To wince at people who have homebirths?

[TheCatsMeow]

I never used to, I used to say that everyone should have the birth they want and mean it. But my birth went wrong and I ended up with a baby who would have died had it not been for NICU. If we had been at home, he wouldn't have survived and I may not have.

Every time I hear someone say they want a homebirth my head screams "YOU'RE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE". I get visions of myself and my son lying dead. It frightens me and every time I see a woman who is pregnant I think "I hope they both survive". I don't say any of this unless someone asks and then I just say that I ended up with complications so was greatful to not be at home.

But I feel like people are risking themselves and their babies and it makes me uncomfortable. I think IABU but don't know how to deal with my feelings on this. Please don't be harsh.

mrsplum is there a study that shows that, in certain situations, having a glass of wine while pregnant results in better outcomes?

"Yes it is true that a massive placental abrupt ion or a cord prolapse is likely to have a worse outcome if it occurs in an out of hospital setting (including a free standing birth centre). The fact then that outcomes are NOT worse for these settings suggests that some poor outcomes are more likely in hospital."

Merrymouse exactly that ^^

There may be some poor outcomes more likely in hospital but I don't know what they are and why they would occur, do you? Other than infection?

And no I wouldn't consider someone ending up with an infection irresponsible, just the same as I didn't consider my grandma irresponsible for getting an infection in hospital when she was being treated for a severe back injury. But as I've said I'm sure people on this thread would consider me irresponsible for having a hospital birth particularly an elcs. And that's fine.

Thank goodness my family is complete and I'll never have to deliver a baby again. I would have serious misgivings if one of my daughters wanted to have a baby at home but I would never say so. So I don't know why anyone here is so bothered about my opinion as I won't be sharing it to put off anyone who might benefit from a home birth.

In response to the statistic qu it's like air travel is statistically far less risky than car travel but I feel far more uneasy in an aeroplane because if the worst happens the potential result is far worse. Again difficult analogy because I fly regularly and don't consider anyone irresponsible for doing so but there is no straightforward less risky alternative, which there is in the case of hb.

@fourormore, no but I don't believe there is a study showing home birth is safer. The stats quoted on this thread show it is equally safe, and only in certain circumstances.

@allmybestfriends sounds like our first birth experiences were very similar in some respects. But just as there are good and bad days in hospitals there are good and bad staff for home births, availability of ambulances, etc. I can't believe that they can get a theatre ready quicker for a hb patient if needed than an inpatient? Absolutely it need not take longer if the transfer is quick but if there is no anaethetist, no consultant, no theatre available they are not going to be magically available for a hb patient.

That's why after my difficult first birth I chose a Cs because I knew there would be a theatre ready for me and a consultant and paed all scrubbed and focussed on me and my baby before delivery started! It was the only way to fully avoid the risk of NHS stretched services and there were no private options near enough to my home address. Sad but true.

I don't understand how in one post you cab acknowledge equal risk shown in research and in an adjacent one imply hb is more risky. Doesn't compute.

My understanding is that home births are safer - www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22888411

"So I don't know why anyone here is so bothered about my opinion as I won't be sharing it to put off anyone who might benefit from a home birth."

Except, all over this thread. Repeatedly. Or do the mothers-to-be who are reading this not count?

I had a massive placental abruption. I was in hospital at the time on the ward. It took longer to get to the labour ward than it does to drive to hospital! I didn't make the labour suite but delivered quickly enroute. I was conscious I had no cannula, no access to Iv fluids, and met my midwife after delivery. Not sure it was the safest birth.

Please contrast with next birth, similar length labour, midwive in attendance, fluids in my lounge at home!

You do realise mrsplum that all this back up equipment is not fail safe! It can also lead staff to do more dangerous things to you! Take the case of my tiny one. O2 sats very low, let's give her 02 but they were false readings....so we were now giving a baby high levels of o2 which does have consequences, for no benefit.

Excellent posts as always auryanne

It's also illogical not to factor infections into the risk benefit evaluation because they do happen in hospitals and it is something that is less likely at home. It's excluding factors that don't fit your narrative.

Plus you are stating your opinion to women who have chosen hb!

If you read the bit above about air travel it may make more sense.

I think it is just an odd suggestion that it's just as safe when this assertion only applies in certain circumstances, ie a second birth when first was straightforward. Many people choose to have hb outside those guidelines which is statistically more risky. Overall it is safer in hospital if you look at the stats of all home births (not just the second ones with no complications).

And therefore that is why I, like others, wince at hearing about a planned hb. Often the women I know who have had or attempted a hb have incredible naivety about what can go wrong and haven't really thought about the incidence of a pph etc.

It's the same as I wince when I hear about women travelling abroad at 30 weeks as they generally haven't even thought about the implications of things going wrong, albeit a very low risk.

Pregnancy and childbirth are absolutely lovely and easy when they go to plan but often very scary when that's not the case and the general population seems to lack the understanding of the risks. Which is why mn isn't a good place to express my view because most people are here to research risk and understand possible pitfalls so don't fall into my general experience of life.

By your logic then mrs plum everyone should have a cs due to safety concerns? If everyone did then it's been calculated we would have many more maternal deaths in childbirth.

Plus the other downsides are theorised to be the mere fact of transferring, not feeling in a safe place etc leads to slower birth etc and then interventions (that in turn can lead to complications like PPH) that would never have happened at home. Not in all cases, but in some.

I have been talking about low risk births all along as per the research. I agree that in some circs hb may not be the most sensible choice, but not all which is what you are saying.

Oh and I did research what could go wrong and how it would be treated. Patronising to suggest that no one does.

www.homebirth.org.uk/pph.htm

Sorry, I see you were just talking about people you knew.

In my expertise hb people are a lot better informed. It's just anecdotes and who your friends are I guess.

From the above link "It's important to mention that PPH at home is reasonably rare, by the very nature of the fact that the major risk factors for PPH are things which only happen in hospital (instrumental deliveries, long hours on syntocinon drips, caesarean section etc)."

Sorry @fourormore that's not what that article says, it's about the Netherlands. So it doesn't give any different info about home birth in the UK.

It actually says you can only look at this in the context of hb being more common in the NL, with better structured back up systems, better trained staff etc.

If you read the bit above about air travel it may make more sense

No, I'm not sure it does.

No headofthehive that is certainly not what I'm saying. I'm saying it was sad that I felt there was no other safe option for me and my baby. Giving birth at home was certainly not going to be the safer option with even more reliance on availability of emergency staff such as paramedics. But I'm not saying that everyone should have Cs at all, and fully accept that many will think I'm irresponsible for choosing that route!

I saw that. I don't think it can be dismissed. It tells me there is something very wrong with our system.

So I don't know why anyone here is so bothered about my opinion as I won't be sharing it to put off anyone who might benefit from a home birth.

But funnily enough .... still think people having home births are irresponsible. I think you have made your opinions crystal clear mrsplum.

I do wonder if you are in the UK, because you are talking as though it's an either/or choice in that if you have a home birth then you can't go to hospital. This might be the case in some states of the US where midwifery isn't accepted, and if the birth does need assistance then transfer would be difficult. It's not the case in the UK.

As far as I am aware there is nowhere where a home birth is the default option, so all women making the choice will be making an informed choice. We have also had a well trained midwifery service since, I think, 1909, so it's not as though you are turning your back on care by booking a home birth.

In the vast majority of cases the CLU is the default, but it's very debatable as to how well women booking there are informed about what standard of care the hospital actually offers, not what it theoretically offers. Nor are the iatrogenic risks fully discussed - unless the hospital is so bad that it makes the national headlines.

I don't think you're irresponsible but your logic is a little odd. Part of my decision to choose home births for my 2nd, 3rd and 4th babies was the reduction in risk of unnecessary interventions and consequences. So if we all agree that PPH is bad and research shows CS puts you at higher risk of PPH, why would someone choose CS and consider it safer?

mrsplum my point was more that although I was in hospital, surrounded by all these wonderful facilities, they were unavailable to me. Its difficult to assess in hindsight though. If there were more MWs, I probably wouldn't have been left for 3 hours, and it would have been a totally different situation and I would most likely have been home the next day. If things had gone wrong though, I don't know what would have happened.

But as I've said I'm sure people on this thread would consider me irresponsible for having a hospital birth particularly an elcs. And that's fine.

I have never heard of anyone giving birth in hospital being described as irresponsible. But the point is that it is regularly said for hb.

There are two things which people confuse, the first is that we all constantly risk assess things in our own lives to make decisions. People make different decisions and reach different conclusions, even scientists. One of your daughters may risk assess differently to you..... there is no right or wrong or the right to crow about people being 'irresponsible' either way. A lot of this is based in our frankly weird culture of competitive mothering and the idea that one way is the best.

The second is something that someone else raised really - that it is hard to understand that hospital isn't safer. As someone who has had both hospital and homebirth, the difference for me is I was a lot happier and relaxed at home but also I was much better looked after. Perhaps we should actually be looking at how hospital care could be made better to make it safer. Not being left in your own for hours would be a start. Not least because it is and will continue to be the majority choice.