this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
385 points (98.5% liked)

InsanePeopleFacebook

2631 readers
232 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

but mostly if there are complications.

Which are, uh, pretty common when giving birth.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Here is a study which has a ton of info. To summarize, undergoing labor in a water bath just flat out is safer. Actually giving birth has mixed results, not necessarily because it's less safe, but because there are a lot of external factors.(much of the studies featured midwives, which isn't useful for my claim) That being said, this specific segment, which I've done my best to ensure it wasn't taken out of context, is highly relevant to my claim:

Rates of newborn transfer to a hospital were lower following water birth (1.5%) than non–water birth (2.8%). Rates of adverse newborn outcomes (5-min Apgar score, 7, respiratory issues, presence of infection, and NICU admission) were each lower than 1.0% in the water-birth sample. The total rate of any respiratory issue was 1.6% in the babies born in water and 2.0% in those not born in water.

[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 8 points 9 months ago

What does that at all have to do with not having a doctor present in case of a complication? Nearly 1 in 10 of all pregnancies have a complication of some sort. It doesn't matter how safe the method usually is, if something goes unexpectedly wrong you want someone there trained to handle it.