If you were pregnant right now (guys: imagine you are a woman) assuming you wanted to be and both you and the child are in good health, would you give birth with a doctor or a midwife?
Check out the business if being born. It's very eye opening. While we obviously need doctors and hospitals, they often push dangerous, painful, unnecessary interventions like pitocin (contractions become too intense for both mom and baby, uterus can
Rupture, episiotomy is very painful to heal from & can cause sexual distinction and infection, giving birth on your back is the most painful way with the highest likelihood of tearing..) I could go in for days.
*sexual dysfunction, not distinction lol
My wife would have most likely died after giving birth to our second child if we were not at the hospital with a doctor present. In my opinion, it is not worth it to have a child any other way. Just sayin'...
It's definitely needed for emergencies. I'm sorry you and your wife had to go through that, it must have been terrifying :(.
Midwife at a hospital = perfect
In an ideal world..
Imagining me as a pregnant woman is a pretty disgusting thought. Pretty gross.
I'd want a midwife with me at the hospital. Though really I'd be thinking of them more as a patient's advocate.
That's what they or doulas usually end up acting as. One doula told a labor story where her job was literally to sit at the foot of the bed near the doctor and make sure he didn't perform an episiotomy (most of the time they aren't needed).
A lot of my friends have sprung for the naturalistic, mid-wifey thing... I dunno. I don't buy into naturalistic stuff as a rule and that right there makes me resistant to the idea. But I recognize this stubborn tendency so I'd have to research first.
Pushed is a great book about modern maternity, or the documentary The Business of Being Born, pretty eye opening stuff.
GET THIS BABY OUT OF ME!
I'd go with what presley said. It is the best of both worlds.
Doctors don't like that midwives play the patient advocate so this is impossible for many women (example shell make the dr wait for the woman to stretch rather than perform an unnecessary, very painful episiotomy which is faster for the dr). This
Would be the safest way though, plus a midwife can offer continuous support during labor rather than pop in occasionally. The drs would be there in case if emergency. Not sure why we don't do it this way lol
I'd pick a midwife at a birthing center. Kinda the best of both worlds. The center near me has private rooms with birthing baths, REAL beds, and doctors on staff. They are also very near a hospital and have the capability to provide emergency care.
Ideally that'd be best. Unfortunately doctors don't always like to allow this, a midwife will make the mother aware of unnecessary or dangerous interventions (pitocin, episiotomy etc) which doctors really don't like for some reason...
A doctor. I've had friends who had their babies at home with midwives (& have photographed 2 of those births myself); one of my best friends ever was for some years a midwife & delivered hundreds of babies. But I'm a big chicken. I'd at least go
to a hospital... maybe if a midwife could be there instead of a doctor... maybe.
Actually, having a midwife in a hospital would be one of the best things you can do. Constant support in labor helps women cope with the pain better and feel more empowered. Having that Ina hospital where pain relief is offered if needed would give
You the best of both worlds! It's a shame insurance doesn't like to cover midwives, plus they are illegal in some states :( it's really cool you could be there for your friend like that!
I can't believe its illegal in some states Aj! Good to know. Women have been doing home births for thousands of years, seems like it should be the parents right to have a midwife!
It is not a right in many of our own states. It's really sad. Most developed country's reserve ob's for the high risk, may typical interventions in the hospital are dangerous and women often labor in bed, one of the most painful ways. It's outrageous