A new study in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Gynaecology confirms what many who have undergone a hospital birth already know: the use of the labor-inducing drug Pitocin (synthetic oxytocin) leads to great pain and suffering, including serious unintended and adverse health effects to both mother and infant.

It's hard to compete with 20 billion years of evolutionary selection, but the current medical management of the birth of the fetus and the placenta attempts to do just that, albeit rather unsuccessfully.   For eons, all animals including humans passed on genes and habits that ensured delivering a live healthy newborn without bleeding excessively or dying of postpartum hemorrhage at birth.  Among mammals, bleeding to death would not result in successful reproduction, until recently, because a live mother was required to nurse the newborn. 

Bleeding heavily makes a mother more prone to dying of infection.   Bleeding would attract predators near the newborn. No animal or mammal, other than humans, bleeds more than a spoonful postpartum. (1)  Only humans bleed and only humans bleed excessively after birth.   It is not clear when this started, but the first documentation of excessive postpartum bleeding, not death from bleeding, is from 1400 stating, "Women sometimes bleed too much after childbirth and this makes them very weak."(2)

Since the beginning of hospital birth, research supporting its use for low risk women has been lacking. The last 15 years has produced 17 studies all supporting attended planned homebirth as safer for low risk women. 

Research reveals that there are only 2 acute conditions that might occur at homebirth in which the mother or baby may have a better outcome had they planned a hospital birth, namely: Cord prolapse and Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE). Although tragic, cord prolapse and AFE occur rarely at homebirth, 1/5000 and 1/500,000 respectively, when balanced with the dozens of acute emergency conditions endangering the health of mother and baby that occur at planned hospital birth caused by intervening in the birth process, the scales tip easily in favor of planned attended homebirth for low risk women.  Acute conditions caused by hospital birth are discussed here, to allow low risk women to make informed choices as to place of birth.

Abstract: Case controlled studies show no benefit to inducing for postdates. Routinely inducing for postdates is based on 3 uncontrolled, retrospective studies showing 1/1000 less stillbirths while ignoring possible increases in brain damage to newborns as a result of induction. Induction or Elective cesarean for Precious pregnancies is justifiable.

Abstract: A recently coined term, unneCesareans, describes the mode of delivery for 25% of low-risk first births in most Western countries. Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) showed a lack of evidence of improved medical outcomes with the widespread use of cesareans for low-risk, full-term first births, therefore, they are medically "unnecessary". Eighteen causes for this common practice have been documented in published research. Since UnneCesareans have multiple causes, a reverse in current trends is unlikely.

When I tell people that I am a homebirth midwife, they often respond by asking, "Why do women choose to give birth at home?" It would be wonderful if the answer would be that hospital outcomes are comparable to attended homebirths and homebirth is just more comfortable. But since US hospitals delivered 32% of low-risk women by cesarean surgery since 2007 and 1 in every 3000 of those died from the surgery, the answer is simple: to avoid dying in childbirth or being scarred for life by unnecessary surgery.

Then, the second question the listener naturally asks is, "Why do doctors do unnecessary surgery?" Many doctors and midwives are also concerned with this question and have researched it extensively. The following is a review of the recent research, most of it published since 2006, regarding the causes of unneCesareans.