hospital birth. there are too many things that can go wrong with a home birth.
2007-01-30 06:43:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Maddie and Jacobs mom 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
This is a decision which depends on both your feelings and the medical assessment of your pregnancy.
If you are comfortable in your body's ability to give birth (and while having done it once helps a lot, maternal line childbirth history and such also influence many women) then a homebirth can be very comfortable. If you are convinced that something is likely to go wrong suddenly and with no warning, you will feel safer in the hospital.
If you have a low risk pregnancy you are less likely to have the complications the hospital can deal with if you are at home. Standard interventions for "just in case" or to force your labor into the hospital's timetable are sometimes the cause of those problems that the hospital then gets credit for dealing with. And a trained, well equiped midwife can deal with many of the common "problems" that people worry about with birth. If there are particular things you are scared of, ask the midwife you are considering if she has dealt with them before and how it went.
For the person who said that if you would go to the hospital if something went wrong, you might as well just go there - I guess I better prepare dinner in the ER every night, because if I cut myself badly, get a serious burn or slip on the water from the pug's bowl and break something, that's where I'll go.
With a low risk, well monitored preganacy, there is no decrease in safety from a professionally attended home birth. I felt more endangered driving on I-93 at rush hour to have my visits at the birthing center I was using for a backup (in case of high blood pressure, breech presentation or other "last minute" non emergency complications) than I did having a midwife assisted homebirth.
2007-01-30 15:45:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kahuna Burger 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I would say hospital birth as I wanted a home birth and I'm glad i didn't as i had to have an emergency c-section. Hospitals are better equipped if somethings goes wrong like the baby gets stressed coming out or swallows some fluid. It can be the smallest thing but could be the biggest thing at home. I'm not trying to scare you away from home birth but that's my opinion. Good luck what ever you choose.
2007-01-30 15:33:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pinkflower 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
When I had my first child my midwife advised me that, as it was my first, I would be safer in the hospital (we lived 20 mins or so from the nearest hospital) but that there was no need to make any decisions until much nearer the time.
I decided that, as much as childbirth is a wonderful, natural thing it also carries risks not only for the Mother but for the child, and that I would not forgive myself if something happened to my child that could have been prevented or lessened by being in the hospital.
As it happened it wasn't the baby that could have been in trouble but me-with a retained placenta, which meant a high speed trip down the corridor to surgery(had wonderful stiches though), but not an all sirens blazing trip to the hospital.
It's your choice in the end but don't forget it's not just you and your child you're choosing for-how does your husband/partner feel? Where would he rather you were?
Take it all into consideration and DON'T panic about the birth-there's not much a midwife hasn't seen before! That said, if you're in the UK in hospital and they ask if a trainee can monitor you and help etc, say yes. I did with my last two and you get the midwife equivalent of Yoda along with her-very reassuring.
2007-01-31 07:31:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Believe it or not there is no evidence to suggest that a hospital birth is any safer than a home birth. In fact extensive research done in the early 90s as part of the Governments white paper report called "Changing Childbirth" backs this evidence up. There is a theory that a home confinement should be booked for all low risk pregnancies with a change to hospital planned care if problems are detected during the antenatal period (hospitals are for ill people and pregnancy is not an illness). Skilled Midwives have the necerssary knowledge, experience and expertise to care for you during your labour at home. You are monitored closely during labour and there are early (usually minor) warning signs when all is not going well. In hospital a closer eye is kept on you so if they continue to go wrong help is at hand, at home these warning signs mean that you would be transferred to hospital in plenty of time by ambulance.
2007-01-31 01:33:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by dave s 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is not true that you won't be allowed a home birth if this is your first baby. NHS policy is all women are entitled to a home birth as long as the pregnancy is uncomplicated.
People will gasp in horror if you tell them you are considering a home birth, but they are just as safe as a hospital birth and no chance of you contracting MRSA!
You will also have more attention at a home birth as you get 2 midwives to yourself, rather than being left alone in a hospital room for hours.
2007-01-31 05:20:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ricecakes 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Whatever you feel more comfortable with. I would go with a hospital birth so if anything goes wrong you will be there, but people give birth at home all the time and their babies are fine. You wont be able to have all the luxury of pain meds and nursing staff at home though.
2007-01-30 14:45:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by MyOpinionMatters 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If this is your first pregnancy you may find that your midwife won't allow a home birth. Also if there are any irregularities with the pregnancy, ie, asthma, high/low blood pressure, high/low birth weight, family history of heart problems, etc, you may find resistance from your midwifery team to support you in your choice of a home birth.
I'm now expecting our 3rd child, my first was a completely natural delivery with no pain relief, my second was extraodinarily painful, lasted 26 hours - I had every possible medication for the pain and almost ended up having an emergency ceasarian.
My advice would be this - ask yourself what you would you do if something did go wrong at home?
If the answer is 'go to hospital' then is it worth taking a risk??
Congratulations and best of luck.
2007-01-30 14:58:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Amanda C 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Whatever you feel comfortable with - Ive had experience of both - my first was in hospital and second at home. I admit I enjoyed my home birth more as I was more relaxed.
You can opt for homebirth and then change your mind at the last minute. However, if you opt for homebirth there is not much pain relief - usually just gas and air and pethidene. With hospital birth, you could have an epidural and obviously if there is a problem, it can be sorted straight away.
2007-01-30 14:52:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Apri 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have to say after two hospital births I would have to opt for a home birth as 'better'. I didn't get the epidural I asked for both times and was left with gas and air (which I could have had at home), I had a complete lack of control and felt bullied by the doctors. I would have preferred a mid-wife in the comfort of my own home (and a birthing pool). If EVER I have another baby I would opt for an elective Cesarean, I had two traumatic deliveries in hospital and I could never do it again. It is just my humble opinion after two crappy experiences.
2007-01-30 14:49:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by Flossie 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
If everything's going well and you're comfortable with it -- home birth. It is _unarguably_ as safe, or safer, than hospital birth.
Re.
"If this is your first pregnancy you may find that your midwife won't allow a home birth. Also if there are any irregularities with the pregnancy, ie, asthma, high/low blood pressure, high/low birth weight, family history of heart problems, etc, you may find resistance from your midwifery team to support you in your choice of a home birth."
Just FYI: I'm an asthmatic pregnant with my first, and this is not my experience. Well-controlled asthma and first pregnancies are not risk factors.
The "ooh, hospital in case something goes wrong" crowd are overlooking the incredible amount of stuff that can and does go wrong _in hospitals_, the fact that midwives can handle minor emergencies, the fact of ambulances...
Hospital guidelines for "emergency" c-sections are to do it within a half hour of it being deemed necessary. Do you live near ambulances? There you go.
I have no desire to be poked and prodded by numerous strangers, eat other people's bad food (or, worse, be told not to eat), to try to rest in an uncomfortable bed in a lousy environment, to have childbirth treated like a medical emergency, to increase my risk of a c-section, to be saddled with unnecessary interventions, be on my back at any point...
Go to youtube.com and search for "monty python miracle of birth." Look -- it's the machine that goes PING!
"...at no time has the routine or frequent use of obstetric interventions improved newborn outcomes..."
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/childbirth-went-industrial.html
This book:
http://www.hencigoer.com/betterbirth/
is well worth reading if you're trying to decide. It isn't anti-hospital.
I had a very good laugh at "if we were meant to have babies at home, we wouldn't have a maternity ward!"
If we were meant to have...we wouldn't have... Oooh! Flawless logic! Sigh...
2007-01-30 16:51:55
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋