business of being born

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

oreosandsake

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,141
well, I did do a search on this topic (see link below) but the contributors seemed to really stray away from constructive dialogue...
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=509381

I'm curious as to how ob residents/attendings felt about this movie.

my sister is about to give birth, and a little confused after hearing about the movie.

I really have no idea what to say to her.

help?

and please, I'm trying to get objective advice.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Hello, I'm re-pasting my reply from the other thread, but adding some more comments. It's easy to be confused about the birthing system in America. I think what the "Business of Being Born," movie showed is true - absolutely true. But the things is, would your sister be resentful if she had a home birth with less than ideal outcomes? I know that if I was giving birth, I'd accept the risks of trying to birth at home because the risk of me or my baby dying in the hospital aren't any less (assuming I have an average pregnancy).

WHO sets the ideal C-section rate for a country at 10-15%. What WHO did is basically compare C-sections rates of major hospitals in all countries and find that countries with C-section rates lower than 10% have high maternal mortality rates, and those with higher than 15% also see rising maternal mortality rates. So the ideal is 10-15%. You might not trust the WHO, but CDC confirmed that statistical analysis and concluded the US C-section rate should be 20%.

I used to be a skeptic of the whole "natural birth movement," until I did college senior thesis on it - changed my life. By shadowing OB/GYNs I've realized that just as the critics say, the doctors induce birth with pitocin without medical reasons, use the EFM knowing its readings are wrong majority of the time, put the woman in the lithotomy position even knowing it's the worst for birthing, offer epidurals without informing the woman of risks, and use episiotomies+forceps to speed the delivery without medical cause - though I think female OBs do it somewhat less. Supporting natural birth does not mean not providing medical care, it means trusting the woman's body through labor, unless something seems to be going wrong. As for the argument that the baby might die in a home birth, well babies die in hospitals too. All studies comparing home births and alternative center births with hospital births have concluded that these births are just as safe, if not safer, because the woman experiences less morbidity. I know the whole "saving 24 weeker" argument is used when infant mortality rates are compared, but the US has the worst maternal mortality rate among industrialized nations too. It might help to know that most other industrialized nations use midwives to attend the majority of pregnancies. I love this book called "Ina May's Guide to Childbirth," for pregnant and non-pregnant women. It will change the way you think about birth. You can also visit the website call "Childbirth Connection." They have valuable information and research data.

If you think "The Business of Being Born," the midwife/doula/natural birth is bull****, as some OB/GYNs I've met do, you could try reading Dr. Marsden Wagner's books (one is called "Born in the USA"). He is a perinatologist who backs up all his criticism with research data, which is more than what any supporter of the "litigation crisis, unhealthy moms... home births are dangerous" theory can claim.
 
Dear Scorpia,

While we all respect and welcome opinions on this forum, let me caution you to refrain from using generalized comments such as "all" and "always."

As an obstetrician, and one who respect the field of midwifery as well as the natural birth experience, I take offense to individuals who make blanket statements about the field of obstetrics based on their individual experience or biases.

To address some of your comments:
1. Not ALL doctors induce labor with Pitocin without medical reason. Although, as in all fields there are some that practice substandard medicine, the majority of us do not.

2. EFM is a tool incorporated into obstetrical practice without evidence proving its worth; however this is not because "its readings are wrong" but rather due to our inability to correlate its patterns fully with fetal outcomes. This is a subject of great debate in the OB community, however in our litigenous times and sticking with community standards, you won't find many people not utilizing it in the intrapartum setting.

3. Lithotomy position may not be the best for a woman, especially with the weight of the uterus on the large vessels of the abdomen, but keep in mind that many patients these days ask for epidurals and have physical limitations with respect to other positions.

4. "Offer epidurals without informing the woman of its risks" The information is provided by an obstetrician (in an ideal setting), and followed by a more detailed discussion from the anesthesiologist. Can you elaborate on the negative aspects of epidurals so that we can open it to discussion? In case you are interested, there are trials you can refer to with respect to the effects of epidural anesthesia on the outcomes/duration of labor. Secondly, be mindful of the patient's rights to adequate pain relief despite the provider's personal beliefs and biases.

5. "Use of episiotomies and forceps without medical reasons to speed up deliveries" You do realize routine episiotomies are not standard practice? The operative vaginal delivery issue (whether it be forceps vs. vacuums) is provider dependent and multifactorial, so I'll let that be.

Lastly, examine the research methodology on the papers addressing neonatal and maternal morbidity/mortality in stand alone birth centers vs. hospitals. Correct me if I am wrong, but was the data on birth centers not collected on a voluntary survey sent to the centers?

Nonetheless, thank you for your participation. I look forward to your reply!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Global Disrobal, thank you for a thoughtful response! I was kind of thinking a lot of those things but didn't feel I could state thim with my limited experience. I'm glad that someone who has gone through an OB residency sees things like that!
 
my sister is about to give birth, and a little confused after hearing about the movie.

I really have no idea what to say to her.

help?

and please, I'm trying to get objective advice.

Obviously, this is a big topic - one that is almost impossible to discuss objectively on an internet forum.

As for what your sister should do....I would really encourage her to do her research. Talk to as many people as she can. Hopefully, she's lucky enough to live in a big city where she will have "unusual" options. For instance, I know that Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia not only has a traditional labor and delivery suite, but it also has a "birthing center," where people can try alternative methods.

She should also have a serious, heart-to-heart discussion with her OB/gyn. If she wants a home birth....that's up to her. But she needs to make sure that she's sufficiently low-risk enough to try that.
 
This article has been used by advocates of home birth to support the claim that planned out-of-hospital birth by low-risk women, attended by a trained provider, is just as safe as hospital birth. From what I can see, the study was designed well. I would be interested in hearing others opinions.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/330/7505/1416
 
Thank you for the link Ashbrant. Here is the methodology from the manuscript. I'll post my comments below.
Methods
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

The competency based process of the North American Registry of Midwives provides a certified professional midwife credential, primarily for direct entry midwives who attend home births, including those educated through apprenticeship. Our target population was all women who engaged the services of a certified professional midwife in Canada or the United States as their primary caregiver for a birth with an expected date of delivery in 2000. In autumn 1999, the North American Registry of Midwives made participation in the study mandatory for recertification and provided an electronic database of the 534 certified professional midwives whose credentials were current. We contacted 502 of the midwives (94.0%); 32 (6.0%) could not be located through email, telephone, post, or local associations, 82 (15.4%) had stopped independent practice, and 11 (2.1%) had retired. We sent a binder with forms and instructions for the study to the 409 practising midwives who agreed to participate.
Data collection
For each new client, the midwife listed identifying information on the registration log form at the start of care; obtained informed consent, including permission for the client to be contacted for verification of information after care was complete; and filled out a detailed data form on the course of care. Every three months the midwife was required to send a copy of the updated registration log, consent forms for new clients, and completed data forms for women at least six weeks post partum. To confirm that forms had been received for each registered client, we linked the entered data to the registration database. We reviewed the clinical details and circumstances of stillbirths and intrapartum and neonatal deaths and telephoned the midwives for confirmation and clarification. To verify this information we obtained reports from coroners, autopsies, or hospitals on all but four deaths. For these four, we obtained peer reviews.

Validation and satisfaction
We contacted a stratified, random 10% sample, of over 500 mothers, including at least one client for every midwife in the study. The mothers were asked about the date and place of birth, any required hospital care, any problems with care, the health status of themselves and their baby, and 11 questions on level of satisfaction with their midwifery care.

Data analysis
Our analysis focused on personal details of the clients, reasons for leaving care prenatally, the rates and reasons for transfer to hospital during labour and post partum, medical interventions, health and admission to hospital of the newborn or mother from birth up to six weeks post partum, intrapartum and neonatal mortality, and breast feeding. We compared medical intervention rates for the planned home births with data from birth certificates for all 3 360 868 singleton, vertex births at 37 weeks or more gestation in the United States in 2000, as reported by the National Center for Health Statistics,10 which acted as a proxy for a comparable low risk group. We also compared medical intervention rates with the listening to mothers survey,5 a national survey weighted to be representative of the US birthing population aged 18-44. Intrapartum and neonatal death rates were compared with those in other North American studies of at least 500 births that were either planned out of hospital or comparable studies of low risk hospital births.

Results
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

A total of 409 certified professional midwives from across the United States and two Canadian provinces registered 7623 women whose expected date of delivery was in 2000. Eighteen of the 409 midwives (4.4%) and their clients were excluded from the study because they failed to actively participate and had decided not to recertify or left practice. Sixty mothers (0.8%) declined participation. The figure provides an overview of why women left care before labour and their intended place of birth at the start of labour.
Characteristics of the mothers
We focused on the 5418 women who intended to deliver at home at the start of labour. Table 1 compares them with all women who gave birth to singleton, vertex babies of at least 37 weeks or more gestation in the United States in 2000 according to 13 personal and behavioural variables associated with perinatal risk. Women who started birth at home were on average older, of a lower socioeconomic status and higher educational achievement, and less likely to be African-American or Hispanic than women having full gestation, vertex, singleton hospital births in the United States in 2000.

Transfers to hospital
Of the 5418 women, 655 (12.1%) were transferred to hospital intrapartum or post partum. Table 2 describes the transfers according to timing, urgency, and reasons for transfer. Five out of every six women transferred (83.4%) were transferred before delivery, half (51.2%) for failure to progress, pain relief, or exhaustion. After delivery, 1.3% of mothers and 0.7% of newborns were transferred to hospital, most commonly for maternal haemorrhage (0.6% of total births), retained placenta (0.5%), or respiratory problems in the newborn (0.6%). The midwife considered the transfer urgent in 3.4% of intended home births. Transfers were four times as common among primiparous women (25.1%) as among multiparous women (6.3%), but urgent transfers were only twice as common among primparous women (5.1%) as among multiparous women (2.6%).

Medical interventions
Individual rates of medical intervention for home births were consistently less than half those in hospital, whether compared with a relatively low risk group (singleton, vertex, 37 weeks or more gestation) that will have a small percentage of higher risk births or the general population having hospital births (table 3). Compared with the relatively low risk hospital group, intended home births were associated with lower rates of electronic fetal monitoring (9.6% versus 84.3%), episiotomy (2.1% versus 33.0%), caesarean section (3.7% versus 19.0%), and vacuum extraction (0.6% versus 5.5%). The caesarean rate for intended home births was 8.3% among primiparous women and 1.6% among multiparous women.

Outcomes
No maternal deaths occurred. After we excluded four stillborns who died before labour but whose mothers still chose home birth, and three babies with fatal birth defects, five deaths were intrapartum and six occurred during the neonatal period (see box). This was a rate of 2.0 deaths per 1000 intended home births. The intrapartum and neonatal mortality was 1.7 deaths per 1000 low risk intended home births after planned breeches and twins (not considered low risk) were excluded. The results for intrapartum and neonatal mortality are consistent with most North American studies of intended births out of hospital11-24 and low risk hospital births (table 4).

Breech and multiple births at home are controversial among home birth practitioners. Among the 80 planned breeches at home there were two deaths and none among the 13 sets of twins. In the 694 births (12.8%) in which the baby was born under water, there was one intrapartum death (birth at 41 weeks, five days) and one fatal birth defect death.

Apgar scores were reported for 94.5% of babies; 1.3% had Apgar scores below 7 at five minutes. Immediate neonatal complications were reported for 226 newborns (4.2% of intended home births). Half the immediate neonatal complications concerned respiratory problems, and 130 babies (2.4%) were placed in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Health in first six weeks post partum
Health problems in the six weeks post partum were reported for 7% of newborns. Among the 5200 (96%) mothers who returned for the six week postnatal visit, 98.3% of babies and 98.4% of mothers reported good health, with no residual health problems. At six weeks post partum, 95.8% of these women were still breast feeding their babies, 89.7% exclusively.

Outcome validation and client satisfaction
Among the stratified, random 10% sample of women contacted directly by study staff to validate birth outcomes, no new transfers to hospital during or after the birth were reported and no new stillbirths or neonatal deaths were uncovered. Mothers' satisfaction with care was high for all 11 measures, with over 97% reporting that they were extremely or very satisfied. For a subsequent birth, 89.6% said they would choose the same midwife, 9.1% another certified professional midwife, and 1.7% another type of caregiver.
 
This article is definitely one of the largest prospective studies involving the topic of home births.

I think that the authors should have made it descriptive, rather than a comparative study. The reason for this is the incongruent comparison groups. They compare outcomes from a prospective cohort to that of a national birth certificate registry, not accounting for a myriad of confounders. Also, the home birth population tends to be healthy, multiparous, of above average education and means, and self selected. The latter is important since in any good prospective trial, you'd want to have subjects assigned to each arm randomly to account for confounders.

Overall, its a great article to counsel patients with respect to the data on home births and outcomes. However, I would not go as far as comparing to in hospital births since the comparison group in this case (as well as many other studies) was not appropriately picked out.
 
Here are some other articles on the topic which may interest you:

Wiegers, TA, Keirse, MJ, van der, Zee J, Berghs, GA. Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in The Netherlands. BMJ 1996; 313:1309.

Pang, JW, Heffelfinger, JD, Huang, GJ, et al. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989-1996. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:253.

Olsen, O. Meta-analysis of the safety of home birth. Birth 1997; 24:4.

Janssen, PA, Lee, SK, Ryan, EM, Etches, DJ, et al. Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia. CMAJ 2002; 166:315.
 
Also, the home birth population tends to be healthy, multiparous, of above average education and means, and self selected. The latter is important since in any good prospective trial, you'd want to have subjects assigned to each arm randomly to account for confounders.

In my opinion, the differences between the two groups is not as big of a problem as some might believe because no one is suggesting that home birth should become the standard of care for all women, just that it's a safe option for those that choose it.

Thanks for the other articles.
 
yes, i am mindful that i used some generalizations. but i hope i didn't imply that all OBs did things the same way - i think i said the doctors i saw were like that. i should mention that i shadowed doctors in a very conservative place and it might have something to do with how much they patronize their patients.

regarding episiotomies - they aren't supposed to be routine, but there are many hospitals where they are. in 2002, the mayo clinic epis rate was 60%. the Listening to Mothers II survey reported 25%. in my personal experience, i met a female OB who said she only did 2 episiotomies in 500 deliveries, and i shadowed a male OB who, as far as i can estimate did them more than half the time. i agree with what you said about epis being multifactorial - which leads me to the risk of epidurals.

i think the biggest risk of epidurals is the "cascade of interventions." epidurals may slow down labor, which might require pitocin, which might interfere with oxygen delivery to the fetus. epidurals require an IV as caution, and both together restrict movement. as you pointed out, it leads to positions that are inconducive to childbirth. epidurals may cause a fever, which will then require additional measures because it is hard to distinguish from infections.

anyways, i'm not going to argue with you about the medical practice part of it because obviously i'm not there yet. my senior thesis (a social one, not clinical) involved reading childbirth advice books and analyzing how much scientifically up-to-date info they provided (scientific info came from the Cochrane Collaboration's An Effective Guide to Pregnancy and Care). I found the ACOG guide and Mayo Clinic Guide hardly backing some of their claims with clinical data, and generalizing probably more than i do!

so yes, right now my opinions may seem biased but i'm also looking at the data from a very different angle than most (not all) OBs. furthermore, i think my frustrations with the doctors i saw influence my comments.

btw, here's another great resource: the Listening to Mothers II survey by Childbirth Connection. it's only about $12 to get.
 
another point i forgot to add - i am by no means judging women for choosing epidurals for pain relief. women who don't use epidurals look for other methods of pain relief such as massage, counter pressure, movement and water. so pain relief is an integral part of birthing. what i do wonder though is whether women are fully aware of the risk that using an epidural may lead to other interventions that they wouldn't want.

if i may add another related but separate question to this thread - what do you think of the few cases of court ordered cesareans and home birthing women being arrested for child neglect? i read about them in the book Pushed by Jennifer Block, and they're also a topic of activism by National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
 
Top