To be fed up of the "home birth is risky" misinformation?

Midwives can't save a woman's life if the woman is bleeding out.

That's what happened to me. Fortunately I was in hospital and doctors rushed in to save me as I went into severe shock. I would have died if I had been at home.

It's a choice every woman has to weigh up. But it is incorrect to say that midwives have all they need to assist with a home birth. That is only true if things go to plan...but they often don't.

Setting yourself up to be reliant on a poorly functioning ambulance service is risky.

Don't believe your community midwife when she says that you will get an ambulance if you need one, frequently there are NO ambulances available in large geographical areas regardless of your priority (and you aren't the highest possible priority on the system unless one or both of you have actually reached the point of stopping breathing).

There is plenty of evidence that shows hospital is not always safer than home, but it depends heavily on what the factors are that make "all things equal". For example a fat woman giving birth to her second baby is in a different category to a thin woman giving birth to her first even if both are "low risk".

Hospitals can create risk that doesn't exist at home just as the opposite is true too. It depends on the individual circumstances.

I think this is a fair point, and actually this is why I didn't have a home birth for DC2: he was born at a point during COVID where ambulance services were extremely strained and so the risk of not being able to transfer if required felt too high. However, I do think this has to be weighed against the fact that in-hospital maternity services are also strained and in crisis currently.

What research are you referring to? A link would be handy.

I get wanting a home birth, absolutely.

I couldn’t personally take the risk of a rare, unforeseen complication that needs urgent hospital treatment, particularly for baby. The stakes are too high for me.

Do you have any evidence that home birth is safe in the context of the NHS in 2025, when an ambulance is likely to take well over an hour to get to you if something goes wrong?

I would have been the perfect candidate for home birth with my second. Had a natural delivery first time round with no issues, delivered the placenta without the injection, had a low risk second pregnancy and went into spontaneous labour.

If I had had a home birth, chances are I would be dead as I had a horrific PPH sometime after delivering the placenta (again without the injection) during the golden hour and was just casually bleeding out whilst cuddling my second born.

So why aren't the outcomes worse for low-risk births of second and subsequent babies? If it is obvious common sense, then why don't the outcomes show it?

My great Gran died as did the baby as it was a home birth as it was in those days. I and my mum would have been dead if it was a home birth and me and my dd would be died if it was a home birth. That is facts in my family and why we never be stupid enough in our family to have a home birth. Retained placenta.

So just to check, you think you know better than the clinicians that have done every single study of home birth ever done? Because none of them would use your 'technique'.

Home births by their very nature are more risky than hospital births because IF something goes wrong, you do not have the access to care & help immediately as you do in a hospital. That absolutely does make them riskier- if shit hits the fan, you’ve got less access to support and it will take longer to get it, that can be the difference between life and death.

That’s not to say the risk of something going wrong is always higher at home, but that IF something does go wrong the risk of a bad outcome is higher because you’re at home rather than in a hospital where in a matter of seconds you can be wheeled into theatre etc.

I was injured in hospital, I wouldn't have been if I birthed at home. Second time I went to the hospital with 4 mins before I birthed and the 3rd time I birthed at home. I'd have likely been further injured if I birthed in hospital or accepted induction - which I was massively pressured about the second time, despite only being 41 weeks pregnant. One of the reasons I put off going near the place.
There are certainly reasons modern medicine is amazing and literally saves mothers every day - csections and induction absolutely have their place.
...50% C-section rates and pressure to induce for no good reason, not so amazing.

I apparently with my second had to be induced because it was a medical emergency (consultant couldn't tell me why other than the fact I was 40+6). It was such an emergency he wanted to do it the following Monday because they were understaffed.
I gave birth 12 hours later.

No, they aren't. For second and subsequent low-risk births, home birth is as safe as hospital - which means the two have different risk factors, but they both come with risks and benefits. It simply isn't true to say that every single birth in every circumstance is safer in a hospital.

And some of those things aren't choices made by medical staff. Arguably over-intervention is, but birth slowing down in hospital happens to many women, but it isn't something anyone can help, it's a physiological response. So yes, it is a reasonable risk to factor in.

The question is whether home births are riskier or not. Your answer is to a different question of “for a low risk birth are home births riskier”. On that basis they’re not, but to truly answer the question you need to isolate all factors and then take a random sample, not a skewed sample like you suggest. It’s really basic stuff but if you’re not used to working with data and analysis I guess it’s harder.

I think it’s complicated, often information isn’t presented properly (and this also applies to things like choosing a c-section) which is frustrating because ultimately a woman having informed choice is the most important thing to me.

One thing about hospitals births though… I was massively encouraged to stay at home as long as possible whilst in labour. I rang up multiple times whilst having contractions and was put off each time, told to take paracetamol and have a bath. I ended up spending a full day, and 90% of my labour, at home. Arrived at hospital after waters had gone at 7/8cm. Was told ‘well done’ for this.

In contrast, a friend having a home birth had midwives with her much much earlier. So at the same points in labour I was at home with zero medical care, she was being monitored, checked and supported by medical professionals. This was 2012 though so no idea if things are the same.

I completely support your choice to give birth where you wanted to, but you had misunderstood why they suggested it to you. Your choice was the riskier one. For low-risk second births, home birth is as safe as hospital birth, but unplanned unattended birth - such as when someone tries to get to hospital but doesn't get there quickly enough - is much riskier. They recommended it because it was the safest option for you in your circumstances. As I say, I support the choice of all women to give birth in the way they prefer, including when they choose the objectively less safe option as long as it's an informed choice.

None of the above is ‘necessary’ in a hospital birth. That’s like saying home births are dangerous because the home environment may be unhygienic.
All things being equal, hospitals are always safer than home. It’s pretty obvious really.
But as a pp said, sometimes the increased risk of a home birth is more than offset by its many benefits (safety NOT being one of them.)

The risks are complicated. I know a woman who gave birth in hospital, but overstretched midwife meant that baby was in trouble and it wasnt picked up on until too late. The child was born alive, but has very severe disabilities.

That situation probably wouldn't have happened had she given birth at home - as she'd have had one to one midwife care and been transferred as soon as problems arise.

Distamce of home to hospital is a key factor here also, should the knees for transfer arise.

But if you do compare the same groups - low risk women, who have given birth before without complications (ie the women most likely to have home birth suggested to them, and the ones most likely to choose it), the statistics show it’s just as safe as hospital, and you have fewer interventions like episiotomies.

Your suggestion of taking 1,000 births at random and comparing them wouldn’t make any sense. It would include extremely high risk pregnancies/births that take place in hospital, but it’s not reasonable to use those because they’d never be a home birth so it wouldn’t make sense to include them in data showing hospital births are more dangerous. Plus it would include accidental home births, and home births against medical advice which also doesn’t make sense (you wouldn’t measure the success of a treatment by including people who weren’t advised to take it).

I was recommended to have a homebirth was DC2 as DC1 came fast. I wouldn't even discuss it. However minimal the difference in risk for me as an individual I had no interest in testing that risk. Plus I had no desire to have all that mess in my home. Don't understand the desire for a homebirth in the least.

Which is not to say it shouldn't be an option for those who do want it as long as they are absolutely clear on the risks.

When being in hospital leads to unnecessary intervention, slows the birth down and introduces extra risk factors such as contracting an illness from one of the many people you come into contact with in hospital. For low-risk pregnancies, hospital births are more likely to end in a postpartum haemorrhage than those planned to be at home (and yes, they controlled for risk factors and that some planned home births end up being in hospital): https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2393-12-130

Me too and I’d be dead as well

In the main those who have a home birth are selected because they are low risk, so inevitably the figures might look good.