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

No, but I know you are determinedly misinterpreting it to suit your own narrative.

I don't know if people are discussing the recent case where the mother and baby died in a homebirth, but from what I've read, it seems like the mother may have had appointments discussing risk that her husband did not attend.

The other thing is that I had a previous PPH but wanted a birth centre birth the next time around which is outside of their guidelines. I didnt know this until I booked. Anyway, the midwife did not go through risks with me extensively, the consultant did at 34 weeks and because my PPH was due to trauma and not tone, the consultant was actually fine with a birth centre birth. Midwife just explained why she was referring me to the consultant for this appointment much later on in pregnancy.

My midwife just continued with her normal care and that felt right to me. I wouldn't have wanted her to keep going on about it from booking to 41 weeks pregnant.

No, it’s not.

So shortly after conception?

44 weeks snd 3 days. My first appointment with the midwives was 9 months before DC1 was born

Misinformation is not the same thing as information you don't like.

I don't deny that the cascade of intervention is real and does cause complications, but that is a separate issue.

In birth, things do and can go wrong. There have been a number of births that were unassisted (a different discussion to midwife attended home birth, but no intervention is the point) and things went wrong to the point of death.

I had a midwife present who didn't do a single intervention, other than occasionally listening to the baby with a doppler in whatever position I happened to be in at the time. One of my births is an example of what can go wrong. Reasons:

High parity - this can increase the risk of the type of complication I had.
Large baby - can also increase the risk.
Cord issues - probably the ultimate cause.

Unassisted, midwife at home or hospital, I would have had the same problem. I don't regret that it was a home birth. All the while though, I can acknowledge I would never have got as close to death as I did had I been in hospital. If I'd had a c-section, in hindsight, it would have been very justifiable, even for me who is against any unnecessary intervention in birth.

Yes, interventions can cause problems and complications, but let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's the only cause of problems. Sometimes things happen all on their own during birth.

I am still very pro home birth and comfortable with the idea, I would have no problems with my daughters choosing to birth at home, however I am realistic and birth carries risk. Otherwise why did you have a midwife present in the first place? Because we know that sometimes, things don't go to plan.

Your first baby was born at 44 weeks?!

Planned home births with experienced midwives and a solid backup plan worked for me. I used independent midwifes with backup from a good obstetrician. DC1, a month late with back to back presentation until the last minute, was born in hospital. The rest (same presentation but we felt from DC1 that they would probably turn) were home births. All went smoothly but my midwives were very experienced.

I think you're referring to Montgomery v Lanarkshire - went to the Supreme Court.
The Claimant (Nadia Montgomery) later qualified as a lawyer and is a big advocate for birth safety and consent stuff, and her son, while diagnosed with cerebral palsy due to the dystocia, is I believe doing very well and went to uni!

Yes in that case she absolutely should’ve sued.

They’ve updated the article on the current inquest, it is again a very sad read. I can’t imagine how unwell she must’ve felt - I lost a lot of blood after DS was born and had to have iron tablets, I don’t know if it was technically a haemorrhage but I felt so shaky and weak that when they forced me into the shower I had to press the emergency buzzer.

I agree, if you make the informed decision then that means accepting the consequences.

I think it gets tricky when people claim they weren’t informed properly beforehand. There was a high profile case of a pregnant woman who was discussing birth options with her consultant and whether or not to have a cesarean. The woman had some risk factors and the doctor knew that this meant statistically she had about a 1 in 10 chance of shoulder dystocia occurring in a vaginal delivery. However, she purposely chose not to disclose this information as she felt the patient should opt for a vaginal birth. The woman did end up having shoulder dystocia and her child was severely disabled as a result.

Ok, but I have to be honest and say there is an element of people jumping to blame medics sometimes (not in the case we’re discussing) when really they’ve taken matters into their own hands but the outcome wasn’t the one they wanted. If you decide to take big risks, you can’t really then go back on that afterwards and say they should’ve overridden you.

It is fine if you don't agree with home births and feel free to consider it uncivilised but it is entirely unfair to suggest that those who do are somehow ignoring science. There are many examples of scientific evidence comparing hospital and home births. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

You have to consent to anything.

Unless you’re in a coma of course

You have to consent to c sections, dont you? Regardless of risk to baby if you refuse.

Ultimately consent is consent. Of course if the person is unconscious or lacks mental capacity (eg severely disabled) then decisions are made on their behalf.

An example is some Jehovah’s witnesses won’t consent to blood transfusions. Doctors have had to just stand there and let them die when they know that a blood transfusion would save them. But they can’t override the fact that the patient has refused.

I dont know what oyu argue about. If all women gave birth at home, then there would be many more deaths on averge. Many babies and women survive only thanks to medical intervetnion that is only possible in hospitals. It is risky to give birth at home if you may require medical intervention- and you may not know this will be needed until you do. My first pregnancy and birth were a model one, and yet my child ended up in ICU 10 minutes after birth. Unless I had a crystall ball, Id not have been able to foresee that.

For arguments sake let’s say the baby needed delivering urgently as they were flatlining or in severe, life threatening distress. Should they still not do the episiotomy?

I remember seeing one case in the news a few years ago where a baby was sadly stillborn. Another high risk home birth situation (if I remember rightly mum was 40ish, and her previous labour had ended in EMCS). She was adamant she would query every decision, as was her right, but ultimately it slowed things down as she wanted to wait to the last minute before any interventions were done and her baby was stillborn in hospital after a transfer. She was on TV as she ultimately blamed the NHS and while I don’t know the ins and outs of it, from the information given I’m afraid it did read like while she was ultimately happy to take control of her labour, the catastrophic result meant she now thought the medics should’ve overruled her. What happens here?

The bottom line is that many women don’t want home births - and that’s not because of misinformation but attributable to a number of factors.

As mentioned above, some want to be where they can have effective pain relief - epidurals, others prefer to be where doctors are readily available and not just midwives and others weigh up the risks and opt fior what they think is safest for them.

Some people don’t have much truck with nature and prefer science and civilisation - they feel more comfortable in the medical setting. A pp says it’s odd that some women want to be in a place with sick people when they’re not ill. But, to many of us, extreme pain, bodily discharges, risk to life and limb are being ‘sick’ with no guarantee of a positive outcome and we prefer to have all options including surgery immediately to hand.

The OP feels differently and that’s fine.

No I don’t see a VE as assault, I have had them during labours. No issues. I would expect to be offered them. However if they are done without consent it is obviously and undeniably assault- nobody has the right to shove their fingers up somebody’s vagina without getting permission first. Thankfully I think it is rare- there was an NHS case where the woman in labour told the consultant to stop and he didn’t. The midwives present helped her report to the police afterwards, but I don’t think they really knew how to deal with it because it was such a rare complaint they had not come across.

Same with other interventions. There was a case in the USA where the dr said something along the lines of ‘I’m going to perform as episiotomy’ but the woman in labour said ‘no’- he ignored her and did it anyway. Her birth partner was recording and the dr ended up getting prosecuted after for not having her consent.