Whoa, and I thought The Lancet was a pretty unbiased journal...
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61165-8/fulltext
The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9738, Page 303, 31 July 2010
The increased demand to give birth outside hospital has increased the rate of home delivery. In the Netherlands, a third of women now have home births. In the UK, 3% of total births occur at home, while in the USA home delivery accounts for 1% of births or 25 000 deliveries per year.
Home birth rates have been increasing in the USA partly because of the increasing proportion of births by caesarean delivery (currently contributing a third of all births, with nine out of ten women who have a caesarean going on to have repeated caesareans). This is because doctors and hospitals opt not to do a vaginal birth after a caesarean to avoid liability lawsuits. This July, however, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a new caesarean guideline specifically aimed at putting more emphasis on respecting women's wishes to have a vaginal birth after one or two previous caesarean sections, or when expecting twins.
Although home birth seems to be safe for low-risk mothers and, when compared with hospital delivery, is associated with a shorter recovery time and fewer lacerations, post-partum haemorrhages, retained placentae and infections, the evidence is contradictory for outcomes of newborn babies delivered at home. These data come from small observational studies that are subject to confounding. Data also frequently include misclassified cases, since studies usually look at newborn outcomes in relation to the actual rather than planned delivery location. The problem arises when planned home births become hospital births when complications arise, and this can then lead to an underestimation of the risk and overestimation of the benefit of home births. Data from the Netherlands, for example, suggest that up to 40% of nulliparous women who start labour at home are transferred to the hospital. Most studies also rely on different midwifery models for home delivery, which are not generalisable.
Professional organisations, perhaps unsurprisingly, have issued contradictory policy statements regarding home deliveries. The Department of Health of South Australia has a detailed policy for home birth among women with low-risk, singleton term pregnancies, while the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives jointly support home birth in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. By contrast, ACOG does not support home birth, citing safety concerns and the lack of rigorous scientific evidence. Choosing to deliver a baby at home, states ACOG, is to show preference for the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.
A recent meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology provides the strongest evidence so far that home birth can, after all, be harmful to newborn babies. The research incorporated 12 studies and 500 000 births from several industrialised nations (USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland). The data show that planned home births to healthy and low-risk mothers compared with planned hospital births in the same group of women doubled the risk of neonatal deaths (0·2% vs 0·09%). And when infants with congenital defects were excluded, the risk of neonatal mortality tripled. The main attributable factors for the increase in mortality were the occurrence of breathing difficulties and failed attempts at resuscitation-two factors associated with poor midwife training and a lack of access to hospital equipment. In the USA, for example, only a third of home births are accompanied by a certified midwife.
Women have the right to choose how and where to give birth, but they do not have the right to put their baby at risk. There are competing interests that need to be weighed carefully. Hospital delivery should be the preferred method of delivery for high-risk pregnancies, even though it is not without risks-a recent study from Scotland showed that rates of neonatal death are higher in hospitals when births occur outside normal working hours. Home delivery is an option for mothers with uncomplicated pregnancies, provided they are advised of the risks involved, have one-to-one midwife care (that includes good resuscitation skills and accreditation by a local regulatory body), and live in a location that allows quick access to obstetric care. The ongoing multiyear cohort study, Birthplace in England Research Programme, aims to compare birth outcomes in different settings, and the results are expected to provide additional valuable data later this year.
Some particularly inflammatory snippets (emphasis mine):
"Choosing to deliver a baby at home, states ACOG, is to show preference for the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby."
Women have the right to choose how and where to give birth, but they do not have the right to put their baby at risk.
http://www.fertilefeminism.com/pregnancy-and-birth/risk-vs-rights-the-home-birth-debate/
The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9738, Page 303, 31 July 2010
The increased demand to give birth outside hospital has increased the rate of home delivery. In the Netherlands, a third of women now have home births. In the UK, 3% of total births occur at home, while in the USA home delivery accounts for 1% of births or 25 000 deliveries per year.
Home birth rates have been increasing in the USA partly because of the increasing proportion of births by caesarean delivery (currently contributing a third of all births, with nine out of ten women who have a caesarean going on to have repeated caesareans). This is because doctors and hospitals opt not to do a vaginal birth after a caesarean to avoid liability lawsuits. This July, however, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a new caesarean guideline specifically aimed at putting more emphasis on respecting women's wishes to have a vaginal birth after one or two previous caesarean sections, or when expecting twins.
Although home birth seems to be safe for low-risk mothers and, when compared with hospital delivery, is associated with a shorter recovery time and fewer lacerations, post-partum haemorrhages, retained placentae and infections, the evidence is contradictory for outcomes of newborn babies delivered at home. These data come from small observational studies that are subject to confounding. Data also frequently include misclassified cases, since studies usually look at newborn outcomes in relation to the actual rather than planned delivery location. The problem arises when planned home births become hospital births when complications arise, and this can then lead to an underestimation of the risk and overestimation of the benefit of home births. Data from the Netherlands, for example, suggest that up to 40% of nulliparous women who start labour at home are transferred to the hospital. Most studies also rely on different midwifery models for home delivery, which are not generalisable.
Professional organisations, perhaps unsurprisingly, have issued contradictory policy statements regarding home deliveries. The Department of Health of South Australia has a detailed policy for home birth among women with low-risk, singleton term pregnancies, while the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives jointly support home birth in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. By contrast, ACOG does not support home birth, citing safety concerns and the lack of rigorous scientific evidence. Choosing to deliver a baby at home, states ACOG, is to show preference for the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.
A recent meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology provides the strongest evidence so far that home birth can, after all, be harmful to newborn babies. The research incorporated 12 studies and 500 000 births from several industrialised nations (USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland). The data show that planned home births to healthy and low-risk mothers compared with planned hospital births in the same group of women doubled the risk of neonatal deaths (0·2% vs 0·09%). And when infants with congenital defects were excluded, the risk of neonatal mortality tripled. The main attributable factors for the increase in mortality were the occurrence of breathing difficulties and failed attempts at resuscitation-two factors associated with poor midwife training and a lack of access to hospital equipment. In the USA, for example, only a third of home births are accompanied by a certified midwife.
Women have the right to choose how and where to give birth, but they do not have the right to put their baby at risk. There are competing interests that need to be weighed carefully. Hospital delivery should be the preferred method of delivery for high-risk pregnancies, even though it is not without risks-a recent study from Scotland showed that rates of neonatal death are higher in hospitals when births occur outside normal working hours. Home delivery is an option for mothers with uncomplicated pregnancies, provided they are advised of the risks involved, have one-to-one midwife care (that includes good resuscitation skills and accreditation by a local regulatory body), and live in a location that allows quick access to obstetric care. The ongoing multiyear cohort study, Birthplace in England Research Programme, aims to compare birth outcomes in different settings, and the results are expected to provide additional valuable data later this year.
Some particularly inflammatory snippets (emphasis mine):
"Choosing to deliver a baby at home, states ACOG, is to show preference for the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby."
Women have the right to choose how and where to give birth, but they do not have the right to put their baby at risk.
http://www.fertilefeminism.com/pregnancy-and-birth/risk-vs-rights-the-home-birth-debate/