On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:49:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lobster wrote:
Mark wrote:

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."

If that's the case, then given that costs are sadly but unarguably the
be-all and end-all when it comes to NHS patient care these days, I
wonder why home births aren't made compulsory for uncomplicated
pregnancies?

because one complication and the resultant litigation would completely
outweigh any cost-benefit.

There can and has been litigation in hospital births.

--
(\__/) 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