I was shocked to read that the AMA is now backing ACOG in fighting home births
I was shocked to read on this blog that the AMA is now backing ACOG in fighting home births. The ACOG statement on home births (2/6/2008) offers a thinly veiled attack on Lake and Epstein’s film BOBB when it notes, “childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what’s fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause celebre.”
As if women choosing home births were only doing it cause its trendy.
Actually it is because home births are now as safe or safer than hospital births, as a recent study by Johnson and Daviss (British Medical Journal (18 June 2005) showed. Johnson, who is an epidemiologist and Daviss showed that home births had comparable rates of neonatal and perinatal mortality (1.7/1000 births) as low-risk hospital births but far far lower rates of intervention.
ACOG might also have noted that women and their providers should not be making childbirth decisions for convenience—as obstetricians often do when they practice ‘daylight obstetrics’ and schedule inductions, augmentations, and cesareans according to their convenience, not the safety of mother or child.
ACOG might have noted that childbirth decisions should not be influenced by economic or legal factors, as is the case in most US hospitals where over 90% of all births use Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM). While 20 years of research have shown that EFM provides no significant benefit to the mother or neonate over more traditional intermittent auscultation, it does lead to increased cesareans, which are now over 30% in the US. The epidemic of EFM use in American labor and delivery rooms is largely due to economics (machines are cheaper than nurses) and legal factors (malpractice suits require the tape that the EFM machines produce although studies show that results are highly subjective and two doctors may draw opposing inferences from the same tape).
Maybe ACOG needs to recognize the patterns underlying its own paranoia of home births—-that currently account for 1% of all births in the US and a fraction of the multi-billion dollar business of American obstetrics.
Kim Gutschow
http://breechmama.blogspot.com
Kim Gutschow says:
Thanks for putting up my post but can you please add my website and last name in tthe post?
givebirthathome says:
We really need a coordinated, organized, multi-state education response ala MoveON to educate our legislators to support homebirth options. With national health care on the horizon, we really need to get serious about protecting our birth options.
Even more broadly, at this time, all health freedom options are endangered by free trade treaties such as CAFTA and the GATT, and their language concerning harmonization of health regulation. Canadians are fighting anti natural health product legislation right now see stopc51 dot com.
I also believe respect for the right of people to make their own health decisions dictates that we support unassisted homebirth as well as midwife-assisted birth.
Personally I intend to boycott AMA physicians(most don’t belong, and the AAPS is an alternative medical society) and ACOG members for non-emergency care, until I feel the actions of these organizations cease to pose a threat to women and children.