Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006Just ran across this article today...
and it says...
Midwife-led home births appear to be less safe than those co-ordinated by consultants in hospital labour wards, according to the Government's health watchdog.
In new draft guidance, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), has set out advice on reducing unnecessary medical intervention and how health staff should treat women.
It said a birth at home "increases the likelihood of a normal vaginal birth and satisfaction in women who are committed to giving birth in this setting".
Giving birth that way is likely to result in transfer to a hospital for between 4% and 20% of women in labour.
In a standalone midwifery-led unit, such as a birthing centre, women were more likely to feel satisfied with their labour and need less intervention, the guidance said.
Giving birth in one of those centres is likely to result in transfer to a hospital unit for about 12% of women in labour, it added.
In a consultant-led unit, women are more likely to have access to epidurals, more likely to receive anaesthetic and interventions such as forceps, and are less likely to feel satisfied.
But there is also less chance of the mother or baby dying in that setting, the guidance said.
The problem is...it NEVER cites any studies or data to explain where it gets the "information" that shows that there is less chance of mother or baby dying in the hospital than at home. It also doesn't distinguish if they count overall numbers or low-risk numbers, planned home births or all home births, etc...
Any UK readers have any more information on this new statement?