Hacker News Reader

Indeed, here is her take on the report referenced in the NY Times article that is the OP:

http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/12/new-uk-homebirth-guidelin...

Clearly she has virtually the opposite perspective from the one in the NYT, and one that seems hard to dismiss.

(My kid was delivered in a hospital, and I tell myself that I'm being impartial, but who knows.)

Easy to dismiss, she is biased against any kind of natural birth and uses flawed studies in her arguments.

Much better source of information. http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=7625

That is a biased source of information.

She's describing a study commissioned by Oregon, conducted by a midwife.

The study was a retrospective study, they looked at data from birth certificates that did not sort out planned and unplanned homebirths and did not sort out the type of midwife (trained vs untrained). Here is a better study to consider: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015871 .

I think if you want to do a good study, you need to compare a system where home births are the default (like in Netherland) with one where hospital births are the default, but the health care situation is otherwise comparable.