Freebirth. Fallen out with my friend. *title edited by MNHQ*

[whateveryouneed]

Friend is 3 months pregnant. We've been friends for around 5 years. Saw her today for the first time in 8 or so weeks. She was asking me about my pregnancy and son's birth. I was honest with her and told her how it went (she already knew a fair bit but not finer details). She said it scared her a bit hearing about my son being born blue and floppy, completely flatlined. He had to be intubated and resuscitated (he's 100% fine and healthy now).

The reason it scared her is because she's planning a freebirth. She wants to give birth in her bathtub at home (rural, about 18 miles from the nearest town, further from nearest hospital). She wants no medical assistance. Just her and her husband.

I told her (fairly firmly) that I think she needs to rethink that idea and that it could be really dangerous. She thinks that because she's not high risk (at the moment), that the chances of something going wrong are minimal. She thinks that if baby is head down that she will be fine.

AIBU to be really scared for her if she goes through with this? She's just told me she can't be friends with me throughout her pregnancy if I can't support her choice.

Not sure what to say or think...

I absolutely do not agree my oldest would have died also without the c section carried out to save her (as a result of oxygen deprivation she has learning disabilities). HOWEVER friends can disagree and if she has made an informed decision I'd support her because she's my friend and I love her.

If she remains low risk she will still be assessed as an ongoing concern. Your experience is very rare and unusual. She should keep an open mind and discuss her concerns with a midwife.

@Blackbear19

People going on about labouring mothers, at home, planned home birth being transferred to hospital for "no good reason". How can anybody argue they were transferred for no good reason?

The MW must have seen risk she wasn't comfortable with. She either uses professional judgment to seek further help. Or she takes the risk verging on negligence to keep mum at home.

Very few will have very similar situations and opt for different interventions to see what happens.

I think some posters think there is a magic formula and that MWs can tell with 100% certainty who is going to get into difficulties. In reality, every labour that isn't totally straightforward is on a spectrum of risk, with shoulder dystocia/massive PPH etc at one end, and relatively minor concerns like a longer than average first stage at the other. 100% of women at the massive PPH end of the scale need immediate transfer to survive but, at the other end of the scale, it's much more subjective. Most women with a prolonged first stage will go on to have a healthy baby, but some won't. No MW or obstetrician knows with certainty which group is which. So the safest course is to transfer them all if they are at home. Some of the transferred women will then have a normal, unassisted delivery in hospital. That doesn't mean that the decision to transfer was wrong.

No point arguing , so take a small step back but leave the door open.

" Perhaps its best if we take a little break like you say. I'll get in touch later to see how you are. Just remember I'm always here if you want to talk".

My guess is that long before 9 months pregnant she'll struggle to get in and out of the bath. That slippery hard narrow rectangle will no longer look remotely enticing or romantic as a birthing place.

Also those energetic kicking feet will have taught her that after 20 weeks, babies are not guaranteed to stay in one position.

Yanbu at all.
She is a dangerous lunatic and if her husband has agreed to assist in this he either has the brain of a pea or the overinflated self confidence of Donald Trump.
Anyone with this kind of mindset is likely to make some ridiculous/left field decisions As the child grows (anti vaxxing, elimination communication, gender neutral/ hiding sex) so you may as well ditch her now.
She’s not interested in logic or facts so there’s no point getting yourself upset or feeling frustrated.

I'd say it's dangerous. I was very low risk with my first baby and ended up with an emergency c section. Both me and baby could have died without medical assistance. I had no idea things were going wrong until they pressed the alarm and the room flooded with people

Unnecessary interventions could include induction for reaching a certain point of pregnancy, when there is no evidence to suggest there is any risk to baby or mother of the pregnancy continuing. Inducing labour before the mother's body is 'ready' (unfavourable Bishop score etc) significantly increases the risks of prolonged labour and further intervention, such as forceps delivery or caesarean section.

You do know one study into the effects of leaving pregnancies to go past 42 weeks had to be stopped due to the number of stillbirths?

And 'forceps' or 'caesarean section' are not bad results in themselves, they're procedures. They can lead to bad results occasionally if not performed correctly, but in the vast majority of cases they are safe and necessary.

I had a 36 week induction, end result was forceps, daughter and myself both well with no lasting problems so an excellent result.

Interestingly the NHS website says this:

Having induction of labour after the date your baby is due doesn't increase the chance of having a caesarean section. There's actually some evidence it may slightly reduce the chance of having acaesarean section.

So actually the opposite of what you said @NameChange30

@MrsNoah2020 I agree with you 100%

There is a real culture on here of women looking back on their labours and deeming interventions 'unneccessary'. They rarely explain why, and everyone just seems to accept it.

The fact is interventions are not performed for shits and giggles. There is zero incentive for a medical practitioner to perform and intervention in a healthy and normally-progressing labour.

Obviously some of the interventions are precautionary and it may turn out it wasnt needed with hindsight eg induction for a small baby that turns out to be a normal size - but they were not unnecessary at the time as some risks can only be evaluated once the baby is born.

I don't know why this is, maybe some women are trying to convince themselves they wouldve had a great birth if it wasnt for the pesky doctors.

I'm just grateful these procedures are available to us.

Obviously intervention can be life-saving but it is important to look at why some hospitals or areas may have really high rates of intervention yet outcomes are no better than places with much lower rates.

Absolutely agree, Wolfgirrl.

I feel it's always best to err on the side of caution because the stakes are high. Some outcomes are unthinkable. When I say unthinkable outcome I mean maternal or infant death or serious injury. A procedure undertaken to prevent either of those possibilities isn't an outcome.

Birth isn't a performance or an experience you rank according to a certain set of rubrics. It's not a medical emergency either. There is a spiritual element to it (for want of a better word) that is sadly overlooked by some medical professionals who center themselves instead of the woman giving birth. But when you start out on the road of calling certain procedures 'outcomes' you are coming close to judging birthing women's work as flawed or even failed.

maybe some women are trying to convince themselves they wouldve had a great birth if it wasnt for the pesky doctors

I think you could be right on this. After all natural birth with no painkillers is seen not only as a great achievement, but also one you can attain by having the right attitude, being in the right calm environment and not lying down etc.. Much better to blame overeager medical staff than feel personally responsible (or, yknow, admit it's down to luck and not a great personal achievement either way) if that doesn't happen.

FWIW I had two inductions (overdue babies) and neither lead to any further interventions (not that that's a great achievement compared to havingother interventions, but to offer an alternate narrative to the induction = cascade of interventions narrative).

Uhm, induction before 42 weeks purely because the woman is past her due date (so no other issues) is unnecessary, because normal pregnancies last between 38 and 42 weeks.

And yes, past 42 weeks is 'overdue', but the risk of stillbirth is only slightly increased and not worth fretting over. From sweeping conclusions on here, you'd think all women going past 42 weeks are killing their baby. They're not. Some women carry longer than others and in our modern world need to pop when doctors tell them they should. Especially hospital policies of inducing at 10 days overdue are completely unnecessary.
My midwife went 16 days past in the early 80s, I'm guessing, when women were still allowed to give birth when they were ready. The next time, because of all the stress of 'going past her due date', she just told her gynaecologist baby was conceived two weeks later than he was. Problem solved. I went over by more or less 10 days with my three, and she told me this just before my second was born, maybe as a hint, who knows...

Failure to progress is another one. It is normal for contractions to stop or for labour to slow down. We do not apply drips to cats because they bring their litter into the world in two goes (fact). So if baby's fine, why give a drip? Because the schedule made in the 1920s (?) says that's the speed of labour (1cm/hour)? My first labour was f*cked up that way and my midwife still regrets to this day that she intervened when contractions stopped for two hours when I arrived at her MLU for assessment and she told me I couldn't leave. The second time, contractions stopped as well, but she didn't fall for it and waited, so they came back on their own.

Fair enough, if pushing goes on for ages and the woman is exhausted or baby isn't doing well anymore, then you can do something, but I think these days it's much less about waiting for that point than about statistics and scaring women into complying, which is sad and I am eternally grateful that I found two HCPs who were not that fussed, at least not after the first complete disaster.

past 42 weeks is 'overdue', but the risk of stillbirth is only slightly increased and not worth fretting over.

Tell that to the ladies in the study whose babies died...

Led by Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska university hospital, the Swedish post-term induction study (Swepis) set out to survey 10,000 women at 14 hospitals.

Women in their 40th week of pregnancy were invited to join the study and divided randomly into two groups, with labour induced at the beginning of either week 42 or week 43, unless it occurred spontaneously.

When abruptly halted in October 2018, the study had involved only a quarter of the target number of expectant mothers. But the six deaths were already judged to indicate a significantly increased risk for women induced at the start of week 43. No infants died in the group whose pregnancies were ended a week earlier.

So the week 43 group had 5 stillbirths out of 5000 women. Week 42 had none. Are you saying this is too tiny to worry about, or a coincidence?

Sorry actually it is worse than that, as they only managed a quarter of their target of 10,000 women, only around 2,500 women were studied. Split that into 2 and that is 5 stillbirths out of 750 women that went into week 43.

So a risk of 1 in 150. I dont know about you but that risk is far too high for my liking.

And yes, past 42 weeks is 'overdue', but the risk of stillbirth is only slightly increased and not worth fretting over.

I think you’ll find that many women would take induction over any increased risk of still birth,

I know I would.

And I’m not sure you’re in any position to tell women what’s worth ‘fretting’ over when it comes to the safety of their baby.

Induction isn’t some kind of disaster. It may not be the great birth story you want to impress your NCT group, but the vast majority of inductions work out fine.

Failure to progress is another one.

Actually the worst birth outcomes I know of personally (stillbirth and profound disability) where as a result of letting women labour too long without intervention. In one case she refused it, in the other the midwife deemed it not necessary. In both cases, I’m sure they wish they’d had the chance to make different decisions.

We do not apply drips to cats because they bring their litter into the world in two goes (fact).

Comparing the value of a kitten's life to that of a human baby (this is essentially what you are doing here in postulating that women need to get back to nature) is rather an eyebrow raiser.

Agree @LaurieMarlow

Your NCT class won't be there to help you raise a potentially disabled child. At most you'll get 'cool story bro' then your moment of glory is over.

I know we have had discussions on this in the past Laurie but the sort of mums that are hellbent on a natural birth at all costs usually bang on about the benefits of breastfeeding and how much better it is for the baby etc. They consider the marginal health benefit totally worth doing, but dismiss the small risk of the baby dying during a free birth as not big enough to influence their choice 🤷‍♀️

I'm not bringing up the topic of bfing obviously, just pointing out the convenient discrepancy in their logic...

A friend of mine lost a baby at about 25 weeks, she joined a local group for parents who had similar losses. There were quite a few couples in this group who had still births when they were over 40 weeks. I remember my friend saying she would never want to go over 40 weeks in any subsequent pregnancy after listening to their experiences.

@Wolfgirrl
"So actually the opposite of what you said NameChange30"
Actually it wasn't me who said that. I haven't mentioned inductions in my posts. As I said already, you clearly haven't been reading my posts. Fair enough on a long thread, but don't single me out.

Laurie's right about the story.
It's a bit sad that some women would rather focus on having a cool story than listening to the professionals who want to keep mum and baby alive.

"usually bang on about the benefits of breastfeeding and how much better it is for the baby" oh dear!! How dare they!! Lol

@oblada it's not that they're wrong. It is that they only acknowledge risk when it suits them. Possibility of baby dying? I'll take it. 10% more likely to get asthma from bottle feeding? HELL NO

Your friend is irresponsible and selfish. You were absolutely right to question her judgment.

Whilst I have listened to the free birth advocates on here and taken their opinions on board. As a mother of 2, my birth plan was to safely deliver my babies. The only thing that mattered was having healthy babies and living to see them grow up. DS1 was a perfect example of pregnancy until it came to the time of delivery. I pushed for an hour before he became distressed and the HCP stepped in. They tried to explain what procedure they intended to use, however I stopped them and said they could use any means necessary to keep us both alive and well. We, as a team, did it. My baby boy needed help and may not have survived without but ten years down the line we are both happy & healthy. I cannot thank the NHS staff enough. They were incredibly kind and did everything to give me as much choice and dignity as they could without compromising our welfare.

I appreciate victims of assault are terrified of being violated and there are many other situations where women are anxious of being touched. This is not one of those situations. Even if it was, there are avenues to support these ladies. No woman should ever feel frightened of health care professionals. They should be given appropriate support and counselling to enable them to access the services they are entitled to.

Doctors, midwives and paramedics want to help us. Why would anyone think they are trying to deny us a right to a dream birth. They need a reality check.

Perfect birth v perfect baby