In an earlier comment I made the point that religious fundamentalism has much in common with women who think they’ve reinvented the wheel; in this case home birthing. Both beliefs require a total lack of sensitivity, humour, compassion, logic, and iron clad beliefs.

Despite the roar of the minority in the comments section. I am left with a question. Jane, I am asking you. Why is is difficult to get insurance cover for home birthing? I imagine it’s because they know the odds against a safe home-birthing procedure. Would that have anything to do with it?

Typifying home births by the worst circumstances makes as much (or more properly, as little) sense as doing the same for hospital births, where things also can go tragically and horribly wrong. Why is it ok if it’s in hospital? The case of Calandre Simpson, whose $13 million record insurance payout in 2001 changed the whole medical insurance picture, involved not a home birth but a hospital birth. Her cerebral palsy, as you might recall, was caused by her obstetrician.

Countless studies (including the one to which I point you, which is conducted by several doctors, is very thorough, studies a large population of women over several years, and has very clear and credible results) have shown that home births conducted by properly qualified midwives are as least as safe as hospital births. I’d say that a 75 per cent reduction on birth injuries in home births is one big figure, and given the parity in mortality rates, rather reverses the question of responsibility.

In any case, I’m bowing out of this one now since, as others have pointed out, I’ve said quite enough.

No, I don’t know everything, and nor do I presume to. But perhaps this recent sober and careful Canadian study, which compared all equivalent-risk births in British Columbia, home birth and hospital, between 2000-2004, might suggest I’m not talking through my hat. It shows there were no fatalities in any home births, and that perinatal mortality figures were basically the same (apparently lower in home births, but apparently that’s statistically insignificant). However, the incidence of birth injuries - tearing, infant birth trauma (brain haemorrhage, fractures etc), meconium aspiration etc - was strikingly lower - around 75 per cent - in home births. Please go and read it.

This article came across as confusing and ultimately, pretty opinionated and “rant-like”. Sometimes these articles come off, sometimes they don’t.

Justine Caines wins this round mate.

Dust yourself off, take the critisism on board and get back to it.

Now that you’ve had more space than most of us could ever dream of, could you please desist from clogging up my Crikey e-mails. There are, after all, many other and, IMHO, more important things happening in this world.

What do you know about birth anyway, based on this article you clearly have no idea and have no likelihood of getting one in the future. Do your research and educate yourself and maybe you will learn something, which I think would do you a lot of good.

The medical profession is available if we need it and should be available to all of us, whether we’re a perfectly healthy woman electing to cut our baby out of our body or delivering as nature intended in our choice of setting with whom we choose.

I had a competent and highly experienced midwife, who at that time had delivered around 500 babies. I trusted her more than any doctor I saw. I went to hospital with my second child - to a booked bed, btw - because she wished to avoid the scenario you describe. That is, as soon as there was even the remotest risk of complication, I was near medical equipment. As it happened, it was a straightforward birth with no complications, so good for all of us.

So no, you weren’t my back up.

I assume that in hospital births that turn into an emergency, staff are also taken away from other duties to save the life of a baby. Do they resent that too?

I mean really, is that how we do rational debate?

Not being a hippy, nor a flat earther, and having taken the trouble to do the necessary research into the risks and benefits of home-birth, I then made sure I had the appropriate back-up. (2 ‘I’s.)

Satisfied?

I got real lucky and all three of my kids were delivered by midwives with no doctors needed or involved. 2 & 3 were at the birthing centre at the royal womens. Those women were sensational, warm, helpful, smart, debunking bullshit advice from hospital doctors (no doctor ever told us what happens if an induction fails for one) but its a scarce resource.

Why aren’t there many many more all over the place. And how come there are so few female ob/gyn? The responsible college should spend some time in the room of mirrors and have a red hot look at itself.

What pronoun would suit you better?

I am far from a wingnut. I am one of the majority of women who experience no problems in pregnancy. I have three children: one I had in a birth centre (at the Royal Women’s), and with the other two I employed an experienced, competent midwife. My second child arrived a month early and so my midwife took me immediately to hospital (which is, of course, always a back up plan) where I delivered in a labour ward - which is no place for a woman to give birth, on a table five feet high, in horrible light, with no facilities except aneasthetic to deal with pain. Although I had been booked in, in case I needed to be there - a standard procedure in home birth - there was an enormous row over whether MY midwife was allowed to attend me. My final child I had at home, which was by far the best.

I am no hippy, nor a flat earther. I made informed, responsible decisions, I did my research into the risks and benefits, and I made sure that I had all the back-up I needed. No responsible mother or midwife would endanger either her own health or her baby’s, and I had no desire to do that. But I did have very real concerns about the effects of intervention (the effects are well documented) and I was terrified of something happening to my body without my consent, which as any woman will tell you is a common problem in hospitals. One example being unnecessary episiotomies that take months to recover from - if at all - some women have permanent damage from this operation. (The reason given for pre-emptive episiotimies is that it prevents tearing: I never tore, and it’s also well documented that because episiotimies cut through all layers of tissue and muscle, the effects are worse than most tearing). My midwide gave me one-to-one care all through my pregnancy and daily ante-natal care after my baby was born. This care was first class, and was far better and more intensive and personal than what I experienced in hospital. I know both I and my children benefited from this, and I still figure the (non-Medicare covered) money I spent was the best decision I ever made.

The thought that my daughter might not have this choice if she were pregnant now saddens me beyond measure. And yes, that would be the default effect of that legislation, since in the Catch-22 situation that now holds, midwives who did provide homebirth - and the women who employ them - would face punitive fines and jail sentences. The Netherlands would be looking at us in disbelief.

Btw, those who claim that statistics on the mortality rates of home birth vs hospital are not comparing like with like are plain wrong. Those that compare low-risk births in both places demonstrate that home birth with appropriate back up is a totally safe practice. Or at least as safe as giving birth in hospital.