Should Women Be Allowed To Have Babies At Home? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

should home-births be legal?

1. Yes, home-births should be legal for women.
23
74%
2. No, home-births should not be legal for women.
4
13%
3. Other.
4
13%
#14963061
Rancid wrote:At a university.


Really? So you recommend your patients to have out-of-hospital birth?
OBGyn is one of the specialties in this country with the most litigious targets and there is no way in hell that you would be making such a recommendation when the official ACOG recommendation is actually that hospitals/birthing places are the safest (whether or not the evidence suggest this is irrelevant at this point). You could (and possibly will be) a target of multiple lawsuits during your career if this is indeed an accurate representation of what it is happening.
https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance- ... eSet=false
ABSTRACT: In the United States, approximately 35,000 births (0.9%) per year occur in the home. Approximately one fourth of these births are unplanned or unattended. Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists believes that hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest settings for birth, each woman has the right to make a medically informed decision about delivery. Importantly, women should be informed that several factors are critical to reducing perinatal mortality rates and achieving favorable home birth outcomes. These factors include the appropriate selection of candidates for home birth; the availability of a certified nurse–midwife, certified midwife or midwife whose education and licensure meet International Confederation of Midwives’ Global Standards for Midwifery Education, or physician practicing obstetrics within an integrated and regulated health system; ready access to consultation; and access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals. The Committee on Obstetric Practice considers fetal malpresentation, multiple gestation, or prior cesarean delivery to be an absolute contraindication to planned home birth.


And if that is not enough:
Although still uncommon, the rate of home births has increased during the past several years in the U.S. In a new policy statement, “Planned Home Birth,” in the May 2013 Pediatrics (published online April 29), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) makes recommendations for the care of infants born in a home setting. Regardless of the circumstances of the birth, including location, every newborn infant deserves health care that adheres to AAP standards. The AAP concurs with the recent statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that the safest setting for a child’s birth is a hospital or birthing center, but recognizes that women and their families may desire a home birth for a variety of reasons. Pediatricians should advise parents who are planning a home birth that AAP and ACOG recommend only midwives who are certified by the American Midwifery Certification Board. There should be at least one person present at the delivery whose primary responsibility is the care of the newborn infant and who has the appropriate training, skills and equipment to perform a full resuscitation of the infant. All medical equipment, and the telephone, should be tested before the delivery, and the weather should be monitored. A previous arrangement needs to be made with a medical facility to ensure a safe and timely transport in the event of an emergency. AAP guidelines include warming, a detailed physical exam, monitoring of temperature, heart and respiratory rates, eye prophylaxis, vitamin K administration, hepatitis B immunization, feeding assessment, hyperbilirubinemia screening and other newborn screening tests. If warranted, infants may also require monitoring for group B streptococcal disease and glucose screening. Comprehensive documentation and follow-up with the child’s primary health care provider is essential.


Yes, and before you point out "the sentence ends with "but recognizes that women and their families may desire a home birth..." that does not in any way mean anything. Their recommendation in both cases is that hospitalis/birthing centers are safer, yet, for a healthy person with low risk that knows the risks, the added risk is sufficiently small that they are willing to take the risk.
Last edited by XogGyux on 13 Nov 2018 23:04, edited 1 time in total.
#14963062
@Victoribus Spolia
So basically, still a slippery slope, and the issue here is that the statistics show that any such activities are dangerous, hence, EVER allowing your kids to play (like normal kids I might add) is by nature of the definition, putting your kids at risk.

Your logic is not merely against midwifery, but against parenting in general.

If we were examine risk assessment and parenting, you've basically just created a criteria that would demand we abolish all parenting rights in exchange for state-run day-cares that stifle all risk and meaningful expression.

I'm sure you can file that complaint to the US government or the European parliament.
This is the already existing law.

Not necessarily, because national stats are often too broad and cannot account for important factors that maybe be variable depending on region, income, culture, race, et al.

Not in this discussion, no.
Because then it would relate to common sense more.
Like sure, a government with a better health care system will have lower child mortality rate, but the comparison wont be between countries but between methods within the same country.
In that sense, national averages matter more.

Selective sample sizes are often preferable for doing research into medical procedure; hence why a reputable government agency did such.

Not in the way you're trying to use it. :p

Evidence?

Factoring in the available wealth, living standards, available health care; Norway is on the higher end of infant mortality among its league.
Those are commonly available stats on wikipedia or any similar site.

ppeal to Motive (appeal to bias) is a fallacy, a type of dismissive ad-hominem. Under this same argument I could dismiss all mainstream medical studies involving regular OBGYN physicians because they have a vested economic interest in the failure of the midwifery movement. It cuts both ways.

FAKE NEWS!!!

Besides, the sample size and data collection pool speaks for itself, its legit.

Getting a study by some association called midwifery or something to tell you how good home births and using midwifes is safe and good isn't bias ?

Why not listen to North Korean press how great their country is then ?

Well, as a global trend there is no doubt, because a bunch of HIV infected 14 year old savages in the bush of the Congo birthing inbred babies in Goat stalls under the supervision of witch docters would have ZERO impact on the stats, ama right? :lol:

Actually no. If you factor in the above mentioned criteria and compare it then, it gives a pretty clear correlation.
You wont be comparing the Congo with Denmark is what 'm saying.

This has been disproven. Several times and by several studies.

All the studies you brought up so far, and the ones references by them, and the ones I looked up online to check have the same things in common; Very small sample size, limited, and unspecific.
All the ones against home births use national averages, very large sample sizes, and show clear correlations.


@Finfinder
Do you not think that technology someday will allow a child to live at 2 months ?

When such technology comes to be, then abortion will be obsolete since it'll be a political decision whether to grow the fetuses or not once the mother decides she doesn't want it.

You claimed that people were making a bad decision to home birth because of convenience and money. So why do women abort then and why is that more socially responsible than choosing a home birth?

Because when a woman aborts a pregnancy, its over, no fetus, no baby, nothing. Its done.

When a woman chooses to home birth and something wrong happens, the medical consequences are ever lasting (i.e potential impairments and disabilities) and not on her but on the child.

One concerns one party (legal entity with rights) and the other includes two parties (legal entities with rights)
#14963064
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, those states where home birth is illegal is due to pressure from insurance companies who cannot insre home deliveries.

Thanks, capitalism.

Perhaps. But even when in states where it is legal and/or if it were legal everywhere we live in a very litigious society. Hospitals and individual OBGyn practices might not necessarily want to play nice and might give you pushback for many various reasons.
#14963070
Finfinder wrote:In simple terms pro abortion people seem to not care about a child until its outside the womb so why do you in this case?

Nobody is pro-abortion. AFAIK there is nobody, or possibly just a few creepy idiots that are pro-abortion.
Abortion is simply the "side" effect of what is really happening which is the termination of a pregnancy.
#14963076
Just got some medical bills.
30 minute CT...$10,000
10 minute doctor visit to discuss results...$1,000.
He agreed my avoiding hospitals was good for my health.
Most honest doctors do.
There were just a bunch of babies die from infections in one hospital.
Yeah, don’t go there unless absolutely necessary.
#14963083
One Degree wrote:Just got some medical bills.
30 minute CT...$10,000
10 minute doctor visit to discuss results...$1,000.
He agreed my avoiding hospitals was good for my health.
Most honest doctors do.
There were just a bunch of babies die from infections in one hospital.
Yeah, don’t go there unless absolutely necessary.

Damn, you need to move out! Whatever hospital you going is shanking you dry.
I get it you were being dramatic and that's ok. No hard feelings. I agree with you, hospital costs are insane and healthy people (including babies) should not be in the hospital for any reason.
#14963087
XogGyux wrote:Nobody is pro-abortion. AFAIK there is nobody, or possibly just a few creepy idiots that are pro-abortion.
Abortion is simply the "side" effect of what is really happening which is the termination of a pregnancy.


That is just semantics. What you call a side effect others will say murder. Logically thinking pro choice should go hand in hand with choice of hospital birth or home birth but it doesn't.
#14963089
XogGyux wrote:Damn, you need to move out! Whatever hospital you going is shanking you dry.
I get it you were being dramatic and that's ok. No hard feelings. I agree with you, hospital costs are insane and healthy people (including babies) should not be in the hospital for any reason.


I am not being dramatic. Those are the actual bills for those services. The contrast dye alone was close to a $1,000.
Now, this is not what they got. This is the bill people without insurance have to pay. Medicare or insurance companies get ‘discounts’. Isn’t that a very nice practice? Who couldn’t trust such people?
#14963090
Finfinder wrote:That is just semantics. What you call a side effect others will say murder. Logically thinking pro choice should go hand in hand with choice of hospital birth or home birth but it doesn't.

Actually conceptually it matters. For instance, if I have end-stage renal disease and need a kidney, and you are a perfect match and you have 2 kidneys and only really need one and the surgical risk is (for the same of this argument) for you, the same as for an otherwise healthy woman giving birth (for the record, the risk for donating a kidney is much higher but this is irrelevant as this is just a thought experiment), would you be "murdering" me if you were to deny me a transplant kidney? Not really. Now, suppose you are my father or mother. Would you now be "murdering" me? Not really either right? Might survival, may ultimately depend on your body, in your kindness, and your willingness to sacrifice for me.
The case is similar for a woman and child. Most women don't go to an abortion clinic because they want to kill a fetus/embryo. They just don't want it growing inside them and having to give birth to them.
Im sure in an hypothetical case where embryos could be safely, quickly and painlessly collected from the mother and grown in artificial incubators, most women would not care if you would want to grow them to term, after all, they are not seeking to kill babies but really just avoiding to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Furthermore, the political circus have also made difficult access to anti-conceptive information/medication which would avoid a great number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
#14963096
XogGyux wrote:Actually conceptually it matters. For instance, if I have end-stage renal disease and need a kidney, and you are a perfect match and you have 2 kidneys and only really need one and the surgical risk is (for the same of this argument) for you, the same as for an otherwise healthy woman giving birth (for the record, the risk for donating a kidney is much higher but this is irrelevant as this is just a thought experiment), would you be "murdering" me if you were to deny me a transplant kidney? Not really. Now, suppose you are my father or mother. Would you now be "murdering" me? Not really either right? Might survival, may ultimately depend on your body, in your kindness, and your willingness to sacrifice for me.
.


It may be similar but not applicable because unlike a termed pregnancy the state has no mandate or authority over an organ donation. Your argument falls more in line with what is socially acceptable. Now if the left has their way and gets universal healthcare who knows where that issue can go.

XogGyux wrote:The case is similar for a woman and child. Most women don't go to an abortion clinic because they want to kill a fetus/embryo. They just don't want it growing inside them and having to give birth to them.
Im sure in an hypothetical case where embryos could be safely, quickly and painlessly collected from the mother and grown in artificial incubators, most women would not care if you would want to grow them to term, after all, they are not seeking to kill babies but really just avoiding to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Furthermore, the political circus have also made difficult access to anti-conceptive information/medication which would avoid a great number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.


Again semantics, people will say they are killing something and debate how to define what "the something" is. Many of the same people who dispute that , will argue that people shouldn't be allowed to give birth at home and the state reflects this in legislation. Do we support a woman's choice or not?
#14963100
In Canada, we have home births. And midwives are paid by the public health care program, so it is free for the person giving birth.

Some midwives work with local hospitals and have the ability to have ambulances on standby during home births.

We also allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and the abortion is also paid for through publc health care.
#14963104
Finfinder wrote:It may be similar but not applicable because unlike a termed pregnancy the state has no mandate or authority over an organ donation. Your argument falls more in line with what is socially acceptable. Now if the left has their way and gets universal healthcare who knows where that issue can go.

Actually, I disagree. The argument has nothing to do with what is legal or illegal or what the state can or cannot do. After all, the legality/state mandate can be adjusted to the whim of the society.
Again, this is just a thought experiment and nothing else and there is no practical difference. In both, you have 2 people and one life is dependent on interfering with the freedoms of the other. Actually, the case for the mother and fetus is even weaker because the fetus, arguably, does not have personhood yet (definitely not early in the pregnancy anyway). So the case about pregnancy termination is technically weaker to the case about forced organ donation.

An even more important and strong argument that actually convinces me is the fact that a woman that does not wishes a pregnancy is a cruelty for both the woman AND the CHILD. Being born to a family that do not want you, cannot care for you or might straight up hate you is far worth than killing you at the embryonic stage and I don't care how creepy that might sound (again, I don't believe embryo are people anyway). The number of drug-addicted mothers that keep having babies and abandoning them with their grandparents or even to foster care is terrifying.
#14963105
Pants-of-dog wrote:In Canada, we have home births. And midwives are paid by the public health care program, so it is free for the person giving birth.

Some midwives work with local hospitals and have the ability to have ambulances on standby during home births.

We also allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and the abortion is also paid for through publc health care.


mmmm seems like a troll attempt I'll pass.
#14963109
XogGyux wrote:Actually, I disagree. The argument has nothing to do with what is legal or illegal or what the state can or cannot do. After all, the legality/state mandate can be adjusted to the whim of the society.
Again, this is just a thought experiment and nothing else and there is no practical difference. In both, you have 2 people and one life is dependent on interfering with the freedoms of the other. Actually, the case for the mother and fetus is even weaker because the fetus, arguably, does not have personhood yet (definitely not early in the pregnancy anyway). So the case about pregnancy termination is technically weaker to the case about forced organ donation.

An even more important and strong argument that actually convinces me is the fact that a woman that does not wishes a pregnancy is a cruelty for both the woman AND the CHILD. Being born to a family that do not want you, cannot care for you or might straight up hate you is far worth than killing you at the embryonic stage and I don't care how creepy that might sound (again, I don't believe embryo are people anyway). The number of drug-addicted mothers that keep having babies and abandoning them with their grandparents or even to foster care is terrifying.


We are not far off and see where you are going. Lastly I'll just say, that is because the unborn doesn't have representation until a certain time sort of like a probation period. You and I fortunately did.
#14963113
Finfinder wrote:Lastly I'll just say, that is because the unborn doesn't have representation until a certain time sort of like a probation period. You and I fortunately did.

Interesting... I still that does not change the fact. In fact it would make the 2 examples put forth by me earlier more similar but still not change the outcome in my opinion. Imagine for instance alternative timelines. Imagine that in:
Timeline 1: Mother A has baby B and grows into adulthood.
Timeline 2: Mother A Terminates pregnancy.

Now. Imagine time travel is real and viable. Would person B (grown baby) born to person A (mother) in timeline 1 be able to sue Mother A in timeline 2 for a terminated pregnancy? Could he call for wrongful death? Could he get a murder conviction?
This is one of the problems that arise when we call a fetus a baby and when we call a pregnancy termination an abortion. While in practice we are referring to the same things, it can change your understanding of the matter. And we have to be careful with our moral choices because in the future we could be facing our own demons.
#14963118
XogGyux wrote:Interesting... I still that does not change the fact. In fact it would make the 2 examples put forth by me earlier more similar but still not change the outcome in my opinion. Imagine for instance alternative timelines. Imagine that in:
Timeline 1: Mother A has baby B and grows into adulthood.
Timeline 2: Mother A Terminates pregnancy.

Now. Imagine time travel is real and viable. Would person B (grown baby) born to person A (mother) in timeline 1 be able to sue Mother A in timeline 2 for a terminated pregnancy? Could he call for wrongful death? Could he get a murder conviction?
This is one of the problems that arise when we call a fetus a baby and when we call a pregnancy termination an abortion. While in practice we are referring to the same things, it can change your understanding of the matter. And we have to be careful with our moral choices because in the future we could be facing our own demons.


#14963123
One Degree wrote:I am not being dramatic. Those are the actual bills for those services. The contrast dye alone was close to a $1,000.
Now, this is not what they got. This is the bill people without insurance have to pay. Medicare or insurance companies get ‘discounts’. Isn’t that a very nice practice? Who couldn’t trust such people?

I was not calling you dramatic lol. I was not calling you a liar on this either. I could very well believe your bills were very expensive. I did make a remark that you got shafted because you did. CT scans are usually much cheaper (or should I say less expensive, because cheap they sure are not) in the range of a few hundred dollars to sometimes a couple of grands. In today's prices I 'd be surprized for a single CT scan over 5k.
Keep in mind, in an ER visit depending on your presentation you can get various CT scans (for instance a stroke patient might get CT head with and without contrast and CT neck with contrast, essentially allowing the hospital to bill for 3 studies while the patient just spent 5 mins in the machine once. MRI usually are more expensive, while most CT scans can be $200-$800 an MRI probably is 1-2k with some places asking significantly more.
Insurance companies bring extra complexity. Sometimes they do get a discount but othertimes they get shafted as well. For instance, I have patients that their insurance companies will not paid for their Epinephrine pen because the pen costs ~$700 out of pocket to the patient but they insurance company somehow gets charged $5000. This might in fact be what happened to you. Some hospitals charge good insurance (e.g. Medicare) an arm and a leg. This is still very disgusting because in most situations it is the insurance company that is dictating the price and patients get increasingly frustrated when they have to deal with insurance companies that cover this and that medication but not x and y. Very disgusting business indeed. Car and home insurance is just the same crap. Somehow in florida, home insurance comes with standard "blizard, volcano and earthquake" coverage but no flood...
#14963124
Finfinder wrote:https://youtu.be/e6Q9IsmVRUk

Exactly!
Again, I still think the point is strong no matter how crazy it might sound. We are talking about morality and freedom of people and the this degree of intrusion by 1 person (again, an embryo/fetus is not even a real person yet either) onto another.
#14963128
XogGyux wrote:I was not calling you dramatic lol. I was not calling you a liar on this either. I could very well believe your bills were very expensive. I did make a remark that you got shafted because you did. CT scans are usually much cheaper (or should I say less expensive, because cheap they sure are not) in the range of a few hundred dollars to sometimes a couple of grands. In today's prices I 'd be surprized for a single CT scan over 5k.
Keep in mind, in an ER visit depending on your presentation you can get various CT scans (for instance a stroke patient might get CT head with and without contrast and CT neck with contrast, essentially allowing the hospital to bill for 3 studies while the patient just spent 5 mins in the machine once. MRI usually are more expensive, while most CT scans can be $200-$800 an MRI probably is 1-2k with some places asking significantly more.
Insurance companies bring extra complexity. Sometimes they do get a discount but othertimes they get shafted as well. For instance, I have patients that their insurance companies will not paid for their Epinephrine pen because the pen costs ~$700 out of pocket to the patient but they insurance company somehow gets charged $5000. This might in fact be what happened to you. Some hospitals charge good insurance (e.g. Medicare) an arm and a leg. This is still very disgusting because in most situations it is the insurance company that is dictating the price and patients get increasingly frustrated when they have to deal with insurance companies that cover this and that medication but not x and y. Very disgusting business indeed. Car and home insurance is just the same crap. Somehow in florida, home insurance comes with standard "blizard, volcano and earthquake" coverage but no flood...


Yes, I was scheduled for 4 CT scans of 45 minutes each back to back with contrast for each. In actuality, it was basically one 30 minute scan with additional contrast.

Edit: @XogGyux I should have been more effusive. You pricing and descriptions were right on target. Your questioning the prices I was charged were definitely legitimate.
Last edited by One Degree on 14 Nov 2018 01:10, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Trump's Dumb Economics

A lot of people consider Trudeau and his counterp[…]

The Popular Vote...

Why should anyone here give a shit about what you[…]

apparently KSA and USA are both paper tigers their[…]

Part 2 of 3 Which is also a sign of how far t[…]