Hi Folks.

This is really a follow-on from an earlier thread. "Equipped for Baby".

Well we're much further on and my wife is due, like NOW.

I'm just waiting for THAT phone call, "Dear I think we need to go to maternity.......MOVE" You know in that subtle way only pregnant women in labour contractions can manage.

I've heeded the advice as given in the above mentioned thread, have my wifes bag packed, son's bag (yes our new arrival is a boy <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />) and my own. Which mainly includes things to read, munch and fill in the time, also lots of water.

I'm better prepared this time than I was for the first, but just can't help thinking have I got everything. Possibly just fatherly nerves?

I was glad I had my leatherman - Not kidding. When my daughter was born, one of the pieces of gear in the room wasn't working right, and it was driving the nurse crazy - It was just a loose screw, whipped out the leatherman and fixed it. I was a HERO for the rest of the day. Our nurse, and a bunch of others kept coming in to thank me for fixing it, because it had been driving them nuts for weeks....

I would have a talk with the administrator of that hospital that allowed a loose screw on a piece of equipment to bother nurses for weeks.

Bad karma.

Bountyhunter

My daughter was born at home. Women's bodies know what do do, we've turned birth into a medical emergency when there's no reason at all for it to be that way.

All you need to do is be sure you're there for your wife, and make sure that the baby is given immediately to mom after the birth so they can develop a strong, life-long bond. The first four to six hours are vital.

I can't give any facts or figures without research, but the death rate for mothers and infants at birth has fallen dramatically over the last hundred years due to medical advances. You make childbirth sound like its naturally risk free - it certainly isn't.
I have relatives who have lost children at birth due to complications, whilst giving birth in hospital. To have a healthy child is a blessing not a god given right.
I understand what your saying, but it sounds all wrong to me.

A wise man once said "Speak only from knowledge, not opinions and you'll never risk bing made a fool. "

First of all, my wife is not a risk-taker, and her decision to home birth was based on extensive, long-term research into the facts and figues of home birth. Here are some FACTS - not my opinions, not a theory I have to test, not an idea I want to share - there are cold hard facts.

- Every study that has compared midwives and obstetricians has found better outcomes for midwives for same-risk patients. In some studies, midwives actually served higher risk populations than the physicians and still obtained lower mortalities and morbidities. The superiority and safety of midwifery for most women no longer needs to be proven. It has been well established." (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.30)

- "In the U.S. the national infant mortality rate was 8.9 deaths per 1,000 live births [in 1991]. The worst state was Delaware at 11.8, with the District of Columbia even worse at 21.0. The best state was Vermont, with only 5.8. Vermont also has one of the highest rates of home birth in the country as well as a larger portion of midwife-attended births than most states. " (Stewart, David, International Infant Mortality Rates--U.S. in 22nd Place, NAPSAC News, Fall- Winter, 1993, p.36)

- "The international standing of the U.S. [in terms of infant mortality rates] did not really begin to fall until the mid-1950s. This correlates perfectly with the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) in 1951. ACOG is a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians who has sought to secure a monopoly in pregnancy and childbirth services. Prior to ACOG, the U.S. always ranked in 10th place or better. Since the mid-1950s the U.S. has consistently ranked below 12th place and hasn't been above 16th place since 1975. The relative standing of the U.S. continues to decline even to the present." (Stewart, David, International Infant Mortality Rates--U.S. in 22nd Place, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.38)

- The Texas Department of Health's own statistics show that midwives in Texas have a lower infant mortality rate than physicians. (Texas Lay midwifery Program, Six Year Report, 1983- 1989, Berstein & Bryant, Appendix Vlllf, Texas Department of Health, I 100 West 49th St., Austin, TX 78756-3199.)

- In the state of Oregon from 1975-1979, there were approximately 3-4 neonatal deaths per 1000 births in homebirths attended by midwives, as opposed to approximately 9-10 deaths per 1000 births for all residents. The same figure indicates approximately 5 infant deaths per 1000 births in homebirths attended by midwives, as opposed to approximately 12 deaths per 1000 births for all residents. (Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, 1982, p. 175)

- "In The five European countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, midwives preside at more than 70 percent of all births. More than half of all Dutch babies are born at home with midwives in attendance, and Holland's maternal and infant mortality rates are far lower than in the United States..." ("Midwives Still Hassled by Medical Establishment," Caroline Hall Otis, Utne Reader, Nov./Dec. 1990, pp. 32-34)

- "Of the 3,189 midwife-assisted deliveries studied, episiotomies were done on 5 percent of the women, the Caesarean section rate varied from 2.2 percent to 8.1 percent, and perinatal mortality (the number of babies who die during or shortly after birth) averaged 5.2 per 1,000. Compare these numbers to those for New Mexico obstetricians and physicians during the same period: nearly routine use of episiotomies in many hospitals, a Caesarean rate that varied from 15 percent to 25 percent,and a perinatal mortality rate of 11.3 per 1,000. Looking at these numbers, Rebecca Watson, the maternal-health program manager at the New Mexico Department of Health commented, 'I sometimes wonder why [we bother compiling statistics on midwives], since their statistics are so much better than everyone else's. " (Sharon Bloyd- Peshkin, Midwifery: Off to a Good Start, p. 69, Vegetarian Times, December 1992)

- Records kept from 1969-73 in England and Wales indicate still birth rates of 4.5 per 1000 births for home deliveries as opposed to 14.8 per 1000 births for hospital deliveries. (The place of Birth, Sheila Kitzinger & John Davis, eds., 1978
Oxford University Press, pp. 62-63)

- 'Mothering Magazine has calculated that using midwifery care for 75% of the births in the U.S. would save an estimated $8.5 billion per year." (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p. 15
November 23, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal.)

- "Our research has shown that, for women with low risk pregnancies in the Netherlands, choosing to give birth at home is a safe choice with an outcome that is at least as good as that of planned hospital birth." (Ibid. p.13)

- "During delivery, the home birth group needed significantly less medication and fewer interventions whereas no differences were found in durations of labour, occurrence of severe perineal lesions, and maternal blood loss." ("Home Versus Hospital Deliveries: Follow Up Study of Matched Pairs for Procedures and Outcome", p. 1)

- "The mean Apgar score, five and 10 minute, babies in the planned home delivery group had higher scores.[over planned hospital delivery]" (Ibid. p. 8)

- "The lower rate of interventions in home births meant a lower risk of subsequent complications for the mother." (Ibid.)

If you want more facts, I'll gladly provide them for you in a private message, as this this is onyl tangentally related to the topic of this forum.

All I can say is that the record of facts speak for themselves. For the vast majority of moms, homebirth is safer than a hospital birth, and if you're "high risk" modern health care is going to do right by you, and you should be in a hospital. But MOST moms are not high-risk.

Hi fellow forumites.

I have the great honour to annouce that Mr James Willis, was born Saturday afternoon 15H50, French time (3.320kg 48.5cm). While it was a breach birth that could have turned into a Cisarean at any time, everything went well.

I for one am thankful for the attention given by the staff to both my wife and myself.

Contraction started midnight Friday I only left my wifes side twice throughout the whole 15 hours ordeal. Im glad I had a few munchies stashed to keep us both going. One Item I can highly recommend is an aerosol of water, as after the epideral my wife wasn't allowed water, but with the spray it help keep her cool.

I thank every one that's commented on this thread.

Congratulations.
Tous mes voeux au bébé, félicitations à la maman ... et au papa .....

I agree, Martin. I don't think that a midwife could have done a worse job than my wife's OBGYN during her first delivery. Her water broke on a Wednesday, and the doctor sent her home twice, resulting in an infection that was passed on to my son. My wife had a c-section 48 hours after, and my son spent a week in the neonatal ICU. During her labor, my wife had an array of tubes and monitors hooked to her to monitor her vital signs. So much for modern medicine.