So, The Lancet publishes a paper which shows that home births have a three times greater risk of death of the baby.
Then we get obstetrician saying that perhaps a quarter of births are suitable for home births. Midwives point to Holland where the mortality rate is very low which has one third of births at home.
However, the argument from the midwives does really seem to be in ideological terms.
She said midwives now \”feel there is a concerted and calculated global attack and backlash against home birth which is being unfairly pilloried by some sectors of the global medical maternity establishment.
\”There is a danger that risk during childbirth is presented in a way which is leading women to believe that hospital birth equals a safe birth. It does not. There is no hard and fast guarantee that a woman will have a safer birth in a hospital than at home\”.
There are concerns globally that midwives, who have long campaigned for mother-friendly births, have lost ground in recent years. Hannah Dahlen, the president of the Australian College of Midwives, backed her counterpart in Britain saying that \”intense medical lobbying and strategically released journal articles\” had put the profession in Australia \”in the hands of the medical profession\”.
Warwick said there has been a trend for some doctors to cast birth as a \”medical problem and not a natural process\”.
OK, maybe it\’s ideology and maybe it\’s a power struggle but do note that the one set of numbers they don\’t argue against, don\’t even attempt to show to be wrong is….whether or not a home birth carries a higher risk of death of the baby.
Or am I just being excessively male with my insistence upon facts rather than how people feel?