studies first before commenting? not one reply to me has analyzed those studies to enlighten us as to why they’re poorly designed.”

            You came here and started making the claims about the safety of homebirth and the mortality statistics surrounding birth, so the burden of evidence for those claims lie at your feet, not ours. It is inappropriate to arrive in someone else’s space, say “X is true! All the evidence says so! Prove me wrong!” Now, if you had come here and said “My understanding of studies x, y, and z is that they show such-and-such through abc methods, which has led to me to this conclusion. I see you have reached a different conclusion, can we discuss these studies further?”, it could have lead to a fruitful and interesting conversation.

          • Box of Salt

            Christine, “You only commented on one of them”

            Why don’t you try looking through the archives on this blog? You will find more detailed analysis of papers about birth there.

            P.S. You were right: I didn’t click on your links. I was reading over coffee before leaving for work. My interpretation of your comment was it was an poorly informed knee jerk response to Dr Amy’s post, and I responded in kind.

            I am glad that there has been so much continuing discussion. But the comments you’ve added still leave me to feel that you are not as well informed as you think you are.

            If you’d like to change my mind, please do post your comments on some of those studies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.dee.71 Lizzie Dee

            I may just one day feel silly enough….

            Wow. One of the other defining characteristics of those into NCB seems to be a nice line in condescension. But I suppose that is a character trait that comes in handy if you are wedded to the belief that bad things happen only to those who deserve it, and an easy birth is a well deserved personal triumph.

            Christine, we will not hold our breath. Your desire to educate us ill-informed sheeple is likely to be wasted. Especially on those of us who did not reach our conclusion that homebirth is for idiots simply by rejecting the “…is safe for low risk women…” line with blinkers on but learned from bitter experience that relying on that is a wee bit iffy.

          • christine

            Oh la la, more incorrect assumptions: I am not wedded to those beliefs. I’m a hospital birth type of a gal; however, I decided to do research for my #3 after an OB acquaintance told me that she herself for her own children gave birth at home. So questions popped up when I read some of those studies that actually showed a higher (although barely but still a higher) perinatal rate with hospital births. With those questions in mind, I found myself here on this site, learned a bit more but was quite a bit turned off by the tone, thought to share my opinion and now regret it — as Dr T and others on here clearly have no patience for anyone not vehemently anti-homebirth. Sigh, I’m exhausted and it’s been quite an unexpected experience, to say the least. As you clearly view me as a troll, I’ll leave you all to be in peace (cue: applause). I’m now off to see my trusted OB.

          • Amazed

            “an OB acquaintance told me that she herself for her own children gave birth at home”

            Each profession has its quacks. Obstetrics is not any different. It speaks volumes about you that out of all OBs in your area, you managed to find the quack.

            I never take someone’s word when asked to provide evidence, said someone says, “just take my word”.

            Good luck with the quack.

          • christine

            Hilarious that you made the assumption that I was only talking about one OB and not two. Your reply is a perfect example of how you can be blinded by bias. Reread my post while pretending you wrote it yourself and I think you’ll come to a different conclusion. … or to make it simple for you: the first OB was (again) “an acquaintance” whom I met at a cocktail party and with whom I spoke to for less than 10 minutes. Afterwards I started doing research thinking that it wouldn’t take me long to confirm my original assumption that hospital birth is the only sane option. However, I was surprised to learn that the large majority of research and experts do not support that claim. This site is in the minority.

            Despite the research that I’ve done, I’m still going ahead with my original decision to stick with my amazing OB (the second one that got mentioned in my above post) whom I’ve known for more than 8 years and who delivered my previous two children.

            I have to turn off my disqus notifications because this has become too weird.

          • Siri

            Sorry Christine, you only get one go at flouncing off.

          • Amazed

            Actually, I thought you might be talking about two different OBs but I dismissed this possibility because I couldn’t imagine that anyone could be so influenced by a casual acquaintance. You knew someone for less than 10 minutes and she’s already talking to you how her children were born? To me, that’s a red flag screaming “quack”.

            How did you do your “research?” Let me guess: you sat in your cosy home in front of your computer and read abstracts. And you fell victim ty the most common journalistic mistake: presenting the two sides as if they were equally valid. Something like Wakefield’s fraud. The sides are not equally valid.

            By your posts, I gleaned you are like most of us: a lay person who, honestly, lacks the expertise to properly interpret medical studies. There’s nothing wrong with that. I, however, have the experience from my unrelated specialty that if a study is: full of mistakes that the authors themselves admit to; founded by a party that has vested interest in the outcome; being widely dismissed in scientific circles; is done by someone who hid a conflict of interest – then the study is not to be trusted. This is the case with literally all papers supporting homebirth as a safe choice.

            Hell, Colorado midwives themselves admit that 1-2 deaths for 600- 700 births for full-term babies of low-risk mothers are expected for homebirth. Anyway, the most recent Oregon study showed hospital perinatal mortality to be 0.6 per 1000 births, including congenital anomalies!

          • Poogles

            “there’s a well-balanced wikipedia article ”

            You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t trust a wiki article for a “well-balanced” look at the evidence for such a contentious topic. I can only imagine how often the HB brigade goes in and edits it to their liking.

          • christine

            do you know how wiki works? bc your people can do the same. if some quack comes in and makes an unsubstantiated claim, it gets flagged and taken care of appropriately. why don’t you read it first before commenting on it.

          • Poogles

            “why don’t you read it first before commenting on it.”

            I did. And I don’t trust it precisely because anyone, on either side, can edit the article to lean one way or the other at any time. Since I do not have the time nor inclination to look back through all the edits and try to piece together a more “balanced” or “whole” version of what has been in that article, I will stick to more reliable sources. Wiki has it’s place, but not on this topic.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            how the #$% would you know what I’ve read and not read?

            “By their works, you shall know them….”

          • Kalacirya

            I put 2 whole dollars on you only reading the abstracts, if you read them at all. And if you did in fact read them, I doubt you understood their results.

          • Poogles

            “I think you could and should be doing important work to regulate the midwifery industry in the US and to also educate mothers about the current risks in your system. However, imo, you’re going about the wrong way. Please reread my other posts regarding tone, respect, and meaningful education/advocacy work.”

            Do you realize how obnoxious it is to come to someone’s blog and post something like this? Dr. Amy is fully aware of what she is and is not accomplishing and her tone is a deliberate decision she has made (it is not a mistake that her blog banner says “The SOB” as an abbreviation for “The Skeptical OB”). You are, obviously, completely free to disagree and feel you would go about it a completely different way. That does not mean it is the only way, or that others should heed your admonishments that they should be doing things the way you think they should be done.

            Personally, I think Dr. Amy IS doing important work, between this blog, articles on other sites and various interviews she has done. She is getting the information out there that counter-acts the lies, myths, and distortions put forth by the Homebirth “movement”, trying to ensure that women are fully informed before they make their choice on place of birth.

            If you think there is much more important work to be done and you think you know the best ways to go about doing that, no one is stopping you.

          • Susan

            Christine are you undecided on the topic in general or as to where to choose to have your baby?

          • Becky05

            “The research (i.e., well-known, respected studies and not the ones like the BMJ one cited above) that I have found concludes that HB is just as safe, if not safer than hospital births.”

            What research is this? There is some research showing that homebirth that is fully integrated into the medical system and attended by qualified providers is about as safe as hospital birth, as long as you are not a first time mother and as long as complications don’t occur. On the other hand, for a first time mother with no complications at the start of labor, the Birthplace Study found a nearly 3 x greater risk of intrapartum/neonatal loss, and the data from the Netherlands suggests that although the rates aren’t high enough to affect the overall perinatal mortality rate, there are greater risks out of hospital if a complication does occur. http://sigo.it/pdf/planned_home_births_vs_ospital_births_obstet_gynecol2011_24_10.pdf

            There isn’t any data showing that home birth is safer, unless you mean data that interventions occur less frequently. That’s true.

          • Becky05

            They don’t, in fact, have a higher perinatal mortality rate.

      • http://twitter.com/SlackerInc Alan

        Technicaly true. But if a populous, neighbouring advanced industrialised country (that one report said had the best health system in the world) where HB is rare has a higher mortality rate, that does cast doubt on the assertion (or implication) that the disparity can be blamed on midwifery/HB.

        How do you explain France’s higher mortality rate?

      • Becky05

        Actually, the data she posted don’t prove that France has a higher perinatal mortality. It shows that France has higher fetal mortality, but a lower neonatal mortality. The Euro Peristat report says that later term abortions, of which there are a high number, are counted in the fetal mortality rates in France. http://www.europeristat.com/images/doc/EPHR/european-perinatal-health-report.pdf

        I don’t think that bringing up the Netherlands is arguing that they’re bad, though, so much as undermining a common NCB argument, and there are many countries, including the Netherlands, that have homebirth and midwifery led care and better mortality rates than we do. That’s not true.

    • Susan

      The last time I looked this up the WHO stats had US with a lower perinatal mortality than the Netherlands. Since the Netherlands is held up a homebirth Holy Land in so much of the homebirth literature I think it’s very valid to point out that their perinatal mortality rate isn’t that great. Singapore had the best stats. They are probably more “medicalized” than France. It would be foolish not to look at other forces at play in perinatal mortality such as smoking, obesity, advanced maternal age, and access to health care. The Oregon stats were interesting because they teased out intrapartum deaths. And they were terrible for homebirth.

      • christine

        can you pls provide a link to support your claims? because it appears as if the WHO hasn’t recently published anything on perinatal mortality rates. Maybe you’re confusing what you looked up with infant mortality? if so, you may wish to go back and read what Dr T has to say about that.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD

      So far, Christine, you are batting zero. You haven’t identified even one misrepresentation of fact in my post.

    • Kalacirya

      The day a homebirth advocate comes and shows me “real statistics” whatever it is that “real statistics” means (not a technical term, Christine), is the day I cut off all my hair and eat it.

  • http://twitter.com/Crankyasanoldma Crankyasanoldma

    Bless you, Doctor Tetuer.

    It’s about time someone sorted the fact form the fiction in this area. I’ve been an OB-GYN nurse for 20 years and even I have had a hard time processing some of the information available about homebirths.
    Having had a completely normal, full term delivery followed by a completely disastrous case of everything-that-can-go-wrong-did-go-wrong two years later, I have a uniquely personal view of how quickly things can go south. I’m sure that there are appropriate cases and willing participants for home or birth center deliveries, but why do some women fetishize delivery? Delivery, in my view, is the smallest part of parenting.

  • WicketKitty10

    Wait a minute now. Are you insinuating that evolution is real?!

  • J from Chi

    First and foremost, I am appalled at the vitriol being spewed in this comments section. Most of the things that have to do with reproduction are highly personal choices made for highly personal reasons. Can we all at least agree that we wouldn’t want anyone else telling us “You’re stupid.”?

    How about a well-reasoned, rational explanation of your personal choices instead of bashing and berating?

    Second, what I’d like to know from Dr. Amy is: How many totally natural (without any interventions except maybe the prep they do in case you need IV) births have you attended? How many times did you decide in the thousands of babies delivered that the mom/baby were doing just fine and didn’t need any assistance? And finally, without giving exact details (I know you can’t) what about times when the parent’s insist on ‘natural’ and you thought you knew better? I can’t imagine how that conversation takes place.

    Just so you know… Personally- I had one birth with complications (eclampsia) that almost cost me and my son our lives (no c-section though it was in a hospital. We had great nurses.) and with my daughter no complications at all… except that my husband was so panicked he ok’d an epidural for me when I was in the middle of a strong contraction and couldn’t contradict- still laughing over that one.) – J

    • Bombshellrisa

      Dr Amy gave birth “natural” twice. Why does everyone who parachutes in ask that question “How many natural births have you attended? As for “knowing better”, people seek care from an OB precisely because they DO know better how to care for pregnant women and any complications that may arise than a lay person does.

      • Durango

        How many times should a person drive drunk in order to know it’s a bad idea?

    • Guestl

      I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Dr. Amy has attended many more natural births than you have, J. Most obstetricians in the developed world attend many thousands of births over the course of a career.
      I insisted on natural, and guess what, my providers knew better. That was their job. They weren’t OBs, either, but RMs (Canadian midwives). I can tell you how that conversation took place, since you can’t imagine it:
      ME (41+5 weeks pregnant, 100% effaced, 5 cms dilated, still not in active labour, and almost 40 years old): But I don’t understand why you want to induce. Some babies just bake longer, right, and gestation can theoretically last up to 42 weeks. Besides, I’ve passed the BPP and NST with flying colours!
      THEM: *recite SOGC guidelines for induction after 41 weeks, cite data showing an increase in the risk of stillbirth after 39 weeks, particularly amongst older mothers, me with a narrow pelvis, a first-timer carrying a posterior baby estimated at 9.2 lbs, BPP/NST only a snapshot of what’s happening right at that moment and while a bad BPP/NST is unequivocally a poor sign, a good BPP/NST is not always indicative of zero issues* And then they played the dead baby card. Hard.
      I agreed to induction (AROM) and my daughter arrived safely 9 hours later…eight and a half pounds, after 2.5 hours of horrific pushing, skinny, dry skin, long nails, and my placenta showing marked signs of deterioration.
      What would have happened had I insisted on my natural homebirth? Would the outcome have been the same had I insisted on waiting for natural labour to start? I don’t know, and neither did they. Because you can only know if the decisions you made were correct with the benefit of hindsight. And with so much at stake — namely, the lives of a mother and her child — they played it safe.
      Most OBs don’t think they know better — they do know better. Most patients don’t think they know better, but some do, and they don’t.

    • Guestl

      J, another point I fear you’re missing here is that most women giving birth don’t want “natural” birth. The natural birth crowd is a small but extremely vocal minority. Let’s focus on an “unnatural intervention” — epidural anesthesia.
      At the hospital where my daughter was born (Baby Friendly designation, attracts a crunchy crowd) fewer than 30%, of women deliver without epidural anesthesia. For the overwhelming majority of epidural anesthesia is done at the patient’s request (including mine) for pain relief. Their challenge lies in ensuring adequate anesthesia coverage for L&D (I waited over an hour for mine), not in cajoling women into accepting an intervention she doesn’t want.

  • Jamie

    Huzzah!

  • Jamie

    I’d like to try and understand your argument, but cannot when there are no sources present. Dr. you state yourself “Most of what they think they “know” is factually false”, yet provide no evidence of the claims you make with biting immaturity and no scientific proof or evidence to back any of your claims up. Where are your sources? How can you make such broad claims without citing relevant sources, Dr.? The real danger to women is medical professionals such as yourself who try to portray your opinion as fact without trying to educate your patients objectively.

    • I don’t have a creative name

      Keep reading. There is article after article here with reference after reference to various studies and surveys.

    • suchende

      What I find even more troubling is people with no scientific credentials whatsoever citing to a few studies that may or may not be well-designed, may or may not have been replicated, may or may not represent the scientific consensus. CIting to ONE study and pretending it proves your claim is the mark of an amateur.

  • Beyondallelse

    Fantastic truth! The truth of things has been seemingly replaced with delusional ideology and conspiracy theories. Thank you for the truth.