The other naysayers, Grunebaum and Chervenak, in their response - ' Home Birth Is Not Safe', source their support to an earlier NY Times blog post that, in turn, cites a study conducted by the two commentators (and others) (Grunebaum 2014). In a nutshell, the meta-analysis includes studies in its newborn mortality calculation that were not confined to low-risk women having planned home births with a qualified home birth attendant while omitting a well-conducted Dutch home birth study that dwarfed the others in size and reported equivalent newborn death rates in low-risk women beginning labor at home and similar women laboring in the hospital (de Jonge 2009). Here is but one of the many commentaries, Meta-Analysis: The Wrong Tool Wielded Improperly, pointing out its weaknesses. John Jennings, MD president of the American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, in his response- ' Emergency Care Can Be Too Urgently Needed,' cites a 2010 meta-analysis by Wax and colleagues that has been thoroughly debunked. Equally predictably, the evidentiary support for their position is less than compelling. Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community ManagerĪs one would predict, three of the four obstetricians participating in the NY Times debate ' Is Home Birth Ever a Safe Choice?' assert that home birth is unacceptably risky. Henci Goer, author and international speaker on maternity care, and an occasional contributor to our blog, takes a look at the facts on home birth and evaluates how they line up with some of the essay statements. As customary in this style of article, the NYT asks a variety of experts to provide essays on the topic at hand, in this case, the safety of home birth.

An article in The New York Times Opinion Pages - Room for Debate was released on February 24th, 2015.

Connecting Dots by Sharon Jennings