To be fed up of the "home birth is risky" misinformation?

[everychildmatters]

Because clearly evidence says otherwise!!

I think you would find that if the advice wasn’t given the deaths would be higher at home than they are now - one key factor is keeping women and especially first births and obvious risk factors in hospital for births

“Because we do our best to ensure all even slightly higher risk births are in hospital , home births appear safer “ isn’t really the headline you are after is it?

She didn't.

Based on what? You’ve not given anything to back up your view. If study took a sample of say 1,000 births irrespective of location and then looked at what would happen if all those births took place in hospital and all those births took place at home I’d be willing to bet the “success” rate would be higher in hospitals.

What you can’t do is compare home births to hospital births directly because that ignores a multitude of other factors - planned home births are highly likely to be successful because there (usually) low risk, whereas high risk births are (usually) planned to take place in a hospital. On a direct comparison you’re not comparing like for like.

It is risky. I can 100% see why people want one though as my care in hospital while recovering from birth was, to be frank, awful. However they did save my life as I was having a pph! For which I am obviously extremely grateful! I wish we could make hospital births so much better. If we could, I think fewer people would want a home birth.

They can’t though - unless they are going to drive the ambulance, start the blood transfusion, do epidural and then the crash surgery.
IME the midwife felt that going into hospital following a ln attempted home birth (haemorrhage) was a failure rather than seeing the whole process as a success because mother and baby got through it without any complications.

I had a homebirth with dc1, as recommended by my midwife. I had hospital births with my others because of various additional risk factors. If i had known how the births of dc2 and dc3 would go then i would have had homebirths with them too but i didn't have access to a crystal ball so i had them in hospital. I live less than 10 minutes drive from the hospital which was a big factor. I also wouldn't have a homebirth now because the waiting times for an ambulance in an emergency is much longer now.

Within 30 mins? Safely? I don't agree. And I wouldn't put my or my babies life in the hands of 'could'

I was not referring to free birthing which is just unimaginably stupid.

Hospital births have been shocking for so long. It’s no wonder people try home births. My youngest was born in 2008 in hospital. The “care” was beyond atrocious and it’s sheer luck that we came through it unscathed.

Yes I agree. Similar to bed sharing there is too much misinformation and scare tactics.

Why do you care that people have a different opinion than you?

if you're pregnant, planning a home birth & people are saying it's not safe then I understand but just say you've looked into it, are happy with your decision & don't want to discuss it. But if it's gaming/close friends you should at least listen to their concerns, they only want the best for you.

How is it not risky?

A midwife can give you an emergency c-section at home? Since when?

If we're going with anecdotal stories, the child I had in hospital was damaged by their cycle of interventions (not all consented to) , as was I.

My children born at home with only midwives were not.

The woman was a fucking idiot though. They don’t have a cause of death yet for her or her baby who died 4 days later, but they are suspecting it was something to do with the strep b she tested positive for, but she refused treatment for her and her baby??

Round here I know of home births where the ambulance was waiting outside to whisk the labouring mother to the hospital 5 minutes away. So yes, it can and does happen. Obviously terrifying for the mother though and not ideal even if both are safe at the end. I'm not sure it would be less terrifying in a hospital though.

I don't think it's especially useful to say one method is blanket safer than the other because there is evidence for both and so much depends in individual cases. The trouble is that our health service is set up as a giant system of risk calculation which is great for lots of things but when it comes to individual women birthing individual babies it can feel like a completely dehumanising experience. Certainly was for me and my two reluctant inductions that ended well but left me feeling like a faulty baby delivery machine.

In the main those who have a home birth are selected because they are low risk, so inevitably the figures might look good.

Me too and I’d be dead as well

When being in hospital leads to unnecessary intervention, slows the birth down and introduces extra risk factors such as contracting an illness from one of the many people you come into contact with in hospital. For low-risk pregnancies, hospital births are more likely to end in a postpartum haemorrhage than those planned to be at home (and yes, they controlled for risk factors and that some planned home births end up being in hospital): https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2393-12-130

I was recommended to have a homebirth was DC2 as DC1 came fast. I wouldn't even discuss it. However minimal the difference in risk for me as an individual I had no interest in testing that risk. Plus I had no desire to have all that mess in my home. Don't understand the desire for a homebirth in the least.

Which is not to say it shouldn't be an option for those who do want it as long as they are absolutely clear on the risks.

But if you do compare the same groups - low risk women, who have given birth before without complications (ie the women most likely to have home birth suggested to them, and the ones most likely to choose it), the statistics show it’s just as safe as hospital, and you have fewer interventions like episiotomies.

Your suggestion of taking 1,000 births at random and comparing them wouldn’t make any sense. It would include extremely high risk pregnancies/births that take place in hospital, but it’s not reasonable to use those because they’d never be a home birth so it wouldn’t make sense to include them in data showing hospital births are more dangerous. Plus it would include accidental home births, and home births against medical advice which also doesn’t make sense (you wouldn’t measure the success of a treatment by including people who weren’t advised to take it).

The risks are complicated. I know a woman who gave birth in hospital, but overstretched midwife meant that baby was in trouble and it wasnt picked up on until too late. The child was born alive, but has very severe disabilities.

That situation probably wouldn't have happened had she given birth at home - as she'd have had one to one midwife care and been transferred as soon as problems arise.

Distamce of home to hospital is a key factor here also, should the knees for transfer arise.

None of the above is ‘necessary’ in a hospital birth. That’s like saying home births are dangerous because the home environment may be unhygienic.
All things being equal, hospitals are always safer than home. It’s pretty obvious really.
But as a pp said, sometimes the increased risk of a home birth is more than offset by its many benefits (safety NOT being one of them.)

I completely support your choice to give birth where you wanted to, but you had misunderstood why they suggested it to you. Your choice was the riskier one. For low-risk second births, home birth is as safe as hospital birth, but unplanned unattended birth - such as when someone tries to get to hospital but doesn't get there quickly enough - is much riskier. They recommended it because it was the safest option for you in your circumstances. As I say, I support the choice of all women to give birth in the way they prefer, including when they choose the objectively less safe option as long as it's an informed choice.

I think it’s complicated, often information isn’t presented properly (and this also applies to things like choosing a c-section) which is frustrating because ultimately a woman having informed choice is the most important thing to me.

One thing about hospitals births though… I was massively encouraged to stay at home as long as possible whilst in labour. I rang up multiple times whilst having contractions and was put off each time, told to take paracetamol and have a bath. I ended up spending a full day, and 90% of my labour, at home. Arrived at hospital after waters had gone at 7/8cm. Was told ‘well done’ for this.

In contrast, a friend having a home birth had midwives with her much much earlier. So at the same points in labour I was at home with zero medical care, she was being monitored, checked and supported by medical professionals. This was 2012 though so no idea if things are the same.

The question is whether home births are riskier or not. Your answer is to a different question of “for a low risk birth are home births riskier”. On that basis they’re not, but to truly answer the question you need to isolate all factors and then take a random sample, not a skewed sample like you suggest. It’s really basic stuff but if you’re not used to working with data and analysis I guess it’s harder.