All right then, Dr. Amy, let's assume that the statistics *are* on your side, and that we are interpreting the difference as "significant".

Think about this then: Numbers never tell the whole story. It's actually unfortunate that homebirth advocates have had to resort to protecting their choice by playing by the medical establishment's rules -- that is, by giving numbers an inordinate amount of importance. I have no doubt that if enough studies were done, it would continue that some would find results that went one way, and some would find results that went another way (although I stand by my assertion that there have been many -- dozens, not "very few" -- of studies supporting the validity of homebirth, and relatively few supporting hospital birth.) But regardless, surely you realize that bias affects the conclusions drawn, no matter what the bias. It is naive to assume that bias exists only on one side and not on the other -- ACOG's glowing and noncritical acceptance of the Pang study is evidence of that. Possible confounding factors: what is the incidence of mortality specifically among religious groups that shun all medical involvement? What is the incidence of mortality due to poverty, lack of access to medical care when needed, and unwanted pregnancies? How is neonatal death defined -- are very ill and (sometimes iatrogenically) damaged babies that are temporarily being kept alive on machines included in hospital stats for "live births"?

Further, statistical "likelihood" within large groups is not necessarily relevant to the individual, as I touched on in my previous post. If 20 out of 100 babies die in a particular type of broadly-defined environment, it does not logically follow that I have a 20% chance of having my baby die in that environment. To be honest, my choice to not give birth in a clinical environment has little to do with statistics -- it has to do with a scientific understanding of the normal physiological process and what will facilitate it or cause it to become dysfunctional, as well as my specific physical and psychological needs as an individual.

If you have an emotional bias, you *will* find statistics to support it. At some point the intelligent, reasonable person has to move beyond that to look at the real issues involved.

"in The Guardian:

"Because freebirth is such a fringe movement there have been no studies on it. However, a report in the magazine New Scientist recently quoted a survey undertaken in a religious community in the state of Indiana, where there were more than 300 unattended births in the 1980s. The neonatal death rate was calculated as 19 per 1,000 live births, compared with seven per 1,000 for the rest of Indiana."

Almost 3 times a greater risk of death for the baby - sounds free of common sense...

Question:

If I'm the father - do I get any say?

And if my partner kills a baby giving free birth against my advise, what are the legal ramification?

Is that manslaughter?"

This is the crucial question anonymous. And it is one that as a promoter of Freebirth, needs to be addressed by the supreme court, sooner than later. Birth can be deadly and dangerous in both hospital and home settings. Mothers can do so much to mitigate a poor outcome. Wether or not they choose to do so is largely left up to the individual woman. Nobody can force any woman to eat healthfully or exercise or educate herself about the birth process. But to say that those of us who are birthing our children alone in the sanctity of our own homes are uneducated idiots and "killing our children" is not the truth either.

First of all I would question the study, simple because it lumped all unassisted births in one group. Planned and unplanned.

But even if those are the true statistics, three times the risk of hospital delivery, one of the issues that must be debated in the courts is WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHERE BABIES ARE BORN? We are at a time in our nations history where a medical police state is kicking in and parents are increasingly being forced to toe the party line in terms of health care for our families. Wether it is being forced by a court order to give birth by c-section or forced to give our kids chemo for cancer, the fact is that parental choice is being overruled by an increasingly out of control medical profession.

I was one of the moms profiled in the Westword article. After three hospital deliveries I decided that I could not give birth in that environment again.

So I told my husband we were doing it at home and alone with baby number four. This almost ruined our marriage.

Paul felt that it put undue and unfair pressure on him as the father to be personally responsible for both me and the baby should anything bad happen.

Yet as the mother who was the one who had to give birth, I felt that he had railroaded me into unsafe birthing situations at the hospital simply because of his father fear. He watched me during those three birth (one was a c-section) try to work with the hospital people to make it go well, and after my VBAC, which was successful, I simply had enough fights in the delivery room. I was frustrated that right at the moment I met my child for the first time my emotional state was "fight or flight" mode rather than ecstatic mother mode.

Laura Shanleys book made so much sense to me. I would challenge anyone reading this to study freebirth. Giving birth to our fifth child at home alone was the most sacred and JOYFUL experience of our marriage. We are very educated about the various statistics being thrown at birthing parents, but still choose to give birth at home alone.

Jenny Hatch

Anonymous,

I loved your birth story! You said:

"The reason my labor took so long was because her foot was up by her face in utero. She was born face first, posterior; a rare presentation (10% or less if I remember correctly). I am positive that had I had a midwife or doctor attending me, I would've ended up with a c-section.

Despite being a wimp when it comes to pain, and having such a complicated birth, I was able to deliver my daughter without any meds or other interference other than an angry OB/Gyn between my legs, whom I almost kicked several times in the face.

Of course the doctor on call was extremely upset with me; I think it was mostly because my daughter was healthy and therefore she had no reason to upbraid me for doing something "unsafe." To this day, I totally regret every showing up at the hospital. If I ever get pregnant again, and want an ultrasound, I'll be sure to go to a clinic or some other place I can pay out-of-pocket."

I personally think the main reason a woman should not get an epidural is, and this is my expert opinion, because she cannot kick her doctor in the head when he/she starts to give them an episiotomy.

Those epidurals paralyze you and make it hard to kick anyone who wants to screw an internal fetal monitor into your childs scalp, break your water, and/or cut your bottom to pieces.

Say, no to epidurals ladies, it will keep you free to kick anyone you want during labor!

Jenny Hatch