My midwife, Rose Marie, assessing Judah after the birth.
Having your baby at home with a registered midwife is just as safe as a conventional hospital birth, a new study says.
In fact, planned home births of this kind may have a lower rate of complications, according to the study published in the Sept. 15 issue of CMAJ.
Even though the study was conducted in Canada, where attitudes toward midwifery are more accepting than in some other countries, the findings may help to calm an ongoing controversy in the United States and elsewhere. (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is opposed to home births.)
Read the rest here.
It's time American Obstetricians and Gynecologists heeded the facts, regardless of lack of profit.
2 comments:
I was telling my sister about your pictures of Judah's arrival. You make it look so perfect, as it should be! You have it right, it is all about profit for so many. I love how you keep things in perspective.
I read that study, too, but what I want to know is how Canadian midwives differ from American midwives in their training. I had a home birth in England, where midwives are medical professionals and have hospital privileges (and it sounds like it's the same in Canada). Though my state requires licensing and registration of midwives, they seem to operate more as a friendly supportive face than a medical personnel.
I'm just trying to work this out; I'm expecting in July and haven't yet decided where to birth. We are at least 30 minutes from a hospital and that worries me a bit.
Post a Comment