>>>> Dr. A: 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.

As Dr. Amy keeps demonstrating, when confronted with facts and reason, rather than using respond with facts and reason in a civil discussion, revert to ad hominem attacks or state personal opinion as fact.

>>>>> Dr.A: 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.

To read what OBs from around the world say about vaginal breech deliveries READ and PROCESS the fen's ende archives stored here --> http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/breechbr.html.

>>>>> Dr. A: 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.

Another case of one losing an argument reverting seeking comfort in prejudice and slander.

>>>>> Me in a previous post: "I opted for evidence based medicine"

>>>>> Dr. A: 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.

The TRUTH is you refuse to address any evidence NOT presented by you other than to dismiss it out of hand. In my first post I told you where to find references to the controlled studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The only way you can continue to say the evidence doesn't exist is if you LIE or habitually cover you eyes, plug your ears, and shout, "Nahnahnahnahna" each time such evidence is presented.

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

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

I was referring to doctors too cowardly to follow evidence-based medicine when it conflicts with common wisdom and standard operating protocols. The mothers you are maliciously maligning are not.

As it is, Dr. Amy, this is my last post here. You actions show me you are far more interested in having the last, close-minded, prejudicial word than in broadening your viewpoint through discussion. No longer will I cast these pearls before swine. If you believe the last man standing wins, then you are truly a winner, Dr. Amy. You can take comfort in that. :-)

~BV

Dairy Queen:

You can't seriously tell me that high risk pregnancies such as mine should be delivered at home. Perhaps you missed what I said: one of my babies has prematurely ruptured membranes, meaning there is NO AMNIOTIC FLUID around him. That's why I'm in the hospital, have been here for several weeks and will be until I deliver. Not only is it a twin pregnancy, but it is a high risk twin pregnancy.

The real statistics on Ceasarean births for twins: 50% of twins are delivered by C-section. That is hardly slim to none being born vaginally, as you stated! Even in my case, where there are several high risk issues, my perinatalogists are willing to let me try to deliver vaginally. That is because my placental abruption has resolved and preterm rupture of membranes does not necessarily contraindict vaginal delivery. If it turns out I can't for risk reasons, and I will need to give birth by Ceasarean (it is still giving birth, by the way, no matter how you do it) then I accept that. And yes, I will be proud of myself no matter what happens.

I don't know much about floppy baby syndrome, but I do know that my mother gave birth to my younger brother breech in the early 70's, and had to have an epidural. I was an unmedicated birth 3 years earlier. My brother and I (both breastfed) turned out just fine. We were happy, healthy babies and are happy, healthy adults. My brother, who was medicated during birth, is a surgeon and shows no ill effects 30 something years later. Countless other people I know, children and adults, were born in the hospital, birthing centers or at home. All of them are doing just fine.

Oh and I am friends with moms who have given birth all kinds of different ways, so I don't appreciate your smug insinuations. The bottom line is, most of us try to do what is best for our babies. In the end, what is most important is parenting and loving your child!

"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"

That's not quite the case:

"Previous studies of home birth safety underscore the importance of having explicit comparison groups (rather than of being strictly descriptive),1 of considering planned and unplanned home births separately,2-4 of tracking intrapartum hospital transfers of intended home births (and attributing the outcome to the home birth group),5 and of controlling for the effects of birth weight, type of delivery attendant, and demographic characteristics of the mother.6,7 All these issues have been addressed in this study."

"Of the 16,327 births that ultimately constituted the NNS/NFMS, an additional 2294 were deleted from this study to eliminate those that were attended by non- physicians, those who delivered out- of- hospital, those with no prenatal care, and those in which the mother had prenatal risk factors that were used as exclusion criteria at the Farm (Table 1)."

"Stratifying both groups by birth weight or parity, comparing the entire Farm set to the NNS/NFMS subset of births from nonmetropolitan southern US areas or of White mothers only, and breaking the Farm set into groups by year of delivery did not appreciably alter the results (data not shown)."

And your insinuation that white women are automatically low-risk smacks of racism; in addition, it's the supposedly privileged white women who are often the ones going under the knife, probably because they have the "benefit" of being fully covered by health insurance.

"Women of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to have a c-section, 22.9%, compared to 13.2% of women who live in low-income families. C-section rates are highest among non-Hispanic white women (20.6%)."

http://www.answers.com/topic/caesarean-section

So, can you explain to me why the Farm's c-section rate is so absurdly low compared to the national average? Again, the c-section rate difference was 1.4% versus 16%.

How is it that 90% of the Farm women could successfully deliver at home with virtually no problems, since, according to you, birth is inherently unsafe?

You also didn't address the fact that the perinatal death outcome between the two groups was virtually identical:

%Farm Group: 1.00

%NNS/NFMS: 1.33