Mothers who planned freebirths that ended in a hospital transfer say they've been "gaslit" or "abandoned" by birth workers and kicked out of group chats meant to support them. The movement is facing increasing criticism for "groupthink" and "extremism".
3/4 of mine were born at home, but with midwife, 5 minutes from a hospital, and she won’t attend if you don’t agree to be transferred if necessary. Hospital birth when my kids were born really was over medicalized - the hospital by me had a C-section rate of over 50%, literally worse than a coin flip, they had you lay on your back, still, with monitors, it was designed to fail.
I think now the hospitals have come around to some of the home birth ideas, if you are low risk you can walk around, give birth in a position that works for you, eat and drink for longer, better chance of natural uncomplicated birth that way.
50% seems like an overstatement, but who cares if the hospital uses c-sections regularly? Much like people’s lower jaws are evolving to be smaller over time and we’re experiencing many health issues related to teeth overcrowding (due to people having processed food and needing to chew hard foods less often) - we’re experiencing changes in childbirth too. Women are having children much later in life in western nations, which causes narrower pelvises, and they’re having heavier babies… Both of which lead to much higher likelihood of natural birth complications, especially when you factor in the obesity epidemic. So yes, c-sections are becoming more common - to ensure the child and mother are safe through the birth.
I care, because C-section is much more dangerous for both mother and child, much harder to recover from major abdominal surgery than vaginal birth, reduces chance of successful breastfeeding, and because, since it wasn’t so high in other places, does imply they were routinely doing something to cause labor to stall. Which they were. And no, no way is 50% reasonable.
My youngest is 18, oldest 30. So this was not recent. They are down to 37% now, which is still out of line with hospital standards.
Caesarian is absolutely not ‘much more dangerous’ for mother and child, cite some evidence. 32% of all births in the US are caesarian, about the same in the UK, and over 50% of those are emergency c-sections after natural childbirth has proven impossible and the doctors have had to step in to save the mother and baby from death or lifelong injury or disability.
“Delivering a baby via cesarean section is generally considered safe, and in some instances is medically necessary and safer than a vaginal birth”
“The data shocked the study’s head author, Darine El-Chaâr, a perinatal researcher at the Ottawa hospital. In the planned vaginal birth group, there was a higher percentage of negative outcomes compared with the MRC [maternal-request, non-emergency c-section] group, driven by serious vaginal tears and babies admitted to intensive care. “I myself am challenged by the data,” she says, underlining that she believes vaginal birth is natural. “I wanted it to be the other way around.””
3/4 of mine were born at home, but with midwife, 5 minutes from a hospital, and she won’t attend if you don’t agree to be transferred if necessary. Hospital birth when my kids were born really was over medicalized - the hospital by me had a C-section rate of over 50%, literally worse than a coin flip, they had you lay on your back, still, with monitors, it was designed to fail.
I think now the hospitals have come around to some of the home birth ideas, if you are low risk you can walk around, give birth in a position that works for you, eat and drink for longer, better chance of natural uncomplicated birth that way.
50% seems like an overstatement, but who cares if the hospital uses c-sections regularly? Much like people’s lower jaws are evolving to be smaller over time and we’re experiencing many health issues related to teeth overcrowding (due to people having processed food and needing to chew hard foods less often) - we’re experiencing changes in childbirth too. Women are having children much later in life in western nations, which causes narrower pelvises, and they’re having heavier babies… Both of which lead to much higher likelihood of natural birth complications, especially when you factor in the obesity epidemic. So yes, c-sections are becoming more common - to ensure the child and mother are safe through the birth.
I care, because C-section is much more dangerous for both mother and child, much harder to recover from major abdominal surgery than vaginal birth, reduces chance of successful breastfeeding, and because, since it wasn’t so high in other places, does imply they were routinely doing something to cause labor to stall. Which they were. And no, no way is 50% reasonable.
My youngest is 18, oldest 30. So this was not recent. They are down to 37% now, which is still out of line with hospital standards.
Caesarian is absolutely not ‘much more dangerous’ for mother and child, cite some evidence. 32% of all births in the US are caesarian, about the same in the UK, and over 50% of those are emergency c-sections after natural childbirth has proven impossible and the doctors have had to step in to save the mother and baby from death or lifelong injury or disability.
“Delivering a baby via cesarean section is generally considered safe, and in some instances is medically necessary and safer than a vaginal birth”
https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/how-many-c-sections-can-you-have
“The data shocked the study’s head author, Darine El-Chaâr, a perinatal researcher at the Ottawa hospital. In the planned vaginal birth group, there was a higher percentage of negative outcomes compared with the MRC [maternal-request, non-emergency c-section] group, driven by serious vaginal tears and babies admitted to intensive care. “I myself am challenged by the data,” she says, underlining that she believes vaginal birth is natural. “I wanted it to be the other way around.””
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/feb/13/caesareans-or-vaginal-births-should-mothers-or-medics-have-the-final-say