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

Round here I know of home births where the ambulance was waiting outside to whisk the labouring mother to the hospital 5 minutes away. So yes, it can and does happen. Obviously terrifying for the mother though and not ideal even if both are safe at the end. I'm not sure it would be less terrifying in a hospital though.

I don't think it's especially useful to say one method is blanket safer than the other because there is evidence for both and so much depends in individual cases. The trouble is that our health service is set up as a giant system of risk calculation which is great for lots of things but when it comes to individual women birthing individual babies it can feel like a completely dehumanising experience. Certainly was for me and my two reluctant inductions that ended well but left me feeling like a faulty baby delivery machine.

The woman was a fucking idiot though. They don’t have a cause of death yet for her or her baby who died 4 days later, but they are suspecting it was something to do with the strep b she tested positive for, but she refused treatment for her and her baby??

If we're going with anecdotal stories, the child I had in hospital was damaged by their cycle of interventions (not all consented to) , as was I.

My children born at home with only midwives were not.

A midwife can give you an emergency c-section at home? Since when?

How is it not risky?

Why do you care that people have a different opinion than you?

if you're pregnant, planning a home birth & people are saying it's not safe then I understand but just say you've looked into it, are happy with your decision & don't want to discuss it. But if it's gaming/close friends you should at least listen to their concerns, they only want the best for you.

Yes I agree. Similar to bed sharing there is too much misinformation and scare tactics.

Hospital births have been shocking for so long. It’s no wonder people try home births. My youngest was born in 2008 in hospital. The “care” was beyond atrocious and it’s sheer luck that we came through it unscathed.

Within 30 mins? Safely? I don't agree. And I wouldn't put my or my babies life in the hands of 'could'

I was not referring to free birthing which is just unimaginably stupid.

I had a homebirth with dc1, as recommended by my midwife. I had hospital births with my others because of various additional risk factors. If i had known how the births of dc2 and dc3 would go then i would have had homebirths with them too but i didn't have access to a crystal ball so i had them in hospital. I live less than 10 minutes drive from the hospital which was a big factor. I also wouldn't have a homebirth now because the waiting times for an ambulance in an emergency is much longer now.

They can’t though - unless they are going to drive the ambulance, start the blood transfusion, do epidural and then the crash surgery.
IME the midwife felt that going into hospital following a ln attempted home birth (haemorrhage) was a failure rather than seeing the whole process as a success because mother and baby got through it without any complications.

It is risky. I can 100% see why people want one though as my care in hospital while recovering from birth was, to be frank, awful. However they did save my life as I was having a pph! For which I am obviously extremely grateful! I wish we could make hospital births so much better. If we could, I think fewer people would want a home birth.

Based on what? You’ve not given anything to back up your view. If study took a sample of say 1,000 births irrespective of location and then looked at what would happen if all those births took place in hospital and all those births took place at home I’d be willing to bet the “success” rate would be higher in hospitals.

What you can’t do is compare home births to hospital births directly because that ignores a multitude of other factors - planned home births are highly likely to be successful because there (usually) low risk, whereas high risk births are (usually) planned to take place in a hospital. On a direct comparison you’re not comparing like for like.

She didn't.

I think you would find that if the advice wasn’t given the deaths would be higher at home than they are now - one key factor is keeping women and especially first births and obvious risk factors in hospital for births

“Because we do our best to ensure all even slightly higher risk births are in hospital , home births appear safer “ isn’t really the headline you are after is it?

At a home birth you have midwives who yes can do all that. Nobody is suggesting free birthing isn't riskier.

There is some evidence that women are more likely to get into dangerous situations in hospital. But obviously there's no way of knowing in each individual case.

Well it is.

If I'd had a home birth I wouldn't be typing this now. I would have died more than two decades ago.

It sounds correct to me. As you say above ‘my point is that giving birth can be unpredictable.’ You don’t know what might pop up and you’re safer in a hospital. That said I have no issue with supported home births for low risk mums when it’s not their first child.

IF you are 22, young, fit(slim) and healthy, and have had no pregnancy complications, you will be more likely to have a successful home birth.

However, pregnant women are more likely to be overweight, and older, and those factors add additional complications which mean a successful home birth is less likely.

Go on then. When is it safer to be at home than in hospital?

Like a lot of things, it’s nuanced. What matters is a) the accuracy of the risk assessment for individual women, so we can make the best decision b) the quality of care / support in hospital and at home being good so that this does not have to be a factor.

That is quite an easy argument to make.... (Ignoring very very unique situations such as possibly very immunosuppressed individuals where hospital visits are high risk)

There is always a risk that something may go wrong, no matter how safe and easy the birth appears to be in the build up there is always a chance.

If something goes wrong it is safer to be in hospital where there are doctors, operating theatres, drugs etc.

Therefore all births are riskier at home.

That doesn't mean that sometimes the risks are so minimal as to be almost negligible and the comfort factor is worth ignoring the fractional increase in risk. There absolutely are plenty of situations where the risk difference is tiny and therefore worth taking.

Neither I nor my daughter would be here if I'd had a home birth. DD in particular started her merry way down the birth canal, changed her mind and shot back up! Episiotomy plus 4th degree tear, forceps, shoulder dystocia, loss of blood (me)... I could go on. Just the pain of getting her out broke through the epidural. I was one push away from EMCS.

All births are potentially risky, unless you're a chicken!

Home birth is riskier.

You have around 30 mins from something going wrong to get that baby out safely. How many people can say they can figure out there's a problem, call an ambulance, ambulance arrive and asses, arrive at hospital, be assessed, get to surgery, get baby out, within 30 mins?

It's much like vaccines, modern medicine has meant that people don't understand the true dangers, because it's rarer now. It's a privileged position in the western world to deny medical care.

The issue is, that maternity care isn't up to par - women should feel like they 'want' to give birth in hospital. If something goes wrong that's where you want to be. Sometimes the most straightforward, low risk pregnancies can result in a life threatening issue (cord prolapse, shoulder dystocia etc) and can happen without warning. Giving birth in a non medical setting will always carry more risk, for those it applies to, which you can't predict most of the time unfortunately.