I'll admit it, I couldn't do it. I like having my babies in the hospital, surrounded by lots of medical professionals that can help out if an emergency should ever occur. I'll also confess that I like the drugs. I've never flinched at the epidural needle, in fact it has always been a welcome site. That being said, I still can recognize the want to have a baby at home. Instead of a group of nurses you've never seen before, a crowd of people you don't know present to watch you push and your baby whisked away after delivery to be examined; you get whoever you have asked to be present in the privacy of your own home. You get a lot more say in your care, without hospital procedures to fight against. You have the licensed direct entry midwife of your choice to oversee and give you personalized care.
Sen. Dayton, a former labor and delivery nurse, is sponsoring SB 93 that may restrict which babies can be born at home under the care of a licensed direct entry midwife. The bill would redefine what is considered a normal birth, and then consequently which births could take place at home with a licensed direct entry midwife assisting. The bill would forbid this type of midwifery in pregancies involving conditions such as pulmonary or renal disease, hypertension, diabetes, or genetic disorders. It would also prohibit women with a history of 3+ consecutive miscarriages, a stillborn, prior c-sections, or a past baby weighing less than 5 lbs. 8oz. or more than 9lbs. 14 oz. from a home birth. Source
The bill has been endorsed by the Utah Medical Association, but is being fought by licensed direct entry midwives who feel it is a direct threat to their livelihood. Sen. Dayton claims she is only trying to clarify the text, not end the practice. She ran a version of this bill last year, which was unsuccessful. The bill does not make changes to midwives that practice with a OB/GYN or deliver babies in a hospital. Interestingly, a midwife in a hospital cannot attend a breech delivery or a VBAC without a doctor's assistance, but a direct entry midwife can attend these type of deliveries alone in a private residence.
Sen. Dayton (mdayton@utahsenate.org) is working on a compromise version of the bill. If you'd like to add your thoughts on what you'd like the final bill to look like before it heads to the floor of the Senate, you may want to act now.
4 comments:
Thanks for posting about this one! I do think it is important to point out that the LDEM's do currently have restrictions in place through the DOPL that define "normal birth" for them. These are based on national and worldwide midwifery standards of care. The LDEMs are required to report their statistics each year to the DOPL and have had excellent results (much better than the hospital stats) thus far. Dayton and the UMA are trying to bypass the established process by legislating those definitions, because the UMA didn't like what the DOPL agreed to when the bill was originally passed. Dayton is wasting her time as a senator, IMO, by clogging up the process with unnecessary legislation.
Another interesting note to point out is that while woman would NOT have the right to have an LDEM present during their birth if cases deemed "abnormal" apply to them, such as Previous C-sections, Breech deliveries or twins.... they still have the right to have babies in their home WITHOUT midwives. Many woman who have done their research... (and who wouldn't when choosing a homebirth?) WILL STILL BIRTH AT HOME... WITH OR WITHOUT THEIR PROVIDER.
The Utah Medical Association claims to be "protecting babies" (similar to abortion laws) but what they are really doing is taking away freedom to choose to birth where and with whom a woman feels most comfortable based on the idea that since OB's prefer to do c-sections, it must be the best way!! Statistically this is simply not true.
Mortality rates in home birth are identical to those in the hospitals. Claiming that one is safer than the other is once again statistically inaccurate. The midwives attending these "high-risk" births are trained in these types of deliveries and remember, the hospital is only a car ride away. The LDEM's in Utah have very good outcomes and have proven to be adamant about transferring to the hospital when it becomes necessary.
It's amazing how far we've come with medical technology over the years. My own mother and 5 of her siblings were born at home. For thousands of years there have been children born at home and somehow people managed to do it. It's only been about the last 60 years that the hospitalization of laboring mothers has been common. On the same token, it's only in the last 50-100 years that life expectancy rates have jumped and infant death rates have significantly decreased.
I personally would never prefer to give birth at home, but I can definately see the appeal and necessity to some people. I think the legislature needs to be sensitive to the fact that many people have to drive very long distances in order to reach their hospitals or have quick labors that prevent them from getting to the hospital in time. If there is a certified midwife that lives only a couple miles away from this person, but their hospital might be a long drive away, it would certainly make more sense to have the baby at home.
A friend of mine was in labor and on her way to the hospital, but ended up having her husband pull over to a fire station because the baby was coming. She had her baby on the fire department lawn in front of a large crowd of EMT's (who were assisting), onlookers, and the normal driver's-by on 1300 East in Sandy. She realized that her labors went fast. Her next pregnancy, she employed a midwife and planned to birth at home. Her midwife didn't even make it on time, so her last child was delivered by her husband at home. It was definately a much more pleasant experience than being on the lawn of the firestation. Another friend of mine was stuck in rush hour traffic and had her baby in the car. She was lucky enough that her husband pulled over quick enough to catch the baby. Neither of these husbands have a medical or nursing degree, but somehow mom and baby turned out just fine.
I really feel it is inappropriate for legislature to have their hands in my uterus...pardon the visual. The bill Dayton is trying to amend took a very long time to come to, it was a miracle the groups involved could come to such compromises and articulate boundaries that all sides could agree to and support. This is becoming a war on an idea, a promotion of personal feelings rather than fostering freedom and providing appropriate healthcare. No one should be force into care another feels comfortable with but they, themselves, are not. A family should be supported in birthing at home, in the hospital, or in a birthing center without fear of stigma. It's time for Mrs. Dayton to remove her hands from the wombs of all the women in Utah and allow them to birth the way their studies and conscience determine. Women have proven to do whatever it takes to acheive what they're looking for. Scaling down this already thin bill allowing for freedom of choice, may well increase the likelihood of traumatic outcomes because women who abhore hospitals could move toward unassisted birth rather than submit themselves to the perceived emotional and physical raping of their rights that they may fear. It's time to leave well enough alone.
Post a Comment