Black Sheep:

"I am not going to be any less proud of myself when I give birth vaginally to my twins in a hospital. I won't be any less proud of myself if I have to have a C-section, either."

It may be that you should be MORE proud of yourself if you have a C-section. That's because childbirth always entails an element of risk. The real question in homebirth and "free" birth, is who is going to assume the risk. When a mother opts for a C-section for a reason such as breech, which carries excess risk, she is volunteering to take the risk on herself so that the baby will not have to carry the excess risk. Opting for a C-section is often a selfless decision; in my judgment, that's the essence of mothering.

Homebirth and "free" birth deliberately increase the risk to the baby, in an effort to create a specific kind of personal experience for the mother. In my judgment that's hardly something to be proud of.

BryonyVaughn:

"Vaginal breech deliveries are "dangerous" in the U.S. BECAUSE 1) it's not taught in med schools so docs lack the necessary training, 2) most of the older docs that breech births don't practice evidence based medicine."

As I keep saying, and as homebirth advocates keep demonstrating, they don't know even the most basic facts about childbirth. Moreover, when they don't know, they simply resort to making things up.

Vaginal breech deliveries are dangerous because of the risk of entrapment of the aftercoming head. The neonatal death rate for breech vaginal delivery by experienced personnel is approximately 4 times higher than vaginal delivery from the vertex position.

Of course, doctors practice evidence based medicine. They invented it and midwives (to the extent that they practice safely) simply copy them. Midwives have discovered or invented precisely NOTHING that has lowered either the neonatal or maternal mortality rate. Midwives rarely do research and most homebirth midwives don't understand scientific research.

"I opted for evidence based medicine"

Really? I have yet to see you present any evidence. I can already assure you that there are NO studies that show homebirth to be as safe as hospital birth for comparable risk women, so there is no evidence that supports your point of view. I realize that's not what the homebirth propaganda you have swallowed says, but homebirth propaganda is an amalgam of half truths, mistruths and outright lies.

If you don't know the most basic facts about something as straightforward and non-controversial as breech vaginal delivery, and if you are making completely fabricated claims, why should we believe that you know anything about the safety of homebirth?

"Doctors' COWARDICE, not some candle-incense spiritual experience, is why more and more women are turning to unassisted homebirth."

Yes, doctors are petrified of letting a baby die of a preventable cause. Evidently some mothers are not.

dairy_queen:

"Although these statistics are for homebirths attended by midwives (notably homebirth advocate Ina May Gaskin), I thought I'd put them out there as a comparison to out-of-control national c-section rate at hospitals."

You seem to have missed the most important point. The neonatal death rate at the Farm was extremely HIGH, approximately 10/1000. Any practitioner can have a low C-section rate if willing to let some babies DIE. That's hardly somthing to be proud of.

"As a former nanny who cared for several newborns, and had the opportunity to observe numerous homebirth and hospital-birthed babies, I am alarmed to note something I call "Floppy Baby Syndrome" that only occurs among babies whose mothers were medicated for their delivery."

A former nanny? A nanny? Are you serious? You think that being a nanny makes you an expert on newborns? You've got to be kidding, right?

Moreover, your claims of the personal syndrome that you described are similar to other vicious lies FABRICATED by "natural" childbirth advocates like Michel Odent. Oh, no, it's not enough to merely decide to have unmedicated childbirth (like most of the mothers who have ever existed). There's not enough feeling of superiority in that. It is imperative to make up claims about medication and babies. It's not like this hasn't been studied extensively. There is NO evidence that medication in labor causes anything like what you describe.

Sorry, all the made up claims in the world are not going to divert attention from the facts, and the FACT is that hospital birth is safer for babies than homebirth. If you believe otherwise you'll have to come up with some scientific EVIDENCE. If you evidence is anything like what you cited from the Farm (a low C-section rate at the cost of a high neonatal death rate), I can assure you most people are not going to find that persuasive.

diary_queen:

"US National Natality/National Fetal Mortality Survey"

Yes, that's the national survey including women of all races, all gestational ages (including prematurity) and all pregnancy complications. So the Farm group, which was low risk white women at term had the same neonatal death rate as women of all races, all gestational ages and all possible complications. That's BAD, not good. The correct comparison would be with women of comparable risk, and when the Farm is compared with low risk white women at term, the neonatal death rate is more than DOUBLE.

Here's what the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (a healthcare watchdog in the UK) had to say about the Farm paper in their comprehensive review of the homebirth literature:

"A large cross-sectional study conducted in the US compared outcomes for 1707 planned home births from the Farm midwifery service in rural Tennessee (between 1971 and 1989) with 14033 comparators from the 1980 US National Natality/National Fetal Mortality Survey. The NNS/NFMS is a probability sample of all births in the US in 1980 for which a birth or fetal death certificate was filed... Women who had an out of hospital birth were excluded from the comparator sample. The 2 groups cannot be compared directly and the study should be regarded as a case-series.