Home births are irresponsible

[LadyShapes]

Did anyone see the start of Lorraine at about 8.30? They were talking about what's in the news and one of the stories was about how more women should have home births. The delighful guest they had on to talk about it said that she thought home births were irresponsible and dangerous. She also said she thought natural births were a load of rubbish and she just wanted to be in hospital and have medical intervention (paraphrasing). Oh and she wouldn't have a home birth because she has cream carpets. The other guest just agreed with her, so the that was the extent of the discussion.

Is it me? AIBU to think they shouldn't discuss news stories unless the guests have some kind of informed opinion (I mean, all the infomation I have had from my midwife tells me about the benefits of home births and a natural birth as well as the risks), or they should have read more than just the headline. Or AIBU to be watching Lorraine and hoping for some kind of balanced discussion.

"spudulika better a cord prolapse/placental abruption happen at home with 2 midwives present than in the back of a car surely?"

For sure!

Riven - there are a small number of babies born in hospital who sustain catastrophic brain damage because of cord prolapse or placental abruption. It's not unknown for this to happen and go unnoticed initially because the mother is not being cared for properly.

There is no choice you can make that would guarantee you a birth which is 100% safe - home or hospital. You can only go on the evidence you have at the time, as both you and I did.

I think you also need to point out that you'd had a previous c/s and were at higher risk of having placental problems during the birth than a mother who hadn't previously had surgery. All things being equal, the vast majority of vbac mothers in the UK who go for a home birth have a safe and happy experience, so you were not being cavalier or uncaring to have chosen this option.

Two low risk pregnancies, two (thankfully) fantastic hospital births.

Nobody knew dc1's cord was round the neck twice and she wouldn't have been born quickly without help. The consultant, extra midwives and scbu team that arrived in minutes to get her out and give her oxygen would have struggled to help if I'd been 10 mins away at home.

Nobody knew dc2 would have been born with two congenital abnormalaties that required immediate medical assistance in scbu straight after delivery and transferral to our local childrens hospital for immediate surgery.

Nobody knows how the labour, delivery and health of mother and baby will turn out until after the event. I just don't get why anyone would place themselves further away from medical assistance when your delivering the most precious thing in the world.

Riven - as ever, hope you and your family are well :)

I think they're a waste of valuable money and resources. Just go to the hospital.

"I genuinely wasn't concerned about my experience of labour. I felt I was very much secondary in the process compared to my baby being born safely and well. I don't think I even really bothered with a birth-plan?"

Ah well - I was genuinely concerned for my physical and mental health - which as a mother is hugely important to my children. That's why I chose to have my baby at home: I wanted the same chance of a safe delivery for my baby, and less chance of ending up having and emergency c/s, which of all birth modes is the least safe for the mother. I mean - why do anything that puts you at increased risk of major blood loss or hysterectomy WHEN THERE ARE NO PROVEN BENEFITS FOR YOUR BABY? I appreciate you are trying to demonstrate how selfless you were, but newborn babies to benefit from having their mother in good health in the first few weeks of life surely?

I also wouldn't have wanted to have gone through a subsequent pregnancy with a c/s scar on my uterus, as I believe this may increase the risk of stillbirth, and it certainly increases the risk of placental problems.

"Nobody knows how the labour, delivery and health of mother and baby will turn out until after the event. I just don't get why anyone would place themselves further away from medical assistance when your delivering the most precious thing in the world. "

Sigh. Say it again. Because, taking in the evidence from 10s of 1000s of births in the UK over the last decade, that BABIES BORN AT HOME ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO DIE OR BE INJURED THAN BABIES BORN IN HOSPITAL.

Ok?

Sorry to raise my voice, but judging from some posts here you'd think there was actually EVIDENCE that homebirths are more dangerous. They're not!

"I just don't get why anyone would place themselves further away from medical assistance when your delivering the most precious thing in the world."

Because sometimes being in that environment makes people's labours become complicated and puts their baby at risk.

Which is why more babies born to low risk mums in hospital end up in SCBU than babies born to low risk mums who give birth at home.

From the National Birthday Trust study:

"Babies planned for home birth were less likely to be in bad condition (low APGAR score) at birth, even including those transferred to hospital.

At 1 minute, 5.2% of the planned home babies had APGAR scores below 7, compared to 9.3% of the planned hospital babies. At 5 minutes, 0.7% of both groups had scores below 7.

'Resuscitation' is a term used to refer both to simple suctioning of the nose and mouth, giving oxygen with a bag and mask, or intubation, where a tube is passed into the trachea and oxygen is given under pressure.

Babies planned for home birth were less likely to have any of these interventions. Again, the rate for transfers was slightly higher than the rate for planned hospital births, but the overall planned home birth rate was lower."

This was a study that looked at birth outcomes for 1000's of women.

"my own physical and mental well being prior to the birth would have been as nothing, if I had thought I couldn't have immediate access to a hospital's facilities if they became necessary during labour. I just wouldn't have been prepared to take the risk"

So - even if you hadn't had complications requiring a c/s, you think it would have been 'too risky' to give birth at home?

On what evidence? What do you know about the risks associated with homebirth that the RCM and the RCOG don't?

Do tell?

I'm someone with a nerdish interest in birth culture and history LeQueen.

'Twas this book which started me off:

here

Would also add - that there's a STRONG culture of support for home birth in this country among midwives. Generally the more senior, experienced and confident the midwife, the more enthusiastic she tends to be about home birth. It might be a very minority choice in terms of actual numbers , but it's completely 'mainstream' for midwives in the UK.

It's really not a radical or controversial choice any more.

DC5 was born with the cord round his neck twice.

The removed it the same as they would in hospital.

Unfortunately I know just how precious our kids are. I still chose Home Births.

(dammit couldnt keep away)

Why is it that women who have had homebirths are 'lucky' that everything went ok but women who have hosptial births are not classed as 'lucky' that everything went ok.

Do women who have complicated births in hosptial get the blame? I hope not. Because its fucking horrible.

No.

"I deemed it too risky, as at the time we lived over 20 miles from the nearest hospital, and if something went wrong, I felt our home was too remote."

I'm surprised the thought even crossed your radar....

It certainly didn't occur to me when I had my first. I wouldn't have even considered it. I thought it was akin to 'freebirthing' - ie, taking your life and your baby's in your own hands. But at that point I had no idea about what midwives do.

Talking to midwives who regularly deliver babies at home changed my feelings about it.

And meeting mothers who've done it and found it a life-changing experience.

And of course eventually doing it myself...

A work colleague died as a direct result of her c-section, thus anyone having one is irresponsible.

No, I don't believe that either.

But LeQueen surely the point is that's your CHOICE to go to a hospital - but other women make other choices. Doesn't make them irresponsible. Just like it doesn't make you neurotic. We all have different ideas about what sort of births we want. I won't be having any more babies and even if I did it would have to be in a hospital as I had two previous ELCS. However, having researched this pretty thoroughly, I would definitely go for a homebirth if I was deemed to be low risk enough. I can recommend a few more books if you are interested but I am currently reading this Misconceptions which is mainly about the American system but I always fear that what happens there eventually happens here....

Spokesman for RCOG said on Radio 4 Today that more "low risk" women should be able to give birth at home, or outside hospitals.

www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/midwifery/low-risk-women-should-be-able-to-give-birth-at-home-say-rcog/5032529.article?referrer=RSS

I think this is good provided a) people realise that low-risk pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean that labour will be straightforward b) that you might want more pain relief than delivering at home can offer c) that there is no compulsion to give birth at home or outside hospital if you are deemed "low risk".

I preferred to go to hospital even though I was low risk and had two straightforward 6 hour labours. First time round I was very glad to have an epidural. Second time round I just had gas and air but if I'd been at home, probably would have had to go into hospital for DD to be monitored for infection for 24 hours as she was born 'dry' and I wasn't sure when my waters had gone.

Sorry, here's the link again:

www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/midwifery/low-risk-women-should-be-able-to-give-birth-at-home-say-rcog/5032529.article?referrer=RSS

I did tick the box that time - still didn't work!

Wasn't this thread meant to be about whether it was reasonable to have someone on LK being negative about homebirths with no expert knowledge and no balancing view?
I think that is unreasonable. It may only be LK but it is mainly being watched by women of childbearing age.

Re: the safety/desirability of homebirths, I think most people realise there are always some risks associated with giving birth, and these may be slightly greater or slightly lower depending on all sorts of factors in individual cases, like distance from hospital, traffic conditions, beds/staff available in the hospital, which hospital, and just sheer luck whether a particular problem is spotted at the right time.

Not wanting to comment on particular cases I would say it was unlikely you could be sure that in the case of placental abruption, for example, you would be guaranteed to be ok in hospital, and guaranteed not to be ok at a homebirth. If an emcs is required for example, there would be a minimum of 10 minutes prep time, probably more, after the decision to go to theatre.

Wholeheartedly agree with the posters who are saying homebirth is preferable to delivering in a taxi, car or ambulance. Women who are prone to quick labours but are going to hospital are likely to have to go in much earlier than necessary or than they would like, (increasing the risk of intervention, and the cost to the NHS) as a precaution.

Informed choice is what it is all about and LK did not help anyone with that.