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

[everychildmatters]

Because clearly evidence says otherwise!!

I think it would definitely be riskier at home in lots of cases. I was 26 and had had a textbook pregnancy but it all went very wrong in labour and my baby and I would probably not have made it had I chosen a home birth because we live about 45 mins from the nearest hospital.

I did and have, which is why I know that home birth is as safe as hospital birth in many circumstances... Also, this is established medical fact, not a question of opinion.

Yep, home birth is - always - riskier than a hospital birth, obviously. Not because that particular birth is inherently risky by itself but having trained medical staff with access to medical equipment and drugs and an operating theatre within arms reach, more or less, is in itself always the safer option.

Nobody rational could argue otherwise.

A paramedic i know, who isn't prone to sharing opinions simply told me 'Community midwives don't carry TXA'. I found this very sobering and fact based.

You can however surely see that if complications arise transfer time to hospital is a significant risk factor to both the mum and the baby?!

You seem to be - ironically, for someone who claims to understand data and analysis - to be arguing against a complete straw man. Absolutely nobody ever has said that high-risk pregnancies should be home deliveries or that this is an equally safe choice. So of course it's fair to compare low-risk births at home and in hospital.

Have you taken into account the fact that most women considering a home birth are talked out of it if they have any obvious risk factors? It ends up being nearly all women who have no risk factors as the others go to hospital. So the 'evidence' does not compare like with like.

If you are considering having a home birth, then you need to understand whether it’s sensible for you, and if you are having a low risk pregnancy and have given before, then statistically it is not any riskier than if you give birth in hospital. If you are not in that situation then a home birth is riskier. Of course you need to look at specific samples because the risk profile changes. I’m not suggesting a skewed sample, I’m saying that when they separate out the populations, there is one where a home birth is not riskier, and for the rest, it is.

Is this about the latest story of a woman and her baby dying?

Having a baby is always risky. I think if you choose to have a baby at home then there will be other risks, but sometimes babies come along very quickly either way, I have friends who have had babies in cars and at home within an hour or so with no plans for a home delivery. Baby plans often go awry. What is risky is when pregnant women ignore medical information given to them, don't go to scans when recommended etc.

The issue for me would be if anything detrimental happened to my baby during a Hb, I would never ever beable to forgive myself.

Neither of my babies or I, would be here if I had had home births.

People who are rational don't start threads like this

People who are rational understand that having medical help on hand during the birth process increases the chances of a healthy mum and baby

People who are rational understand that neonatal mortality reduces with hospital births as do post partum deaths.

People who are rational understand what survivor bias is.

Those people don't start threads like this sadly. People who start threads like this are more concerned by the birth process and thankfully have never known anyone who has had preventable still births

I don’t think we would even be having this conversation if maternity care wasn’t such a complete mess and oftentimes downright dangerous.

Im still angry about my experience that was an unnecessary induction that led me to labour for nearly 3 days and ended in an emergency section anyway. My treatment on the post natal ward was also abhorrent. Including being left for hours without pain relief. I completely understand why women are terrified of that happening to them.

Right, I nearly bled to death during my first birth. I remember the sensation of the blood rushing out of me after pushing out the placenta, and the gyno pushing his fist against me to try to stop the flow of blood. I remember him telling the nurse to give me a clotting medicine - I had to ask him what it was. I remember him telling her to be quick about it, I want it into her fast (or words to that effect). I'd almost certainly have bled to death without that immediate intervention.

Of course it’s riskier. The reason home births have predominantly low infant or maternal morbidity or mortality is because the risk is assessed and only low risk can proceed. However, is it less risk than hospital birth? Absolutely and definitively not. Hospital births have risk but the risk is mitigated by the advanced level of immediate care available which is not only equipment but experienced highly skilled specialist staff. That will never be possible in a home therefore risk will always be greater no matter the assessed risk of the mother/child.

So are you going to share any of this evidence or just tell us we are wrong?

But that isn’t what was asked in the original post.

Having called an ambulance in circumstances such that the call should have been right at the top of the list I second, third and fourth this.

The idea that we can rely on an ambulance arriving promptly for a true emergency is delusional. It is fantasy land.

Again, then, why aren't the outcomes worse for home birth in second and subsequent low-risk births? Why does NICE recommend: 'Advise low-risk multiparous women that planning to give birth at home or in a midwifery-led unit (freestanding or alongside) is associated with a lower rate of interventions and the outcome for the baby is no different compared with an obstetric unit.'? How could that possibly be true if home birth is always riskier?

I read this and was devastated for her and her family and her baby. Her toddler.

My second baby would have died in a home birth. No indcetion of any issues, straight forward pregnancy. Category 1 c section - a crash section, I was immediately put to sleep and baby had to be born in minutes as had stopped breathing. Heart rate absolutely plummeted. Went to nicu

I think the thing is there’s no way of knowing if a home birth will be safe or not. Easy pregnancies with no health implications do not guarantee straightforward births.
I have personally known of uncomplicated home births, yet at the same time known of several very risky home births where both mum and baby have very nearly died. It’s luck of the dice.

Are you referring to this OP?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mum-34-baby-die-home-32669749.amp

Yes, having nearly died in childbirth I understand completely that a living, healthy mother and baby is absolutely the only outcome that matters.

Well that’s because answering this as a general question with zero nuance or acknowledgment that the answer will be different for different people is stupid. They look at the specific questions to see whether it’s riskier for specific people because that is actually useful information.

Is NICE staffed by irrational people then? Is that why they say low-risk women should be offered home birth?

I didn’t say it wasn’t fair, I said it wasn’t the question being asked. Really not the same thing. The question being asked in the post is not “are low risk home births safer”. It refers to ALL births.