Homebirth

[CP191989]

Have name changed as don’t want to be outing.
My MIL rang the other day fuming. Long story so will try and keep it short. Sister in law is having a baby she’s in a same sex relationship something MIL has always had issues with she says she has nothing against it but had dreams her only daughter would marry and have kids (the way MIL had)
Anyway they are expecting its fantastic but then they told MIL they are having a home birth. The issue my MIL is having is that they live in flats so according to her everyone will be able to hear they have told neighbours no one seems to have raised issues but MIL just won’t let it go. She’s calling them saying they are being unsafe things could go wrong (I can understand her worries but it’s not her choice) she then got worse saying it’s selfish on neighbours they won’t want to hear it it could go on for days. Now SIL has got upset and thinks it’s because she’s in a same sex relationship and said MiL has always made life hard for her because of this. They now aren’t talking. I just wanted to see what others honestly thought. Is it unreasonable to have a home birth in flats? I agree with SIL that her mother has always handle her sexuality badly.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

Home birth is statistically very safe.

I'd just warn the neighbours in advance. IME they all get very excited. One was round to see the baby before she was an hour old (I had said it was okay).

This.

Equally as surprising as your MIL's lack of respect and integrity is many peoples views on homebirth. It is statistically safer to give birth in your own home. You have one to one midwife care (all being well) and are relaxed (exactly what you need to be to give birth). Please think of a hospital ward, the chaos, the lack of staff, sometimes very poor skill mix amongst nursing/midwifery staff and doctors, the multiple jobs they are juggling. It is easy for them to miss things, you don't want that thing to be your baby's distress or your pain. I'm not trying to induce fear around hospital births because I understand why sometimes it is safer for higher risk women to be in hospital with doctors nearby, but it IS statistically safer to labour and birth your baby at home.

If the baby isn't breathing, has until that moment undiagnosed lung problems and needs oxygen and/or to be intubated, then what do you do if you are stuck at home?

This is about the safety of the baby, not just the mother.

@JustLyra I am truly interested in these statistics. Do you have a link to any?

[quote Cokie3]@luxxlisbon Where are you getting those statistics from? It makes no sense to say, as I said in my post only a minute ago that it not safer giving birth in a place where there is an operating theatre, where there is a NICU, where there is oxygen and where there are rusus/crash carts. No one can rationally argue giving birth in a place without any/all of the above is 'safer'. How does that make any logical sense?[/quote]
It is generally recognised to be safer because:
Mum is more relaxed
A less medicalised environment leads to less intervention and interventions otherwise lead to more interventions.
Also - whilst in a hospital you are next to the operating theatre it's not as simple as operating within 2mins. The room needs to be preps, the team needs to be ready. So in practice you don't lose time by having to travel from home to hospital in an ambulance if things require it as during that time everyone will be getting ready.

Personally I loved my home births but I'm also a big advocate of midwives led units which would give a more relaxing environment and still give that reassurance of being next to the hospital if need be.

[quote Cokie3]@JustLyra If anything goes wrong in a hospital you are close to crash cart/resus machines, NICU, operating theatres etc.
So to say homebirths are not selfish and irresponsible is wrong. They are far riskier than a birth in even a hospital with a not so good record.

Because they have the amenities to act at a moment's notice. You don't have that at home.[/quote]
Research and statistics from the NHS shows otherwise, actually. Women choosing home births are making informed choices based on these. Just because something might not be the right choice for you, doesn't mean it might not be the right choice for someone else. It's great to have that choice isn't it?

@Cokie3

If the baby isn't breathing, has until that moment undiagnosed lung problems and needs oxygen and/or to be intubated, then what do you do if you are stuck at home?

This is about the safety of the baby, not just the mother.

during a home births there are 2 trained midwives present. The scenario you are describing is incredibly rare. Of course something catastrophic can happen but it can also happen in hospital and sometimes it can be as as a result of being in hospital. Midwives are generally in favour of home births and the stats are in favour too. My last child was born with an undiagnosed serious syndromic condition. She was born at home and then we went to hospital. No time wasted and no ill effect (indeed she was on operated on 3 weeks later). If I decided to have another child I'd opt for a home birth again.

I'm due to give birth in May and I am choosing to give birth on a midwife led unit (not hospital attached) because I work in a hospital and I don't want my baby born in that environment unless 100% necessary. I also know the ridiculous pressures and nurse to patient ratios going on, I don't want my baby to be one of ten being born on the same ward with a tired, stressed as hell midwife/obstetrician.

[quote Cokie3]@JustLyra I am truly interested in these statistics. Do you have a link to any?[/quote]
www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/labour-and-birth/preparing-for-the-birth/where-to-give-birth-the-options/

It's as safe in a second and subsequent births.

@abeanbaked Yep, when I attended a home birth group out of curiosity what swung it for me was that most of the people there were hospital midwives and doctors choosing not to give birth in hospital! They clearly knew what it was really like.

The best statistics are from the birth place study: www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/birthplace/results

It showed that home births are safer for second and subsequent births, but were as safe for the mother but riskier for the baby in a first birth. The increased risk is significant but the absolute risk is still very small. I wouldn't have had a home birth for my first myself (mostly because of the high likelihood of needing to transfer) but it isn't an irresponsible or reckless choice. Which is exactly why the NHS is happy to support and even encourage home birth.

why the assumption that the SIL HAS done it?

If the woman has bandied the idea around with her care team - which is a given, surely? - they will have told her wether it's a viable option, it differs by area as well as many other different contributing factors.
It obviously also depends on if she's fit to give birth any day now or has 6 months left to go, too. A midwife might well have given the green light for a prospective HB in the summer for instance.

I had a home birth, with my first baby and in a terraced house.

Your mil sounds like a bigoted twat.

You can keep repeating it makes no logical sense and dooming about a worst case scenario but the reality is these worst case scenarios are incredibly rare and there are benefits to the vast majority of home births.

Some benefits cited by NCT

"If you have your baby at home, you’ll have:

Less chance of getting an infection.
Less chance of the risks associated with interventions like forceps and ventouse.
Less chance of your baby being admitted to a neonatal department, even after a complicated pregnancy.
A better chance of a VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean)."

@Cokie3

If the baby isn't breathing, has until that moment undiagnosed lung problems and needs oxygen and/or to be intubated, then what do you do if you are stuck at home?

This is about the safety of the baby, not just the mother.

Read 'this is going to hurt' by Adam Kay. You can read just the last few chapters. A rare incident, the lady was in hospital, with a registrar and midwives all around her. Did they manage to save her baby? No. Why? Because they were over worked, knackered, stressed and had multiple other patients. Unforeseen things happen sometimes, it is horrendous but really, you aren't THAT safe in hospital.

@Cokie3

If the baby isn't breathing, has until that moment undiagnosed lung problems and needs oxygen and/or to be intubated, then what do you do if you are stuck at home?

This is about the safety of the baby, not just the mother.

The baby will have the dedicated attention of two experienced professionals who carry oxygen and medical equipment.

They won't be waiting on stressed, busy and understaffed people responding to the alarm being hit.

Plus, any issues have a much, much greater chance of being picked up earlier because of said dedicated staff.

People find it really hard to accept that hospitals raise the risk in some ways, but it's a fact. Studies have shown that women are more likely to have a postpartum haemorrhage if they give birth in hospital compared to women with identical risk profiles who give birth at home, for instance. We're all very much culturally encouraged to believe that hospitals only mitigate risk but that's sadly not true - and that isn't only true for maternity, there are lots of circumstances (e.g. people at high risk from hospital acquired infections) where there are risks as well as benefits from hospital treatment.

I had a home birth with my first. In a block of flats. It was fine. I think my neighbours heard, but they didn’t seem to mind much. It’s not like we were having a raging loud party every weekend!

Anyway, it sounds like that isn’t really the issue here. Rather it’s your MIL’s issues / relationship with SIL. I’d keep well out of it...

@Cokie3

Home-birth midwives are able to resuscitate mother and/or baby, they have oxygen with them. They are trained to identify potential problems early on and advise transfer to hospital where appropriate.

Women who give birth in hospitals are more likely to get an infection and experience more interventions than necessary.

I am planning to give birth at home next month. I am pregnant, not sick. Therefore I do not need to be medicalised unless in the case of an emergency, at which point my midwives will call an ambulance. How hard is that to understand?

To be honest, managing a home birth for your first is quite hard anyway. In my group of NCT friends, 4 out of 8 wanted a home or MLU birth (30 mins from hospital). We ended up with 4 EMCS, 1 precipitate labour with haemorrhage (me), and 7 out of 8 births in hospital. The one who gave birth in an MLU wanted a hospital birth!

Sincerely, thank you all for the links. I will read them, and accept I may have been misinformed on this.

@Cokie3

Sincerely, thank you all for the links. I will read them, and accept I may have been misinformed on this.

Thanks. We need to move out of the hospital environment and normalise more natural, unmedicated labours for our children's sake!!

I was bloody terrified when I fell pregnant, all I had ever been told and conditioned into believing was that labour and birth was a horrific, painful means to an end and I would likely be hooked up to a fucking monitor, on my back, screaming. That isn't normal. And I don't believe it has to be that way, hoping not to give off these negative vibes to my future children. Also, women have choices. Remember that.

@Ellpellwood

To be honest, managing a home birth for your first is quite hard anyway. In my group of NCT friends, 4 out of 8 wanted a home or MLU birth (30 mins from hospital). We ended up with 4 EMCS, 1 precipitate labour with haemorrhage (me), and 7 out of 8 births in hospital. The one who gave birth in an MLU wanted a hospital birth!

Yes, the main thing that would put me off a home birth for a first is there's a 50% transfer rate - I wouldn't want to plan one knowing the odds were as good that it wouldn't happen as that it would. It's only 10% for subsequent pregnancies so if you plan a home birth it's much more likely than not that you'll have one.

Sounds like MIL is coming from a place of fear. Wasnt that long ago that home birth really wasnt that safe compared to hospital because of hygiene issues, lack of portable equipment etc. Now of course things are very different but she may not know that.

My own family were very anti my home birth. It all came from fear and had my mother not actually engaged with the information I gave her which allayed her fears, I can imagine here using the "what about the neighbours" argument, anything to get me into hopsital!

My birth was fine, and I dont know a single person who tried for home and got "blue lighted" in.....I know of one who transferred because she wasnt coping with the pain and wanted an epidural and another who wasnt progressing and ended up with ventouse. Both were transferred calmly with no fuss because the midwives were experienced in what they do and suggested transferring in good time so no need for any blue light drama.

I wouldn't want to plan one knowing the odds were as good that it wouldn't happen as that it would. It's only 10% for subsequent pregnancies so if you plan a home birth it's much more likely than not that you'll have one.

Yes - there are so many things that can happen and change plans for a home birth literally just the day before it happens. In my case I couldn't even have a water birth, let alone a home birth, as I was one of the 10% whose waters break with no onset of labour so I had to be induced for infection risk.

Yes, the main thing that would put me off a home birth for a first is there's a 50% transfer rate - I wouldn't want to plan one knowing the odds were as good that it wouldn't happen as that it would. It's only 10% for subsequent pregnancies so if you plan a home birth it's much more likely than not that you'll have one.

As long as you go into it knowing that it may happen it's not necessarily a bad thing. HB midwives are very cautious, especially with a first birth, so it's always worth keeping in mind that you'd be transferring in to staff who'd know why you were transferring in.

If I'd had DS2 as a HB I would 100% have been transferred in, but I would have been transferred in because there's not a chance the issue I had would have been missed as I wouldn't have been stuck in a room on a manically busy ward and not seen for over 2 hours (with repeated promises that someone would be in "soon").

So there is also a balance to be found between the risk of needing transferring in and the risk of the lack of staffing in hospital not picking up potential issues at such an early stage.

I had a homebirth in a flat within a row of terrace houses. None of my neighbours mentioned that they heard a thing.

The neighbours 2 doors down did mention that they heard my newborn crying a few weeks later... helpful

Regardless. None of this is anyone else’s business.

I agree that the level of care in a HB is much higher. I had 2 midwives with me the whole time, they were caring but not interfering. In hospital I almost gave birth without assistance for two of them because they were so busy.

I dont get why some people still assume that hospital is best despite reams of evidence to the contrary! Yes there is equipment etc but thats no bloody use if there are no staff around to see that it is needed!