British Medical Journal says home births are safer

On the heels of the birth of a new prince, heir to the British throne, it's interesting to reflect that his father William was the first in a long line of royals, to be born in hospital. Even the birth of Will's grandmother (HRH Queen Elizabeth) by C-section occurred in the palace chambers. Also worthy of reflection is the recent study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) announcing the outcomes of 146,752 births. Even for women having their first baby, the home-birth option is still a safer one with 2.3/1000 adverse outcomes for home, compared to 3.1/1000 adverse outcomes for hospital. Admittedly this was a study of births in The Netherlands, which has the highest number of home births in the developed world. 

Would the same findings be translated to other areas? I bet they would, but The Netherlands is blessed with a very large population of midwives who are used to autonomy and the different mindsets of consumers and health professionals where homebirths are not considered an aberration. Even though direct-entry midwifery training has removed the potential for midwives to be trained in a sickness rather than a wellness model of birth, women in countries like Australia and NZ still perceive the hospital as the safe and secure birthing option. While the medical model is not an appropriate one for women whose pregnancy is progressing normally, the vested interests of highly trained obstetricians keep midwives attached firmly to the hospital system and consumers very reluctant to step outside of it. 

BUT all may not be lost ... my elder son, now embarking on his own parenting journey, was recently pleased to confirm to co-attendees at a birthing centre introductory evening, the absolutely normality of birth. He knows what he's talking about, the only one of that large group of prospective parents to have seen a baby (his brother) enter the world, at home, without undue fuss or bother. Let's hope the other parents-to-be were paying attention!

Familiar environment, less birth stress

Latest research from University of Technology, Sydney indicates a connection between the design of rooms where mothers give birth, their stress levels and the potential risk of such stress to newborns. In fact, those UTS researchers have received almost $250 million in Australian Research Council funds to explore how the features of a birthplace including design, objects, materials and colours could influence the outcome of a woman's labour.

Dohhhh, does anybody stop to review and ponder what has gone before? For 30 years I’ve been seeing studies showing that the place in which a woman feels most comfortable is the place where she is most likely to labour efficiently and effectively! Michel Odent and others have written extensively about the adverse effects of adrenaline (potential result of a move to hospital, admission and examination procedures and strange environment and attendants) on the efficiency of a woman’s contractions. Adrenaline directly counteracts the effects of oxytocin which makes the uterus contract, so my question is...  

Why oh why do we need another study? Surely to goodness the money would be better spent providing these wonderful environments - surely we need birth centres not more studies! Anyway, intuition or good old common sense should probably tell you the same thing - if you ever stopped to think about it! But here we go again, trying to prove the benefits of a natural, non-interventionist approach when the non-natural, interventionist approach gets put forward as the gold-standard that must be bettered! Flea wagging the dog I reckon! Anyway if you want a really sympathetic birthing environment, try your home turf - can’t be beaten!