Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
4 times as likely amongst low risk pregnancies...its the same population but keep beating that drum. A spa like boutique? Lulz.
I believe the C-section rate may be lower.
But if the infant death rate is double then it seems some of those
decisions to not do a C-Section were putting the baby at risk.
Good summary of studies with pertinent facts. There is a big difference in mortality rates between birthing centers with quick access to hospitals and those without. I agree with you that having a baby in the boondocks with no access to medical care should the very unusual happen would be irresponsible. I don't think people on this thread are advocating that.
The "spa like" experience is just getting parroted by people who have zero idea what they are talking about. The type of people who would go after a "spa like experience" aren't the same population willing to pop a baby out without pain meds. People go to birthing centers because they don't like the sterile, impersonal, drug filled, non-natural status quo. They like being able to immediately hold their baby, give birth in a natural position, have a water birth etc. It certainly isn't to sip iced tea and put cucumbers on their eyes.
"Out of every 1,000 babies whose mothers planned to deliver at home or at a birthing center, 3.9 died just before, during or in the month after labor, the study found. In comparison, 1.8 out of every 1,000 babies died when the births were planned for a hospital, the study found."
We're talking about a difference of not even one percentage point. I have a feeling that's well under any margin of error that this "study" may have.
Good summary of studies with pertinent facts. There is a big difference in mortality rates between birthing centers with quick access to hospitals and those without. I agree with you that having a baby in the boondocks with no access to medical care should the very unusual happen would be irresponsible. I don't think people on this thread are advocating that.
The "spa like" experience is just getting parroted by people who have zero idea what they are talking about. The type of people who would go after a "spa like experience" aren't the same population willing to pop a baby out without pain meds. People go to birthing centers because they don't like the sterile, impersonal, drug filled, non-natural status quo. They like being able to immediately hold their baby, give birth in a natural position, have a water birth etc. It certainly isn't to sip iced tea and put cucumbers on their eyes.
This is not exactly from an impartial source. Just need to point that out. My doctor supported non-drug births in the hospital setting, and I was able to hold each of my babies right away, for a significant period of time, in kangaroo care, after each one was born in a hospital (but they were each healthy and didn't need medical attention).
Also, again, I think midwives can be great and might even be sorely needed in some situations. Nothing against safe birthing centers (except the clearly deceitful marketing messages that many of them send). But what I don't get, sincerely, is the choice to be in a place in which you are required to transport the woman or child, depending on who is in distress, to a different location if something is going wrong. Even if it's only a 5 percent chance. Or a 1 percent chance. It's not as straightforward as going down the hallway, or having an expert paged to immediately come to your room from a different place in the same building. Your own life and the life of your baby are, basically, everything. It's all that matters, period. I want to take no risks at all on my part with my decisions as someone who is not a trained OB physician, even if it's not as "personal" an experience. And I question the ability of a place like Baby + Co, based on their location, their history at this point, and their questionable marketing messages, to provide the level of safety that I can get elsewhere. Thus the skepticism.
This is not exactly from an impartial source. Just need to point that out. My doctor supported non-drug births in the hospital setting, and I was able to hold each of my babies right away, for a significant period of time, in kangaroo care, after each one was born in a hospital (but they were each healthy and didn't need medical attention).
Also, again, I think midwives can be great and might even be sorely needed in some situations. Nothing against safe birthing centers (except the clearly deceitful marketing messages that many of them send). But what I don't get, sincerely, is the choice to be in a place in which you are required to transport the woman or child, depending on who is in distress, to a different location if something is going wrong. Even if it's only a 5 percent chance. Or a 1 percent chance. It's not as straightforward as going down the hallway, or having an expert paged to immediately come to your room from a different place in the same building. Your own life and the life of your baby are, basically, everything. It's all that matters, period. I want to take no risks at all on my part with my decisions as someone who is not a trained OB physician, even if it's not as "personal" an experience. And I question the ability of a place like Baby + Co, based on their location, their history at this point, and their questionable marketing messages, to provide the level of safety that I can get elsewhere. Thus the skepticism.
Agree.
It's one of those areas that I would err on the side of caution.
Statistics is what matters with issues like this. Hypothetically if you knew the
infant death rate is double at a birthing center as opposed to a hospital would you deliver there??
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly237
The studies I am finding say that risk of death to the baby is two times higher if delivered in a birthing center.
"Out of every 1,000 babies whose mothers planned to deliver at home or at a birthing center, 3.9 died just before, during or in the month after labor, the study found. In comparison, 1.8 out of every 1,000 babies died when the births were planned for a hospital, the study found."
Kelly, can you cite your source for that quote?
I refer you back to my earlier post with all the links. Statistically, outcomes for mothers and babies are improved under midwifery care.
Now a groundbreaking study, the first systematic look at what midwives can and can’t do in the states where they practice, offers new evidence that empowering them could significantly boost maternal and infant health. The five-year effort by researchers in Canada and the U.S., published Wednesday, found that states that have done the most to integrate midwives into their health care systems, including Washington, New Mexico and Oregon, have some of the best outcomes for mothers and babies. Conversely, states with some of the most restrictive midwife laws and practices — including Alabama, Ohio and Mississippi — tend to do significantly worse on key indicators of maternal and neonatal well-being.
“We have been able to establish that midwifery care is strongly associated with lower interventions, cost-effectiveness and improved outcomes,” said lead researcher Saraswathi Vedam, an associate professor of midwifery who heads the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia.
So how does this infant mortality rate compare to hospitals in the area? Is that also publicly available?
If it wasn't higher, percentage wise, I suspect they'd still be in operation.
They don't deliver THAT many babies, so would think it behooves them to get to the bottom of this.
They have centers in other areas that do not have issues such as this, so it's smart of them to look into it and see what they can do to ensure safety.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I came across this forum and wanted to add my 2 cents to it. My child was one of those that passed after being born at Baby & Co recently, my wife & I chose it for a variety of reasons, but mostly wanting a more comfortable experience without medication or being forced to be bed ridden. Our experience from signing up, the free birthing and parenting classes, and the initial parts of labor were amazing. The staff always remembered you and made you feel welcome, and even after, they stayed in touch to see how both my wife & I were doing, you could tell that the experience had a huge impact on them and were quite shaken. We do not believe that the cause of our childs death was caused by the facility's negligence in care or fail safes. While this has been an especially grueling several months and my wife & I continue to work through the pain & anger, I have never one felt any hint of anger at the facility. Our baby had a rare instance where there wasn't enough oxygen getting to the brain, nothing the birthing center did could've caused or prevented it. When it was clear something was wrong, there was an entire team in the room, an ambulance was there in minutes treating, and we were in the ER at Wake Med quickly, and from there, quickly transferred to Duke Childrens.
Last edited by raleighbeer; 03-26-2018 at 11:03 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
