On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:45:24 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:02:05 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

wrote:

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal low-risk
births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to hospital
taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt, you have no access to back up facilities. You are
simply a potencial burden to the ambulance service.

She said "based on statistics". Challenge her to produce the statistics,
and produce some of your own if you like, but please don't swear at her and
wave around your unsubstantiated saloon-bar "obvious innit" type excuse
for an argument.

How about this one:
Anderson R E, Anderson D A. The cost-effectiveness of home birth.
Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1999; 44(1): 30-35

"The average uncomplicated natural birth costs 68% less in a home
setting than in a hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a
lower combined rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower
incidence of cesarean delivery."

(One word edited to get around dumb filters).

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org