Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

England study: Low-risk births don't need hospital

Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:02 PM EST
health, eu, med, birth, give-birth, where-to, to-give-birth
Maria Cheng, Associated Press
Advertise | AdChoices

LONDON — A new study in England shows little difference in complications among the babies of women with low-risk pregnancies who delivered in hospitals versus those who gave birth with midwives at home or in birthing centers.

Based on the findings, researchers said women with uncomplicated pregnancies in England should be able to choose where they want to give birth — and one expert said about half of all pregnant women here could potentially safely give birth outside a hospital.

But they sounded a note of caution for first-time mothers and their infants, who may face a higher risk if they choose a home birth.

"I would never say women should give birth in a particular place, but hope this gives women more information to make an informed choice," said Dr. Peter Brocklehurst, director of the Institute for Women's Health at University College Hospital in London, one of the paper's lead authors. He conducted the research while at Oxford University.

"Birth isn't an abnormal process, it's a physiological process," he said. "And if your pregnancy and labor is not complicated, then you don't need a high level of specific expertise."

Brocklehurst added that about 50 percent of pregnant women in England — those who are low-risk — should be able to choose where to have their baby.

More than 90 percent of pregnant women in England now give birth in a hospital. Some officials say the new study should prompt women to consider alternatives.

"This is about giving women a choice," said Mary Newburn of NCT, a U.K. charity for parents, one of the study's authors. She said midwife-run birth centers in England have a more homelike environment, with privacy, sofas and birthing pools.

In Britain, midwives deliver more than 60 percent of babies already. Similar care is provided in the Netherlands, where about a quarter of all births happen at home. Elsewhere in Europe, most births are led by doctors, although midwives may also be involved.

In the United States, however, less than one percent of births happen at home. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not support planned home births and warns evidence shows they have a higher risk of newborn death compared to planned hospital births. The training of midwives in the U.S. varies by state — and some have no regulations.

Brocklehurst and colleagues collected data for nearly 65,000 mothers and babies between 2008 and 2010 in England. Of those, there were 19,706 births in hospital obstetric wards, 16,840 births at home, 11,282 births in "freestanding" midwifery units — independent clinics where there are no doctors or access to anesthetics — and 16,710 births in "alongside" midwifery units, often housed within hospitals.

All the pregnancies were low-risk, meaning the mothers were healthy and carried their baby to term. Women planning C-sections or expecting twins or multiple births were excluded from the study.

In the U.K.'s hospital obstetric wards, most low-risk women don't see a doctor during labor and are only treated by midwives.

There didn't appear to be a difference for the infants' health based on where the mothers planned to give birth.

But researchers found a higher risk for first-time mothers planning a home birth. Among those women, there were 9.3 adverse events per 1,000 births, including babies with brain damage due to labor problems and stillbirth. That compared to 5.3 adverse events per 1,000 births for those planning a hospital birth.

The study was published Friday in the medical journal, BMJ. It was paid for by Britain's department of health and another government health research body.

Dr. Tony Falconer, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, said his group supports "appropriately selected home birth." He noted the higher risk of problems among first-time mothers choosing a home birth and said that raised questions about where they should deliver.

For Emily Shaw of Oxfordshire, northwest of London, giving birth in a hospital wasn't appealing. She wanted home births for both her sons but because her first baby was induced into labor, she had to deliver him in a hospital in October 2008.

Shaw delivered her second son at home in April. "I felt much more comfortable there," she said. "Instead of getting into a car to go to the hospital, the midwives came to me."

"It was nice to have the home comforts during labor," she added, saying she could eat in her own kitchen and use her own bathroom. "And unlike the hospital, they didn't kick out my partner in the middle of the night."

____

Online:

http://www.bmj.com

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Maria Cheng's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United Kingdom , London
  • Public Discussion (4)
RackNStack

When I was in training as an FP resident, we all took rotations in our community hospital's nursery. I remember in the three years I was there we had three babies come in from home births that were a mess, likely due to unanticipated complications during the delivery (head size underestimated on previous ultrasound, placental abruption, etc). The odds of something bad happening are pretty rare.....but if it happens it is nice to have the expertise around to intervene (quickly, since there's not a lot of time to waste). Having said that, my close friend's wife delivered at home and it was a great experience.

    Reply#1 - Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:03 PM EST
    Megidolaon

    Agreed, Rack. My mother had a very normal, low-risk pregnancy with me, but when she went into labor, for no reason, my heart just stopped. Within minutes, they had to cut her open, grab me out, and restart my heart. Thankfully, I haven't had any heart problems since, and both of us are (obviously) doing well.

    As a hippie at heart, I can understand the desire to do the home birth thing. I hate hospitals - I spend far too much time in them. But things can go from perfectly normal to life-threatening within seconds, and I think it's so crucial to have that hospital there as backup. I think the best solution would be natural birth centers right next to (or within) hospitals just so all the bases are covered.

      #1.1 - Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:29 AM EST
      RackNStack

      Births never go as planned, or at least very rarely. When we had women come in with a fifteen page birthing plan, the first thing I would tell them was to expect the unexpected. It seems the longer their birth plan was, the most convoluted their birth process became. This one woman was deadset against an epidural, until she had her contractions about 60 seconds apart and was at 5 cm. At that point, it's too late.....you're along for the ride and just sit back and relax.

        #1.2 - Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:14 AM EST
        Reply
        Jackie-355788

        First they treat pregnancy in this country like it was some kind of illness. Women have been having babies outside hospitals for years before modern medicine and with all the new super bugs you can get from the hospital then it's seems fiscally responsible to have low risk child birth at home with a midwife.

          Reply#2 - Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:41 PM EST
          Leave a Comment:
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
          Newsvine Privacy Statement
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
          FUN STUFF:
          • Leaderboard |
          • E-Mail Alerts |
          • Top of the Vine |
          • Newsvine Live |
          • Newsvine Archives |
          • The Greenhouse
          COMPANY STUFF:
          • Code of Honor |
          • Company Info |
          • Contact Us |
          • Jobs |
          • User Agreement |
          • Privacy Policy |
          • About our ads
          LEGAL STUFF:
          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com