Hw 41

(James Henderson, Hospital birth vs. Home birth: a debate on choices, 2010, http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/labor_birth/article/hospital-birth-home-birth-debate-pg8)

James Henderson is an advocate of midwifery. He tries to keep his opinions on the matter as objective as possible given that he is in disagreement with the opposing side. In this case the opposing side is obstetrician Dr. Jay Dileo. While Henderson does not discredit hospital birth he discredits the argument of Dileo against home births. Dr. DiLeo tries to persuade people to avoid home births by using scare tactics, something quite common amongst obstetricians. He discredits DiLeo's arguments by calling him out on not having accurate statistical evidence to support his claims as well as showing the flaws in the logic of his arguments. Henderson says it quite well in his article " On a purely intellectual level, this makes no sense whatsoever." What precedes this quote is Dr. DiLeo saying that home birth is not safe, (more anti-home birth propaganda), etc. He follows this up by saying people who chose home births are generally more educated and "knowledgeable" on the birthing process. Those statements obviously contradict each other. You would expect a more logical argument from someone who went through such extensive schooling. The lack of logical arguments is not Dr. DiLeo's fault because truthfully home birth is AT LEAST AS SAFE as a hospital birth and therefore saying it is not so is factually incorrect and arguments against is are opinion based with little statistical fact to back up the opinions.


(Marsden Wagner, Born in in The USA, 2006)

In this book Wagner argues for alternative birthing options. He starts by showing the corruption in the system that obstetricians and obstetricians soon to be go through to become professionals in their field. He points out the flaws in the system rather than making all obstetricians out to be bad. He also does not let obstetricians off the hook by pointing out how they look the other way and ignore wrong doings although they are aware of them. This book not only shows the flaws of hospitals births but brings to light the reality of alternative options (ie. birthing centers, home births, etc)


(WISCONSIN SECTION - AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, Position Paper on Midwifery Licensure, 2005)

This is an article put out by ACOG on their stance on licensure for midwives. At one point in the article the talk about how much they should keep the public from making unsafe birthing choices, etc. This insinuates that home birth is unsafe even under a certified midwife. Their statistical backing for this is that in the last 4 decades infant mortality rates have decreased. I would hope so, if it was other wise regardless of the method there would be serious issues. The complete disregard models from other countries that are less expensive and much safer and effective. A very biased article but necessary in arguing and disproving the opposing side.


(Marsden Wagner, MD, MSPH, What Every Midwife Should Know About ACOG and VBAC: Critique of ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 5, July 1999, “Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Section”)

Marsden Wagner discredits ACOG's recommendation to only have VBAC(vaginal birth after cesarean) in hospitals. Their recommendation has no statistical evidence and is purely opinion. This is not uncommon in ACOG recommendations. He also shows how many VBAC's performed in hospitals have led to uterine rupture due to induction drgus used such as oxytocin. He also shows how ACOG lied about the true statistics in saying no statistics showed oxytocin caused uterine rupture when in fact it did. Although this conclusion could not be drawn from the single data collection because it lacked statistical power. Therefore regardless the conclusion from the data would not be accurate enough to make a medical recommendation. This shows the true nature and incentives of ACOG's "recommendations. It is a good article to use when arguing anti-ACOG.