tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post2518222733476026015..comments2023-11-03T02:07:30.240-07:00Comments on The Birth Book Blog: Latest ACOG statement against home birthTina Cassidyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14636705157835152712noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-9554302487608288262010-03-04T03:07:39.715-08:002010-03-04T03:07:39.715-08:00Nice blogNice blogBuy WoW Accounthttp://www.randyrun.nl/Aion/Aion-Accounts:::5653_5686.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-80297914941639567212010-03-04T03:00:37.787-08:002010-03-04T03:00:37.787-08:00Interesting postInteresting postAion Power-Levelinghttp://www.randyrun.nl/Aion/Aion-Powerleveling:::5653_5671.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-18218427301136946262009-09-13T20:58:04.261-07:002009-09-13T20:58:04.261-07:00I was looking for information regarding Wow Gold a...I was looking for information regarding <a href="http://www.randyrun.nl/World-of-Warcraft-EU/WoW-Gold-kaufen:::2220_5367.html/" rel="nofollow">Wow Gold</a> and searched in Google.Some how I landed in your Blog. And found interesting. Yours is a nice Blog with very good content!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-17058339263045942042008-04-02T20:51:00.000-07:002008-04-02T20:51:00.000-07:00Ugh. This Amy chick drives me crazy. I am glad s...Ugh. This Amy chick drives me crazy. I am glad she has taken up the cause for the 1% of 1% of women who have had homebirths go bad. Why she is not giving her soul as passionately to improving her own professions lousy outcomes is curious.Meghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01392221734007567069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-19632060563191810752008-02-10T23:26:00.000-08:002008-02-10T23:26:00.000-08:00I seriously doubt the ACOG is concerned about losi...I seriously doubt the ACOG is concerned about losing income to the tiny number of home births in this country. A threat to OB/GYNs?<BR/>I don't think so.DiDihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09661612636718663917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-58753412582415987842008-02-10T19:27:00.000-08:002008-02-10T19:27:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121346879630846601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-31249247076483082232008-02-10T17:23:00.000-08:002008-02-10T17:23:00.000-08:00Although boycotting ACOG sounds like a great idea,...Although boycotting ACOG sounds like a great idea, in reality 80% of the women I work with see MD's for their obstetric care. So unfortunately, what they say does matter.<BR/>However, the facts that ACOG even released that statement and Dr Amy bothers herself with Tina's blog shows me that they realize we who support homebirth are threats. Not physical, of course, but threats to where it hurts the most: the pocketbook! ACOG is not at all worried about safety, they are worried about losing money!randiepdxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05912465384068672179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-41992756638125219972008-02-10T08:43:00.000-08:002008-02-10T08:43:00.000-08:00Who cares what ACOG says! This is the same organiz...Who cares what ACOG says! This is the same organization that strapped women down, routinely shaved and gave episiotomies, now required constant fetal monitoring... all things that had NO scientific reasoning or proven benefit. The same organization that 'allows' women to choose major abdominal surgery to deliver their babies, where some of these women may be making that choice because celebrities are too posh to push... (but following those celebrities is ok because they agree with them). I say we just boycott ACOG and its affiliates.Midwife Mamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05658266637882361758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-30796199543429530072008-02-09T19:43:00.000-08:002008-02-09T19:43:00.000-08:00For those who found Dr. Amy's response confusing o...For those who found Dr. Amy's response confusing or tedious (show of hands, please)Here is the link to the British Medical Journal study by Johnson and Daviss -- the largest study of planned home birth to date. Readers can decide for themselves whether it is a good study or not. <BR/><BR/>This was a prospective cohort study of 5,418 home births (98% of the births attended by direct-entry midwives with a common certification in the United States and Canada). The planned home births had similar rates of intrapartum and neonatal mortality to those of low-risk births, but the medical intervention rates for planned home births were lower than for planned, low-risk hospital births. The cesarean rate in the home birth-group was 3.7%, substantially lower than in the hospital cohort. A high degree of satisfaction was reported, and <12% required transfer to a hospital.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1416.Tina Cassidyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14636705157835152712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-38583690700988089692008-02-09T09:07:00.000-08:002008-02-09T09:07:00.000-08:00AmyIt's not the opinion, it's the wording and the ...Amy<BR/>It's not the opinion, it's the wording and the language.<BR/><BR/>By the by- we know you're here- if we want to talk to you, we'll visit your site- <BR/><BR/>NatalieNataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06987619820332454441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23685740.post-26558347461151352992008-02-09T07:58:00.000-08:002008-02-09T07:58:00.000-08:00"there have been many large-scale ones, recognized..."there have been many large-scale ones, recognized around the globe as being well done"<BR/><BR/>No, there is not even a single study that shows homebirth to be as safe as hospital birth for comparable risk women. Sure there are studies that CLAIM to show that homebirth is as safe as hospital birth, but they ACTUALLY show that homebirth has an increased rate of preventable neonatal death.<BR/><BR/>For example, the most widely cited study, the Johnson and Daviss study in the BMJ 2005, ACTUALLY shows that homebirth with a CPM in 2000 had a neonatal death rate almost TRIPLE the death rate for low risk hospital birth in 2000. Read the study, and you will see. Well, you won't see right away, because Johnson and Daviss left out the hospital neonatal death rate in 2000, hoping that no one would notice. Instead, they compared homebirth to hospital births in previously published papers extending back as far as 1969.<BR/><BR/>Johnson and Daviss have recently publicly acknowledged the validity of my analysis. According to their website Understanding Birth Better:<BR/> <BR/>"... Since our article was submitted for publication in 2004, the NIH has published analysis more closely comparable than was available at that time, and some have tried to use it as a comparison. While we still do not offer the comparison as a completely direct one, as it is the closest we have and the comparison is occurring regardless of our cautions, we offer the following adjustments that have to be made to provide the comparison of the CPM2000 analysis in as accurate a manner as is possible with the published NIH analysis." <BR/><BR/>Johnson and Daviss offer disingenuous excuses for their failure to appropriately analyze the data. Consider this claim: "Since our article was submitted for publication in 2004, the NIH has published analysis more closely comparable than was available at that time". However, the relevant data was published in 2002, long before their paper was submitted (Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2000 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set, published August 29, 2002). Moreover, even before publication of the analysis, Johnson and Daviss had the raw data in their possession. They used that raw data from 2000 to calculate the rates of hospital interventions, so they were fully aware of the mortality data at all times.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, people deserve to know that Johnson and Daviss are long time public advocates of homebirth, Johnson is the former Director of Research for MANA (Midwives Alliance of North America) and Daviss, his wife, is a homebirth midwife. The study was done in collaboration with MANA and was funded by money from a homebirth advocacy foundation. <BR/><BR/>Their own comments are quite illuminating. In a NARM bulletin from summer 2005, Johnson and Davis actually advise midwives how to generate publicity for the paper, and how to spin the data. This is not what you would expect from researchers who were independent.<BR/><BR/>For example:<BR/><BR/>"We invite you, if you have not already done so, to contact your local radio stations and newspapers this week about the study,.. <BR/><BR/>When contacting the media take the time to educate them on the CPM credential and make sure they know that NARM, MEAC, CfM, MANA, and NACPM have information on these maternity care providers."<BR/><BR/>On spinning the data: <BR/><BR/>"We purposely reported transfers as: "over 87% of mothers and neonates did not require transfer to hospital," and most of the transfers were for lack of progress, because the mother was tired or wanted pain relief. This kind of detail is especially important when communicating with the media. For example "over 87% of the mothers…" conveys a sense of confidence, while "thirteen per cent of women still had to be transferred," which one television broadcast did (even though it was overall a positive study) focuses on the negative end of the curve."<BR/><BR/>And:<BR/> <BR/>"Policy Implications: The study suggests that legislators and policy makers should pay attention to the fact that this study supports the American Public Health Association’s resolution to increase out of hospital births attended by direct entry midwives. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists still opposes home birth, but has no valid evidence to support this position. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and several provinces have written statements either acknowledging that women have the right to choose their place of birth or supporting it. <BR/><BR/>For continuing information on creative and effective ways to highlight this study in the policy arena, consider joining the BirthPolicy listserve. It is a great resource for midwifery policy discussion. Plus list moderators Katie Prown and Steve Cochran have their own personal tips on how to become more media savvy..."<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, "policy implications" which dovetail with the author's pre-existing advocacy, are not the typical purview of a truly independent researcher. Furthermore, it is my understanding from reading the bulletin, that this letter was unsolicited. It was the authors' idea to offer tips on how to publicize the article, how to spin the data, and how to exploit the paper for policy purposes.<BR/><BR/>Whatever you may think of ACOG's opinion, it is important to understand that their factual assertions are correct. Virtually all the existing scientific evidence to date shows that homebirth has an increased rate of preventable neonatal death compared to hospital birth.Amy Tuteur, MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08496583576036722794noreply@blogger.com