Why do patients like these go to a doctor?

linzz · Aug 11, 2007

That is good that the mom eventually made the right decision for the baby. I have aging parents who read about all this "natural" stuff on the internet and sadly, my stepfather is no longer capable of thinking critically, so he just laps up any claim made for good health. I was visiting them yesterday and found a book in their home claiming that diabetes can be cured and that insulin is really not needed. Yikes!

PamUK · Aug 11, 2007

I'm watching a show about L&D. This couple was determined to have a natural delivery which is all fine and well. They want to go home 2 hours after delivery. The baby's temp is 100.8. The parents, especially the father is determined to go anyway (no insurance or money issues) just very fixated on natural everything. The father is insisting that the elevated temp is due to the baby being swaddled. The baby is rewrapped much lighter. The temp goes higher. The pediatrician orders IM antibiotics stat. The parents say no to the antibiotics. The father says "no drugs in my daughter, the whole point of this natural delivery was no medical intervention".
I want to reach through the screen and knock him in the head. Why not deliver at home all by yourself if you think you know everything? Then you won't have to worry about any medical intervention.
Why are people so stubborn and narrow-minded when they don't have any medical knowledge? I just don't get it. I understand wanting things natural but at the cost of the life of the child?

Someone PLEASE... put me out of my misery... how did the show end? Is the baby OK?

Forget that... just read Asoldierswife05 posting in full. Big sigh of relief!

DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN · Aug 11, 2007

I delivered my first daughter at a free-standing birth center attended by midwives and never saw an OB. I got some strange looks when I told people that, but I did my research and trusted my midwives.
All too often I think people like me choose to go the natural, hospital-free birth because they want more control over the experience which, you all must admit, isn't going to happen in a traditional hospital setting.
By the way, I plan on having my next baby at home.

IMO I do not want control of the birth situation. To me loving & raising the child, not the birth process, is the only important thing. That's just me. Let the professionals do their job, give me meds, do it all, I don't care. They know what is safe and what is not.

I think it's great if that's what you want. I was born at home as were my brothers. Mom was attended my midwives and that is the norm in Holland. She had no complications. I don't think she even had any other options. I know she went to the midwife every month for check ups. Only women with "expected" complications were delivered in the hospital. My cousin who is 2 months younger than I has been living in a home for the mentally challenged for the past 45 years. He had a nuchal cord. Delivered at home (Holland).

I think it's great that you want a home birth and can accompolish that safely.

MidwifeWannaB · Aug 14, 2007

I am sorry but I think you are putting yourself and your next baby at an unnecessary risk. I do not know Terxas law but here in Florida, free standing birthing centers have to have an OB available and must have a hospital backup. You may be lucky and have a perfectly normal labor and delivery. Then again, any number of things can go wrong. I do not see the advantage of having a home birth, when birthing centers are available.
Woody:balloons:

My midwives are legal and licensed by the state, as is their birth center. They very rarely have to transport to the hospital, as they only take low-risk pregnancies.

The advantage to a home birth is being able to give birth in the comfort of your own space, where you are always going to be more at ease, which can help the birth process progress on its own without having to resort to interventions such as Pitocin.

I did my homework before making this decision, and had excellent prenatal care and a birth that I wouldn't have changed for anything.

linzz · Aug 15, 2007

Personally I am against home births, I am not a risk taking type of person and home births seem to risky. I have had two children and both deliveries needed to be induced as I was late and each time things appeared to be going normally for a while but sure enough, I needed medical intervention and quickly due to fetal distress. I would have been terrified even having to wait to have care transferred to an obstetrician.

DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN · Aug 15, 2007

My midwives are legal and licensed by the state, as is their birth center. They very rarely have to transport to the hospital, as they only take low-risk pregnancies.
The advantage to a home birth is being able to give birth in the comfort of your own space, where you are always going to be more at ease, which can help the birth process progress on its own without having to resort to interventions such as Pitocin. I did my homework before making this decision, and had excellent prenatal care and a birth that I wouldn't have changed for anything.

They very rarely have to transport to the hospital

I wouldn't want to risk being one of the very rare ones knowing that in matters of L&D seconds count.

I'm glad things worked out well for you and think women should be allowed to make a choice.

IMO the risk is not worth taking. My dd just had a baby 10 days ago. Uncomplicated, low risk pregnancy, excellent prenatal care. 4 ultrasounds. 6, 12, 20 and 32 wks. No problems whatsoever. She had an elective repeat section. Very short umbilical cord. That complication cannot be detected on an ultrasound. Her OB said "thankfully she choose the section, a lady partsl delivery would have been very risky at best".

IMO the ultimate goal is to have a healthy baby so who cares if Mom has to suffer a little commotion in the hospital, endure an IV or fetal monitoring or whatever else comes up? The propose of it all is to bring a healthy baby into the world. I had two elective sections and my grown children could care less how it was that they came into the world but only how they have always been loved.

Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP · Aug 15, 2007

I'm all for home births, considering that the statistics for low-risk women just don't bear out its being unsafe. I would love to have my next babe at home assuming all is going well with my health and pregnancy.

My personal limitations:

1) I would not VBAC at home, though there are midwives that will do it.

2) A previa would get me a ticket to a c/s, as well it should. Not going to be stupid about that one.

3) If I had PIH, or anything else that made me high-risk.

4) If I were under 37-38 weeks gestation. Late pretermers are just too unpredictable.

5) If I were GBS+. At this point, I'm not. That could change.

6) Breech or some other non-vertex presentation, though many many breech babies have been born at home.

I think part of the reason people died in childbirth/neonatal period had to do with factors that really aren't factors any more, if a woman gets good prenatal care from a knowledgeable midwife. A lot of women had pelvises damaged by rickets that wouldn't even allow a 28-weeker, much less a fulltermer, out. So many women had poor diets and/or anemia. Less access to instruments, less formal education for midwives, though I realize many granny midwives could teach our OBs a thing or two. Grand multiparity. Untreated GBS. The list goes on. And how many babies would have died anyway had they been born in the 21st century? How many died in utero? Interesting topic.

I'm not arguing anybody's decision to have a hospital birth. Heck, I work on a postpartum floor, so it's at the very least job security! And it's certainly warranted in a lot of circumstances. It just makes me angry to see time and time again, people's birth experiences being mucked around with by people who don't always know what they're doing. And most people I've encountered don't know what they're missing, so it isn't an issue for them. Just for me.

My husband was born at home with a midwife, as were his 10 siblings, including a set of twins. One of the twins died a few days after birth, and one died in a farm vehicle accident but all the rest are still alive. My DMIL didn't get a day of prenatal care with any of them. That's just anecdotal, I know.

DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN · Aug 15, 2007

I'm not arguing anybody's decision to have a hospital birth. Heck, I work on a postpartum floor, so it's at the very least job security!
My husband was born at home with a midwife, as were his 10 siblings, including a set of twins. One of the twins died a few days after birth, and one died in a farm vehicle accident but all the rest are still alive. My DMIL didn't get a day of prenatal care with any of them. That's just anecdotal, I know.

I was born at home as was my brother. We were both delivered by a midwife. My younger brother was born here (1960) my Mom had found a European OB in NYC. The nurses started out by trying to shave her and give her an enema. She refused and the nurses were not pleased. When the doctor arrived he told them that she had delivered two at home and would be allowed to go completely natural. Afterwards the nurses told my Mom they had never had a patient like her. Luckily my brother was born in the hospital. He had a tight nuchal cord and ended up needing medical intervention to breathe.

medchick · Aug 15, 2007

No religious objections. This couple has suffered 3 miscarriages in the past. They are just so fixated on everything being natural. They have now agreed to blood work only. WBC 19,000 elevated C-RP.

I saw the show you are talking about and the couple did eventually give in and allow antibiotics. They were discontinued 2 days later.

MidwifeWannaB · Aug 17, 2007

IMO the ultimate goal is to have a healthy baby so who cares if Mom has to suffer a little commotion in the hospital, endure an IV or fetal monitoring or whatever else comes up? The propose of it all is to bring a healthy baby into the world. I had two elective sections and my grown children could care less how it was that they came into the world but only how they have always been loved.

This is true, but stress that the mother feels is picked up by the baby, and can cause distress that probably wouldn't have been there had she been in a comfortable, quiet space that she feels at home in.

However, if you feel at home in a hospital setting, then go for it! :lol2: All the research I did and all the statistics I've seen show that homebirths are just as safe, if not safer, than hospital births when you are a low-risk, healthy mother with no physical problems.

DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN · Aug 17, 2007

the research I did and all the statistics I've seen show that homebirths are just as safe, if not safer, than hospital births when you are a low-risk, healthy mother with no physical problems.

I have no problem with it if that's what the woman wants. I feel sure the infection rate is lower when births occur at home.

My issue is that a low-risk, healthy mother with no physical problems does not necessarily translate into no problems with delivery or health of infant and when time is of the upmost importance...I want to be where it can be taken care of immediately. i.e. my daughter was low-risk, healthy with no physical problems, repeat c-section, unforseen problem was a short cord which posed no problem during the section but the doctor stated it would have been a big problem had she choose to VBAC. Healthy infant #1 priority.

RNperdiem, RN · Aug 17, 2007

What if insurance private or government stopped paying for hospital births? What if you only could deliver in hospital if you could afford it or were high enough risk? Would that remove any status from a fully natural midwife guided birth? I think people are too quick to reject medical intervention when they are in a position to reject it.