"Born in the Wild"- new Lifetime reality show

[Firiel]

I posted this earlier, but it seems it may have been missed.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/06/04/bi ... ity-debate

In these cases, there are doctors on hand and a hospital within a certain distance. These moms and babies are probably pretty close to as safe as they would be during a home-birth in the country.

That doesn't make me feel better about the show because these women are still peddling something dangerous, and they are peddling something dangerous that they are not even willing to commit to themselves-- a wilderness birth without medical intervention, far away from modernity or society.

[paintergurl]

thank you for posting that. I will watch the show differently, with the reality of the risks in mind. Having seen the first show, I don't think that was made explicit. It really seemed authentically dangerous.

And I hope people don't try this at home.

[nelliebelle1197]

So the woman doesn't matter at all? Not even a little bit?

I strongly disagree. I never thought I'd even have one child much less three, so each birth was truly a miracle in my mind. A healthy baby matters and -- for me -- was the most important thing in my birth experiences -- it was more than I'd ever dreamed of having, for god's sake! But a physically and emotionally healthy mom matters, too. The baby is not the only person in the room. The mother is there, too, and she matters.

Instead of telling women they don't matter during their birth experiences (which for many of us, that birth experience is going to be a defining moment in our lives), maybe we could start telling them that birth is unpredictable. That we can make all the birth plans in the world, but nature is still going to have its say. That they are allowed to want whatever it is they want, but that they should also be prepared to have those hopes and dreams dashed. That having a backup plan in place to deal with the disappointment (or even grief, in some cases) of a perhaps negative birth experience is a good idea. That in the end, a physically and emotionally healthy baby and mom are the ultimate goals.

Maybe some compassion is in order.

(And no, I don't think that giving birth in the wild is a safe or healthy choice and is quite capable of leaving both mom and baby damaged or dead -- but instead of damning women opting for UC, I think we need to educate more people about why women matter during birth. Then maybe they'd be less likely to make risky or dangerous choices. Kind of like educating people on why abortion should remain safe and accessible -- so that women are less likely to turn to coat hangers or knitting needles. As for women who prostitute their birth experiences on TV, that's something else entirely and I'm not even going to try to wade into that shitstorm.)

And I did not say women do not matter. I am speaking to specifically planning to do something stupid like Sparkling Lauren and women like these (of course, these women aren't really doing anything since there is likely a doctor off camera range :( ) to enhance their own "birth experience" when it's really the birth, not the experience that matters.

[Toothfairy]

Giving birth in nature if you don't have to is stupid and irresponsible. Even women who have home births generally are less than 30 minutes away from a hospital just in case something goes wrong. This show sounds scripted and stupid.

[Mama Mia]

I haven't watched the show. I hope that at least they aren't presenting this as somehow going back to how things were in the past or a more natural way for human females to give birth. Because it's not. Humans almost invariably, in virtually all times and cultures - choose to give birth with an experienced helper. That experienced helper varies greatly from culture to culture - and people can certainly debate the relative merits of an OB at home vs an untrained but experienced local midwife.

But an unaccompanied childbirth with just the woman -- no, that is not " natural" to our species.

If they aren't promoting it that way, well that's something else entirely. And complicated.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

The people on it last night were particularly stupid. They're in a UT suburb. When the mom was in seriously active labor at home she still wanted to go to their campsite which was not that far away from their home. It's not so "wild." The drive looked miserable. It's pitch black at night, she's in a tent. What is the point of being out there? There's no view in a tent at night. Dad says, "the midwife has never been to the birth site. I hope she makes it because I don't think I should be doing this by myself." Planning skills!

Midwife shows up and of course everything went fine. I know that right after I give birth I like to pack up a campsite and drive home. The whole process seemed so miserable.

[tankgirl]

The thing is that giving birth is risky. And we would be stupid if we forgot that.

Even if you don't give birth alone in the wild but just choose to have a homebirth with a midwife you're increasing the risk of your child dying by a significant factor.

Here are two blog posts by Dr. Tuteur who openly and (with a lot of snark) opposes homebirth:

skepticalob.com/2014/01/homebirth-midwives-reveal-death-rate-450-higher-than-hospital-birth-announce-that-it-shows-homebirth-is-safe.html

skepticalob.com/2013/10/oregon-attempts-to-bury-dead-homebirth-babies-twice.html

Well, and it's increasing the risk for the mother as well, of course:

skepticalob.com/2014/12/she-trusted-birth-and-it-killed-her-now-her-children-will-pay-the-price.html

We need to improve hospital births so that less women feel that they have a better "experience" giving birth outside of hospitals. And we need to raise awareness that they risk their own life and that of their child if they still decide to do so.

(If it is not OK to link to one blog so many times, please delete it!)

But, current studies in several countries prove this wrong. There are several studies that show that homebirths can be as safe or safer for the right mothers. The US system has a lot of flaws, and its maternal death rates are proving that, as they are increasing, infant mortality isn't best in the US either. Changing the system to look more like other countries is a better way to encourage women away from possibly more dangerous choices like UC, but home births aren't the real issue. I think a mother does have a right to make choices with her own body, and she should make educated choices, but the US hospital method, is in no way the best method, no matter what some blogger says. I think we should leave choices to women, based on good medicine.

BTW not against hospital births, or think we should all go run out in the woods to have babies, but wanted to say, that home births have been proven to be a legitimate and safe choice for mothers and babies.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7998417.stm

[ADoyle90815]

But, current studies in several countries prove this wrong. There are several studies that show that homebirths can be as safe or safer for the right mothers. The US system has a lot of flaws, and its maternal death rates are proving that, as they are increasing, infant mortality isn't best in the US either. Changing the system to look more like other countries is a better way to encourage women away from possibly more dangerous choices like UC, but home births aren't the real issue. I think a mother does have a right to make choices with her own body, and she should make educated choices, but the US hospital method, is in no way the best method, no matter what some blogger says. I think we should leave choices to women, based on good medicine.

BTW not against hospital births, or think we should all go run out in the woods to have babies, but wanted to say, that home births have been proven to be a legitimate and safe choice for mothers and babies.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7998417.stm

Most women who have home births are also within 30 minutes of a hospital in case something goes wrong and they need emergency care. I'm not against home births at all as for many women, it's just as safe as a hospital birth, and in some cases, the child doesn't want to wait to be born at the hospital. Even then, it's rare for it to be just the woman as often the father is the one who delivers his baby in the car.

[DGayle]

I'm not sure how popular this view will be, but by the time a woman is full-term, I do think her child is a person, even if it's inside of her still. After all, she could have given birth at 36 weeks. I don't see much of a difference between an early baby who is a week old and full-term baby who is still in the womb. Thus, to me, it's a case of "your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face." I wouldn't necessarily support laws to dictate that because of the precedent it would set, but you bet I'll have opinions.

I'm against abortion at that point for ANY reason (the baby has to come out, no reason to kill first), but am appalled that anyone could think the rights of the unborn baby should mean that the woman loses rights to her body. How fucking terrifying that anyone should think a woman should be subject to what someone else says. That demoted a woman for a person to an object.

[DGayle]

So the woman doesn't matter at all? Not even a little bit?

I strongly disagree. I never thought I'd even have one child much less three, so each birth was truly a miracle in my mind. A healthy baby matters and -- for me -- was the most important thing in my birth experiences -- it was more than I'd ever dreamed of having, for god's sake! But a physically and emotionally healthy mom matters, too. The baby is not the only person in the room. The mother is there, too, and she matters.

Instead of telling women they don't matter during their birth experiences (which for many of us, that birth experience is going to be a defining moment in our lives), maybe we could start telling them that birth is unpredictable. That we can make all the birth plans in the world, but nature is still going to have its say. That they are allowed to want whatever it is they want, but that they should also be prepared to have those hopes and dreams dashed. That having a backup plan in place to deal with the disappointment (or even grief, in some cases) of a perhaps negative birth experience is a good idea. That in the end, a physically and emotionally healthy baby and mom are the ultimate goals.

Maybe some compassion is in order.

(And no, I don't think that giving birth in the wild is a safe or healthy choice and is quite capable of leaving both mom and baby damaged or dead -- but instead of damning women opting for UC, I think we need to educate more people about why women matter during birth. Then maybe they'd be less likely to make risky or dangerous choices. Kind of like educating people on why abortion should remain safe and accessible -- so that women are less likely to turn to coat hangers or knitting needles. As for women who prostitute their birth experiences on TV, that's something else entirely and I'm not even going to try to wade into that shitstorm.)

I get really pissed off when people say that all that matters is a healthy baby. Fuck EVERYONE who thinks the mom doesn't matter. That's a fundy mindset. Women don't matter. We're just vehicles to give birth to the next generation. If we die, so be it as long as the baby is healthy, even if baby and mom both could have been fine.

Babies need their moms. Saying moms don't matter, just the babies, says that the need a baby has for its mother doesn't matter.

[DGayle]

The thing is that giving birth is risky. And we would be stupid if we forgot that.

Even if you don't give birth alone in the wild but just choose to have a homebirth with a midwife you're increasing the risk of your child dying by a significant factor.

Here are two blog posts by Dr. Tuteur who openly and (with a lot of snark) opposes homebirth:

skepticalob.com/2014/01/homebirth-midwives-reveal-death-rate-450-higher-than-hospital-birth-announce-that-it-shows-homebirth-is-safe.html

skepticalob.com/2013/10/oregon-attempts-to-bury-dead-homebirth-babies-twice.html

Well, and it's increasing the risk for the mother as well, of course:

skepticalob.com/2014/12/she-trusted-birth-and-it-killed-her-now-her-children-will-pay-the-price.html

We need to improve hospital births so that less women feel that they have a better "experience" giving birth outside of hospitals. And we need to raise awareness that they risk their own life and that of their child if they still decide to do so.

(If it is not OK to link to one blog so many times, please delete it!)

Amy Tuteur is no longer a doctor, but passes herself off an authority on everything. Why would you bother going through medical school only to let your license lapse? She lets everyone think she's still a licensed doctor when she isn't. She's a hateful, spiteful bitch who attacks everyone who doesn't agree with her that medicalized births are the way to go, even ignoring all the risks that come with hospitals. (Did you know 100,000 people a year die from infections they get while being in a hospital?) She's so overly focused on hunting out moms to criticize every single say that I'm not sure she's mentally balanced. I don't give any weight to anything she says.

[DGayle]

And I did not say women do not matter. I am speaking to specifically planning to do something stupid like Sparkling Lauren and women like these (of course, these women aren't really doing anything since there is likely a doctor off camera range :( ) to enhance their own "birth experience" when it's really the birth, not the experience that matters.

You did say the baby matters, not the woman. And do you really think the birth experience means not caring shit about the baby? The birth experience is the entire thing, regardless of how you give birth, whether with a midwife at home or a planned elective c-section. We all want our birth experiences to be good and positive, and that means with healthy, living babies. Just because a woman doesn't decide to go let a doctor being charge of her decisions since she's too stupid to think for herself doesn't mean that women who are concerned about overall positive experiences don't care about their babies. In case it passed over you, a dead baby isn't a good birth experience. It also isn't a good birth experience to be so traumatized by what happens to you in a hospital against your will that you have a hard time bonding with the baby since you're subconsciously connecting the baby with trauma, and now need therapy to move on.

[Firiel]

I'm against abortion at that point for ANY reason (the baby has to come out, no reason to kill first), but am appalled that anyone could think the rights of the unborn baby should mean that the woman loses rights to her body. How fucking terrifying that anyone should think a woman should be subject to what someone else says. That demoted a woman for a person to an object.

Like I said, I wouldn't support laws about it, but I do think the moral (not legal) right for a child to be born in a safe environment trumps the woman's moral (not legal) right to have a specific (but dangerous) birth experience. And of course women should be subject to what someone else says when another person's safety is at risk. Women (and men) have to respect the health of others by not smoking in restaurants/schools/airplanes. Women (and men) have to not drive drunk to respect the health of others. I'm not saying women should be forced into c-sections or be force-fed medicine or that they should not have home births. I'm saying they owe it to their child to do what is safest for the child (and for themselves), and giving birth in the wilderness, sans medical care, is not the safest way for a child to be born. It's not safe for the mother either. So it's not health of one vs. health of the other. It's health of one vs. idealistic preference of the other.

[Mama Mia]

Like I said, I wouldn't support laws about it, but I do think the moral (not legal) right for a child to be born in a safe environment trumps the woman's moral (not legal) right to have a specific (but dangerous) birth experience. And of course women should be subject to what someone else says when another person's safety is at risk. Women (and men) have to respect the health of others by not smoking in restaurants/schools/airplanes. Women (and men) have to not drive drunk to respect the health of others. I'm not saying women should be forced into c-sections or be force-fed medicine or that they should not have home births. I'm saying they owe it to their child to do what is safest for the child (and for themselves), and giving birth in the wilderness, sans medical care, is not the safest way for a child to be born. It's not safe for the mother either. So it's not health of one vs. health of the other. It's health of one vs. idealistic preference of the other.

I don't have a moral issue with saying that legally the life of a viable child needs to take precedence. BUT I have a huge moral issue with the thought that some third party would get to decide for the mother what the optimal birth situation was and require the child to be delivered in that setting. Suppose the powers-that- be of the moment are all for complete sedation and forceps-- and the mother never wakes from the anesthetic? Or that only non-intervention home birth is acceptable -- but the mother hemorrhages and doesn't have a trained attendant with appropriate medication? Or believe every baby should be induced at the hospital at precisely 40 weeks -- but they miscalculated dates and this baby has underdeveloped lungs? Or they believe a c- section is always wrong and the baby is breech, gets stuck and dies? Or that labor should be induced, epidurals given and a c- section following x numbers of labor -- and that baby is fine following the c- section -- but the next pregnancy results in a placental abruption? There are too many variables. And what's " best" changes constantly across cultures and from woman to woman -- and even from pregnancy to pregnancy.

Birth is a calculated risk no matter how it's undertaken.

I guess the question as a society is at what point is the risk too high? What even ARE the odds of something going tragically wrong with an unattended birth? And how can you prove that a tragedy could have been prevented if appropriate help was available? And how could you possibly prove that something else might not have gone wrong?

It seems, to me, that at some point, society should be able to step in and say that the risk is to high, but I would be very nervous about where that line was. And that it wasn't a slippery slope to dictating birth scenarios for all women.

I'm completely okay with laws saying that you can't legally, purposefully cause the death of a viable fetus ( except in certain very rare and extreme circumstances) . But I am a little worried about laws that regulate how that viable fetus makes its transition from the womb.

[Firiel]

I don't have a moral issue with saying that legally the life of a viable child needs to take precedence. BUT I have a huge moral issue with the thought that some third party would get to decide for the mother what the optimal birth situation was and require the child to be delivered in that setting. Suppose the powers-that- be of the moment are all for complete sedation and forceps-- and the mother never wakes from the anesthetic? Or that only non-intervention home birth is acceptable -- but the mother hemorrhages and doesn't have a trained attendant with appropriate medication? Or believe every baby should be induced at the hospital at precisely 40 weeks -- but they miscalculated dates and this baby has underdeveloped lungs? Or they believe a c- section is always wrong and the baby is breech, gets stuck and dies? Or that labor should be induced, epidurals given and a c- section following x numbers of labor -- and that baby is fine following the c- section -- but the next pregnancy results in a placental abruption? There are too many variables. And what's " best" changes constantly across cultures and from woman to woman -- and even from pregnancy to pregnancy.

Birth is a calculated risk no matter how it's undertaken.

I guess the question as a society is at what point is the risk too high? What even ARE the odds of something going tragically wrong with an unattended birth? And how can you prove that a tragedy could have been prevented if appropriate help was available? And how could you possibly prove that something else might not have gone wrong?

It seems, to me, that at some point, society should be able to step in and say that the risk is to high, but I would be very nervous about where that line was. And that it wasn't a slippery slope to dictating birth scenarios for all women.

I'm completely okay with laws saying that you can't legally, purposefully cause the death of a viable fetus ( except in certain very rare and extreme circumstances) . But I am a little worried about laws that regulate how that viable fetus makes its transition from the womb.

These exact reasons are why I wouldn't support laws about how a woman can give birth, which I've mentioned several times in my posts.

Clearly, Sparkling Lauren was being irresponsible in her birth scenario (or I think it's clear...). Someone choosing a supervised homebirth is probably not being irresponsible (in my opinion). There are a million shades of gray in between. If you are putting a desire for a certain birth experience over the health of your child, I believe you are making an immoral decision. It is hard for an outsider to determine that, but sometimes it's pretty clear (*cough*Lauren*cough*). But we all have opinions on the motivations of plenty of other women... so there's that.

EDIT: I think it's pretty clear that mothers sometimes value their own parenting experiences over their children. In fact, that's a lot of what we snark on with Lori, Lauren, Michelle, etc. They all put some ideal over the well-being of their children. That's not okay when the kids are 9 and you are making them parent their siblings. It's not okay when they are 6 and you don't take them to the doctor for a thorn in their eye. It's not okay when they are 10 months old and you are slapping their wrists for being "defiant." It's not okay when they are 3 months old and you let them cry all night so you can get your sleep. It's not okay when they are being born and there is no medical help in proximity in case of an emergency because you chose to give birth outside during a flood.

[doggie]

ssume that it can also give streangth to you on a certain level.

And my feelings are just telling me that nature is a good place to birth a child.

Now I'm waiting for the shitstorm.

even if you become a display for hikers??

[DGayle]

These exact reasons are why I wouldn't support laws about how a woman can give birth, which I've mentioned several times in my posts.

Clearly, Sparkling Lauren was being irresponsible in her birth scenario (or I think it's clear...). Someone choosing a supervised homebirth is probably not being irresponsible (in my opinion). There are a million shades of gray in between. If you are putting a desire for a certain birth experience over the health of your child, I believe you are making an immoral decision. It is hard for an outsider to determine that, but sometimes it's pretty clear (*cough*Lauren*cough*). But we all have opinions on the motivations of plenty of other women... so there's that.

EDIT: I think it's pretty clear that mothers sometimes value their own parenting experiences over their children. In fact, that's a lot of what we snark on with Lori, Lauren, Michelle, etc. They all put some ideal over the well-being of their children. That's not okay when the kids are 9 and you are making them parent their siblings. It's not okay when they are 6 and you don't take them to the doctor for a thorn in their eye. It's not okay when they are 10 months old and you are slapping their wrists for being "defiant." It's not okay when they are 3 months old and you let them cry all night so you can get your sleep. It's not okay when they are being born and there is no medical help in proximity in case of an emergency because you chose to give birth outside during a flood.

You seem to consider a woman balancing in her own needs as well as her baby's means that she's putting her experience over the baby. How wrong you are. You clearly think that a woman making a decision a doctor or you don't agree with is a woman who is morally wrong. What do you think is the single and only right birth for all woman? If you say there isn't a single right birth, then you have to admit that what's right is going to vary, and might not be what you choose.

Do you know why I did the "risky" thing and had a homebirth with my first? Because the doctor I saw until my 2nd trimester saw me so quickly that he didn't always remember important details, and had a very high c-section rate. Is unneeded surgery really safer than a homebirth with a midwife who's been midwifing longer than that doctor has been doctoring? A lot of people think so since a c-section is "doing everything possible" and the complications are practically non-existent, or so people say. But I didn't want my body sliced open because of a bad doctor, and, get this, I didn't want my unborn baby pumped full of narcotics before she was born. My "dangerous" decision to have my first birth in my bedroom was partly for me AND partly for my baby. I MATTER TOO. We BOTH do. My second was home too since the first was so wonderful.

But how dare I factor in what I want for myself, even when what I wanted for myself included a healthy baby. I just don't think for a second that a smart person can't also care about her own personal well-being. It's not zero-sum, and how fucked up to think that caring about the baby means a woman can't care about herself too.

Very, very, very few women are going to go for births they believe are dangerous. Even our most hardcore fundies will go to male doctors for birth if they have to so that their babies are safe if there's a problem. So get off your high horse thinking you're the morality police and how dare women have "immoral" births when the single thing probably ALL of us, fundies included, want is for our babies to be born healthy AND for the mothers to be okay. No, wait, we've got a commender or 2 here who think that the mother stops mattering when it comes to kids and birth.

[Firiel]

Do you know why I did the "risky" thing and had a homebirth with my first? Because the doctor I saw until my 2nd trimester saw me so quickly that he didn't always remember important details, and had a very high c-section rate. Is unneeded surgery really safer than a homebirth with a midwife who's been midwifing longer than that doctor has been doctoring? A lot of people think so since a c-section is "doing everything possible" and the complications are practically non-existent, or so people say. But I didn't want my body sliced open because of a bad doctor, and, get this, I didn't want my unborn baby pumped full of narcotics before she was born. My "dangerous" decision to have my first birth in my bedroom was partly for me AND partly for my baby. I MATTER TOO. We BOTH do. My second was home too since the first was so wonderful.

Clearly, Sparkling Lauren was being irresponsible in her birth scenario (or I think it's clear...). Someone choosing a supervised homebirth is probably not being irresponsible (in my opinion). There are a million shades of gray in between.

I have absolutely no idea why you think I'm talking about you or anyone else here when I talk about putting a birth experience above the child's health. I specifically said that in my opinion, people doing a supervised homebirth are not being irresponsible. I also suspect you were reasonably close to a hospital just in case it had been needed. I enjoy having discussions like this, but I do not like having conversations where I'm forced to reply to what people are pretending I'm saying instead of what I'm actually saying.

Very, very, very few women are going to go for births they believe are dangerous. Even our most hardcore fundies will go to male doctors for birth if they have to so that their babies are safe if there's a problem. So get off your high horse thinking you're the morality police and how dare women have "immoral" births when the single thing probably ALL of us, fundies included, want is for our babies to be born healthy AND for the mothers to be okay.

Of course very few women are doing things they think are dangerous or things that actually are very dangerous. That's why I didn't make these posts in a thread about homebirth but in a thread about a reality show that is advertised to be about women giving birth in the middle of nowhere with no help on hand because DANGER and NATURE and WILD. My objections to the show have changed (though not really lessened) once I read up on it more and found out it was (like all reality shows) fake and misrepresenting itself.

FWIW, my original post was a response to someone who said no one was allowed to have an opinion about someone else's childbirth which I disagree with. I can and will have an opinion about someone's childbirth choices just like I can and will have an opinion about someone's parenting choices. That doesn't mean I expect people to agree with me. It doesn't mean I'll always be right. It doesn't mean the parents should listen to me. It doesn't even mean I'll tell them my opinion.

Feel free to disagree with me, but please disagree with what I've actually said here instead of telling me that I've said things that I never said or meant.

[Mama Mia]

The more I think about it, the more my thoughts swing all over the place. Darn FJ, making me think while I'm on my first cup of coffee :think:

It's the " unattended" part of these sorts of births that are the sticking point for me. But if you insist on an attendent, it's a fast track to legislating what type of attendent. And then a very quick leap to mandating hospitals and OB's. And I have serious problems with that being considered the safest birth setting for all women and infants. My most dangerous birth the problems were caused by the OB and the hospital -- so yeah, lives were saved because I could have the emergency c- section. But I wouldn't have had the emergency if it wasn't for the Doctor in the first place. If I had been at home, with a midwife, there is no reason to think it wouldn't have been a much better " birth experience" in this case meaning no emergency, no c- section, no lack of oxygen to the baby. In other words -- healthier mom and baby.

But on the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are regulations on all sorts of health related issues. Like seat belts and car seats. Could the state legislate requiring a non- specified attendent -- without continuing to up the ante and continually increase the requirements. Or could they say " attendent means a responsible adult who is a mid-wife or physician" ?

Aren't some kind of births and birth settings currently illegal in some places?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I know I'm in the minority before I even comment, but while this is absolutely not something I'd try, how a woman gives birth is entirely her business. I was a woman who had her choice taken away during childbirth, and it's a demeaning experience in which you feel utterly powerless. I'm always astounded at the number of women (some men, too), who champion a woman's right to choose ... right up until she is ready to deliver. Then it's "Do what the doctor/midwife/nurse/guy on the late show tells you to do. It's best for the baby."

Oh, and ...

http://jezebel.com/you-dont-get-to-have ... ign=buffer

I agree with your point that pro-choice means just that. I believe that the legal rights of mentally competent women to have control over their own bodies is protected, and should not magically disappear just because fetus. I am absolutely opposed to any form of "fetal protection laws".

That said, I would never agree that all decisions are equally sound or safe or responsible. I would defend the right of any woman to make a bad choice, but I'll be honest that some choices really are bad. They are just not my choices to make.

I wouldn't criminalize birthing women, but the government does have a legitimate role to play when it comes to regulating doctors, nurses and midwives. The flip side of midwives being legally permitted (and funded) to do low-risk home births here is that the government has regulations defining what training is required, and what constitutes "low-risk".

[2xx1xy1JD]

The thing is that giving birth is risky. And we would be stupid if we forgot that.

Even if you don't give birth alone in the wild but just choose to have a homebirth with a midwife you're increasing the risk of your child dying by a significant factor.

Here are two blog posts by Dr. Tuteur who openly and (with a lot of snark) opposes homebirth:

skepticalob.com/2014/01/homebirth-midwives-reveal-death-rate-450-higher-than-hospital-birth-announce-that-it-shows-homebirth-is-safe.html

skepticalob.com/2013/10/oregon-attempts-to-bury-dead-homebirth-babies-twice.html

Well, and it's increasing the risk for the mother as well, of course:

skepticalob.com/2014/12/she-trusted-birth-and-it-killed-her-now-her-children-will-pay-the-price.html

We need to improve hospital births so that less women feel that they have a better "experience" giving birth outside of hospitals. And we need to raise awareness that they risk their own life and that of their child if they still decide to do so.

(If it is not OK to link to one blog so many times, please delete it!)

I don't consider Dr. Amy Tuteur to be a reliable source.

Homebirth is not automatically high risk. It largely depends on how it takes place, who attends, what backup exists in case of emergency and how mothers are screened to ensure that they are low-risk.

There was a comprehensive study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that concluded that midwife-attended homebirths in British Columbia, Canada (where it is both legal and highly regulated so that only truly low-risk women qualify and midwives are highly trained and equipped for emergencies) posed no more risk that hospital births for low-risk women.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/181/6-7/377.full

[bluebird]

Just because a woman is in a hospital to give birth does not mean her body belongs to a physician. You hire the physician..he or she does not hire you. If you do not want narcotics or other meds there is no law that states you have to take it, say no. If you do not want a c-section, don't sign the surgical consent forms, etc. If you do not like the services that a physician gives you, move on to a new physician. No one has to put up with doctor crap. When I was having my kids I did not look at the "experience" of labor and delivery. I was simply mindful of what I perceived to be the safest environment for my baby and me and that provided me with emotional comfort. I have nothing against home births for low risk pregnancies. Having one though was not the best choice for my baby or me and I never really entertained the thought. In regards to birthing in the wild...my opinion is that the show is irresponsible beyond belief. Reality t.v. has sunk to a new low. And the practice of doing such..I have a negative reaction towards that also for reasons that have already been posted by others.