The Attack on Home Births and Midwives Is Gearing Up

Study claiming triple death rate in home births belies its own data.

by Heidi Stevenson

4 July 2010

A recent medical journal study claims that, while women do better when they deliver babies at home, mortality in newborns is three times greater. However, the conclusion completely misrepresents the data. The study actually found that the infant death rate for home births was the same when a qualified midwife was present.

All those news media reports that parrot the authors' stated conclusions are wrong. The conclusions drawn by the authors did not reflect the data they obtained. It's a common technique when the results are other than those desired. They simply claim that the study showed something different than it actually did.

There has been a concerted attack on home births and midwives over the last few years. The goal of this particular piece of pseudoscience gives the gloss of legitimacy to modern medicine's desire to medicalize yet another aspect of life. The reason, of course, is to force people to accept their treatments, pay for them—and eliminate all competition. Midwives, of course, are competition, as are homeopaths, chiropractors, herbalists, and even medical doctors who dare to practice outside the mainstream's officially sanctioned drugs and invasive procedures.

The Study

The study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, is a meta-analysis. The authors claim to have done a systematic review of "all" American and western European publications that documented outcomes for births and their locations.

False Conclusion

The claimed results don't add up. The study states, "Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate." Yet, they documented higher birth weight and fewer preterm births, which are well known to be associated with better infant health. Such a discrepancy requires noting, yet the authors moved right along, as if nothing were wrong.

The study concluded that three times as many babies born at home die, compared with hospital-born children. While that's technically true, it isn't the most salient part of the study, and it's used to imply that all home births are dangerous. However, the study clearly documented that the mortality rate of home births was the same as for hospital births when only those that were attended by qualified midwives were considered.

Link to Other Fraudulent Studies

The lead investigator, Joseph R. Wax, MD, is with the Maine Medical Center, a division of Tufts University School of Medicine. That's the same medical center that somehow missed the fact that Scott Reuben, MD, faked 12 years of research in Celebrex and Vioxx—in spite of annual reviews. Tufts is looking more and more like a center for pseudo-research that supports the prevailing views and desires of Big Pharma and modern medicine, no matter how much harm it might do.

Undisclosed Source of Funding

Funding for the study was not disclosed. That should have raised the eyebrows of anyone reporting on the study. Worse, though, is the fact that a major journal published it without that information.

Farcical Peer Review

Yet again, we can see that peer review is meaningless. Any study that draws a conclusion unsupported by its own evidence should certainly not reach publication. This method of lying, of creating a public perception of fact that bears no resemblance to the truth, has become a prominent way of pushing through acceptance of medical and political policies related to medicine.

The Actual Results of the Study

The meta-analysis utilized 12 studies, comprising 342,056 planned home births and 207,551 planned hospital births. Study locations included the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and European countries.

The results of home births for new mothers were:

• Fewer interventions:
  • Fewer epidural anesthesias.
  • Less fetal heart rate monitoring.
  • Fewer surgical deliveries and episiotomies.
• Fewer health problems:
  • Fewer infections.
  • Fewer vaginal or perineal tears. (A most interesting point in combination with fewer episiotomies!)
  • Fewer hemorrhages.
  • Fewer retained placentas.

Babies born at home were:

• Less likely to be premature.
• Less likely to have low birth weight.
• More likely to be born late, according to modern medicine's definition. (What is wrong with a "late" birth is unstated and, in light of the study's results, should be questioned.)
• As safe as those born in hospitals when qualified midwives were present. When non-qualified midwives were attended, the death rate for new babies was found to be three times greater than for hospital births.

Study's Conclusion, According to the Authors

The authors concluded that home births are associated with a tripling of newborn mortality! I find this utterly shocking and appalling. The actual results were almost completely ignored by the authors.

This isn't science. It's politically and financially motivated delivery of conclusions packaged inside an image of science. Nonetheless, the headlines read:

• "Home birth risks under scrutiny"—BBC News
• "Safety of home births questioned"—NHS
• "Planned Home Births Associated With Tripling of Neonatal Mortality Rate Vs. Planned Hospital Births"—Science Daily
• "Planning A Home Birth? Keep This In Mind"—The Pregnancy Zone
• "Home births 'triple neonatal mortality rate'"—Doctors Talk

The Spin

The spin started with the study's announcement. Nearly ignored are the benefits to both mother and baby. Instead, dire tones of concern suggest that it's time to rethink the idea of allowing women to deliver babies at home, and that both health and public policy need to do something about it.

In the UK, Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, stated, "The finding that the consequences for the baby are more severe needs to be carefully considered by women, policy makers and care providers. Certainly, the move towards offering women a choice in their place of birth in the UK needs to be weighed against such evidence."

The researchers themselves say that more research is needed...not to see if their findings are accurate, but to find out why three times as many home-born babies die! They even hint that home births affect mothers badly by suggesting more research on maternal mortality.

It's clear that the purpose of this entire exercise is to make midwifery a criminal act. That it's better for everyone to have home births whenever safe and reserve hospital deliveries for genuinely risky births is clear. Even this study documented that it's better for both mother and baby. It returns a thoroughly human function back to its natural place.

That, though, isn't what the surgeons and obstetricians want. They want to force women to take the extra risks inherent in hospitalization, including the ever-increasing danger of hospital-acquired infections. They want infants to spend their first moments of life in a cold and dehumanizing environment, separated from their mothers, fathers, and siblings. They want the power and lucre that forcing women into their dehumanizing hell-hole hospitals brings.

To do this, they produced a study that, in spite of themselves, actually documents the benefits of home birth. So, they respond to it by claiming it shows exactly the opposite, and immediately start pushing for changes in public policy to bring women and babies under their heels.

What do you think? Click here to comment!