2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I had my daughter at home 27 years ago with a midwife, I have also been attendance at two other home births with midwives. The birth of my daughter at home was smooth and peaceful. No machines, no bright lights. I was able to walk around, take a shower and really follow the instincts of my body.

Someone above mentioned the need for trained professionals, that is what midwives are. I would argue that they are even more qualified to birth babies as that is all they do. Midwives are typically able to turn a breech baby something that is rarely attempted in a hospital. Professional midwives also have connections to hospitals in case anything does go wrong.

And in hospitals things go wrong, often. Are there any studies that show a comparison between midwife births and hospital births in terms of problems? Throughout Europe midwives and homebirths are commonplace. Hospitals are for sickness and medical problems the birth of most children is neither.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context