This paper reviews and responds to Ada Calhoun's 2008 Time Magazine article on the resurgent popularity of home birthing in the United States. It examines the motivations behind the trend — including holistic health philosophies and cost considerations — alongside the medical and statistical risks of delivering outside a hospital setting. Drawing on maternal mortality data, conflicting clinical studies, and obstetric case evidence, the paper evaluates whether home births attended by direct-entry midwives represent a responsible choice. The author concludes that despite the appeal of natural delivery, modern hospital environments and newly established natural birthing centers offer substantially safer outcomes for both mother and child.
In her 2008 Time Magazine article, Ada Calhoun describes a growing trend among expectant mothers in the United States: choosing to deliver their children at home with the assistance of midwives rather than in a traditional hospital setting. Proponents of the practice argue that the hospital environment is "overkill" for normal, uncomplicated deliveries. However, medical experts caution that as many as one-third of all modern deliveries require contraction-inducing medications or Cesarean sections, making access to advanced medical care essential even in seemingly routine cases.
Part of the motivation behind the home birth trend relates to a "holistic" or "natural" approach to human health and childbirth. Financial considerations also play a significant role: midwives typically charge between $1,000 and $5,000 per birth, which is substantially less than even the most straightforward uncomplicated hospital delivery. Advocates further argue that the home birth experience is less traumatic from the infant's perspective; however, there is no reliable scientific evidence to confirm this belief.
Currently, only about one percent of all U.S. births take place at home. Nevertheless, the increasing popularity of home birthing has raised concerns among officials at the American Medical Association (AMA) that existing regulation of direct-entry midwives is insufficient to guarantee patient safety. Direct-entry midwives are individuals who practice without formal medical or nursing degrees, and the AMA has questioned whether current oversight adequately protects mothers and infants. An even more extreme practice known as "free birthing" — in which no midwife is present at all — is considered especially dangerous by medical professionals.
Medical doctors strongly oppose the home birth trend, viewing it as irresponsible and potentially life-threatening for both mother and child. They point to the historical record as compelling evidence: when childbirth first shifted on a large scale from the home to the modern hospital in the 1950s, maternal mortality dropped dramatically — from 376 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1940 to 37.1 deaths per 100,000 in 1960. This tenfold improvement in safety is directly attributed to the availability of modern medical care during delivery.
"Studies disagree on infant mortality risk levels"
"Prolapsed cord emergencies illustrate homebirth dangers"
It is probably somewhat irresponsible to revert to home birthing in light of the obvious advantages of the modern hospital environment. It is doubtful that there is any real benefit to the practice, and there is substantial evidence that it is potentially deadly. To accommodate the increasing demand for more natural birth experiences, several hospitals have established natural birthing centers on or near hospital facilities, ensuring that emergency medical assistance is readily available if complications arise. While this option is clearly preferable to delivering at home, the safest and most responsible choice remains hospital delivery.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.