Ban dads from the birth? Your thoughts please!

I had a very fast, very intense (about 1 hr 45 min) labour on dd2. We barely made it to the hospital. I was glad to have DH there. So much so that I made the midwife laugh when I wished I'd had 2 Dh's - one to hold each hand

"the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated if her partner is in the room"

if the partner is in the room of the night of conception maybe...

Personally I was never really aware of any pressure for dh to be there. Certainly not from the health professionals. Most laypoeple do assume it, it's true.

I agree that he challenges teh established protocols well, and that is necessary.

But I can still disagree with him from time to time .

My DH did the thinking and talking for me whilst I got on with the business in hand. I think it's a positively stupid idea to 'ban' partners from the birth - who the hell gives anyone the right to ban a family from being with each other?

Totally a matter of parental choice, althogh I am quite old school and vaguely like the idea of the dad pacing up and down the corridors smoking a fat cigar (in theory).
As it happened DP was v useful in the sense that he thoroughly enjoyed helping himself to gas and air , and for me to moan at and shout that I was dying from pain etc etc.
Truthfully though, I wouldn't have necessarily wanted him to be watching a birth in all its gory detail. Agree with Ormirian that there is almost pressure the other way these days, that men should be there somehow,
As it turned out, I ended up having a c-section and was grateful he held my hand/sickbucket throughout.

candles - he only said it 'can' be longer and more painful. I think it's important to say these things to challenge what seems to be the current orthodoxy that fathers must be present. When it isn't automatically normal or natural or better that they are there in all circumstances.

"Michel Odent said he believes the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated if her partner is in the room"

My first labour would definitely have been more painful and more complicated if dh had not been in the room.

AFter I had my epidural, the mw wanted to break my waters and give me a syntocinon drip (or was it syntometrin? You know which I mean!) to speed things along. We had to fight like stink to stop her. On my own I doubt I could have done so. I did not want the interference, nor did I need it, and ds1 was born within a couple of hours, six hours earlier than she had insisted he would be born.

She also would not allow me to turn on my side when she topped-up epidural, despite the anaesthetist's instructions to do so, because she was afraid of losing the baby's trace on the monitor. I did not have the ability to stand up to her, and, jsut at thtat point dh was out of the rooom. Had he been with me, he would have stood up for me, I would have turned over, and perhaps the epidural would have worked better, rather than leaving me in extreme agony on one side and with a dead leg for two days on the other side.

So, much as I respect MO's attitudes towards birthing women, and much as he has done to improve labour etc, I think he is making too much of a sweeping statement in this case.

DH helped me cope with all the births, and with ds4 was comlpimented by the MW on how much he helped (home birth, second midwife didn't make it in time- he set up the gas and air, etc).

Even for the ffew minutes he was rushinga round outside with his ahnds freezing from escaping g&a (MW'serror LOL, she put cap thingy on wrong way) I missed him dreadfully.

It ahs to be all about choice, and for me DH was an important part of the birth. I am not good with strangers or hospitals and having him made all teh difference. Becuase I knew with the HB I might need to transfer into hospital I hired a Doula to cover that eventuality, but lovely though she was DH was what I needed.

Didn't Michel Odent say more-or-less that back in the 1970s? News is taking a while to catch up these days...

Anyway, different strokes for different folks . And for different occasions.

Actually, more by chance than by planning, DH only arrived at the hospital for DD's birth as she was crowning and I felt that in some ways I had the best of both worlds. He got to be there for the actual birth but I didn't have to think about him during the early stages when, actually, I felt more comfortable on my own (or with the midwife being very hands-off). Then again, DD's birth was remarkably uncomplicated and straightforward.

In contrast, I got quite stressed during DS's much longer and more complicated birth because DH got sent home overnight. Then again again, that may have been more about the idea of DH than DH himself who would probably have been faintly crap and fallen asleep in a corner. It was only circumstances that meant I had to do all of early labour in hospital and if I'd been able to labour at home as I did with DD I'd probably have felt happier on my own. But in a hospital for an extended period I wanted someone there with me (and to be fair I think Michel Odent is quite pro female friends or relatives).

Sooooooooooo... I think "banning" fathers from the birth is OTT and unreasonable, but perhaps it is sometimes suggested too strongly that of course the father must want to be there and the mother must want him there throughout the whole thing.

My childrens' dad could have been in France for all the notice I took of him. I occasionally barked "DRINK" at him (a la Father Jack) but apart from that, I really didn't notice his existence at all.

This held true for both of my children's births. So I would have to disagree with the article - as by the time I was truly into the labour a coack full of medical students/clowns/waiters could have spilled into the room and I wouldn't have cared less.

Perhaps as was wisely suggested earlier, if we had a caring, known, professional and familiar midwife then we wouldn't need to have our DHs there to "fight our corner".

I would prefer DH not to be there as he is something else I have to think about, but I can't think of anyone else who would be an adequate substitution for him, as he knows me so well.

I actually think that my birth experience has been more harrowing for DH than for me, because he was powerless and just had to spectate.

Think it is down to personal choice. I wasn't fussed either way but DH wanted to be there. DS started coming out in a rush then problems set in. After DS was born and 50 mins of stiches I fell asleep. I woke up to find father and son cuddled up on the arm chair.

With second DS I was only in hospital an hour before he praticaly flew out of me!

DH was happy both times, so was I and babies were Ok too. No problem

Now I come to think of it DH was more of a 'hindrance' than I thought. Once things started getting heavy he wanted to listen to the football so as I wasn't actually listening to the bloody soothing music I had lovingly selected to help with the birth , he turned on the R5 to listen to West Ham in the 4th round of the FA cup. He also kept having crafty fags round the back of the maternity wing and then coming back and smelling of smoke. And then telling me to 'Breathe!'. Breathe FFS! What do you think I'm doing? You'll know if I stop by the fact I go blue and fall over.....

And when DS#1 was finally with us the first thing he did was to cry because his useless fuckwit of a father wasn't there to see him. Which all things considered wasn't what I wanted to hear.

Some have the opinion that if he's there at the stoart (conception) he should be there at the end.

Personally, i think it needs to be decided by the individual couple and not the hospital, if Dad wants to be there and Mom wants him there its because she feels he'll be more support than hinderance.

DH was there at both of my births, as was my mum.

It's of course down to individual preferences - some women would prefer the father not to be there, just as some fathers would far prefer to be down the pub elsewhere.

I personally found it hugely hepful to have DH there and couldn't have wished for a better birth partner. Otherwise it'd just have been the midwife and me, and the midwife had other things to concentrate on other than my mad ramblings and need to virtually break an arm! I don't think DH would have had it any other way either, and I think I can say with some confidence that it hasn't put him off sex!

And I am sorry, but I am howling with laughter at the thought of Winky's DS at the birth being..."no trouble, he's just not any use either which isn't his fault really. He just reads his book, eats mars bars and says a few encouraging words every now and then.". Actually, I am laughing so blinking much I think DD thinks there is something wrong!

My grandfather was somewhere fighting a war and sent my grandmother a telex: 'Have you had the baby and what are you calling it?'

I quite like that idea (bar the fighting in a war)

Before DS was born I went into a bit of a panic, thinking I didn't want him to see me screeching and generally being the wimp I am. Thankfully I put the thought out of my head, because I was not thinking at all clearly or rationally and when it came to decisions like topping up my epidural or having an entirely new one put in, he was able to actually get through to me when the staff couldn't because I was babbling away like a drugged up fool. When DD was born it wasn't an issue at all as he'd been so brilliant with DS's birth.

It's up to each couple, obviously, but you definitely need someone who you feel is 100% 'on your side', and who knows what you want. I found that my birth plan was wholly ignored, so having DP was great. Not something that ever could be banned, but should be discussed, as not all men would want to be present but may feel as though they are expected to be there.

No way would I have wanted to be labouring without dh. Not only did he also want to be there, but there is nobody else I would have wanted to share the amazing first moments with our new child.

Dh was an absolute rock for me. OK, first time around he didn't know exactly what to do, but then neither did I!

If I could not have had dh with me, then I would have wanted my dad. I want the strong solidity of a man who I know will be entirely for me, only looking after me, not squeamish nor concerned with somebody else's protocol.

If I could not have had dh or my dad, then I would have chosen a doula.

Ultimately it must be the mum-to-be and the couple together who choose.

I think it should be up to the individuals involved.

For what it's worth, DH was extremely pissed off that when he took a 15 minute nap on a plastic chair 20 hours after we'd arrived at hospital and several hours before DD finally made an appearance, the MW wrote "partner asleep" on my notes. I was quite happily watching GMTV at this point (wonderful epidural).

Would have regretted DH not being there, as he was so calm and supportive - also nice to have someone to chat to through such a long labour!

Hmm. Labours of 2 hours, 3 hours and then 37 minutes probably testify to dh not lengthening them. I needed him to be there to be my advocate on the issues I felt strongly about but wasn't necessarily able to communicate coherently at the time. He's a doctor and was terribly calm and matter of fact which was absolutely fantastic. He also stepped into dr mode after birth 1 and I was having a large pph which needed immediate medical attention and the poor midwife was trying desperately to source an obstetrician when there were there three emergency sections going on. Quite ridiculous to suggest banning husbands.

I think it should be completely up to the couple. Many men want to be there, and equally I think many men are probably quite traumatised by it.

If I was only allowed one person, I would rather have had a doula, if I'm honest, assuming that DP was happy to be 'pacing' instead. Especially at the birth of ds2, which I think could have been a much more positive experience for me, and might not have ended in an em-CS if I'd had someone who knew what was going on and who could have stood my corner for me a bit in the face of a pretty crappy registrar.

What a dippy thing to say. Men aren't all fainters.

Mine's a doctor, loves gore. He wanted to deliver DS he was that keen! He didn't... but he's definitely not the fainting, labour-slowing, panicking sort. He was an entirely calm, rational, reassuring and encouraging presence all 3 times.

i read the article and i think that you can't compare the feeling of being in a modern hospital with 'traditional' births.

i might be ok with the idea of being alone in 'my' village with a traditional community midwife who was part of my community and i'd known all my life and had probably delivered me when i was a baby.

being alone in a modern hospital environment with midwifes i have never met before on shift patterns with hospital 'proceedures' and equipment.. that to me is bloody terrifying and keeping DH out of the room would just add to my terror, as far as i'm concerned in the presence of strangers he'll be the only person who really knows me.

My view was always: If I had to be there at the birth, then he can bleddy well be there too.

Ban dads? I think that would be a rather heavy handed approach. Like everyone else so far on this thread I think it should be whatever is right for the couple involved. For my part, I needed DP there to keep me going. (Especially when I refused to push because I 'didn't want to do it anymore' )