To think free birthing should be entirely banned

[StandFirm]

I have come across this article earlier which made me feel so very angry at the cynical extremists who brainwashed a mum into an entirely avoidable tragedy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/nov/22/free-birth-society-linked-to-babies-deaths-investigation
If I'd listened to similar cretins, I would have died in childbirth aged 19 and none of my three DCs would have been born alive or at the very least without severe disabilities. 'Pearls of wisdom' which gave me the rage include:
-ultrasounds are not safe
-women’s “bodies do not grow babies that we cannot birth”
Such ignorant perfidious lies. I hope the cult leader gets sent down for a very long time. That poor little child was robbed of a healthy body and many more actually died. I really hate the internet's ability to spawn dangerous cults entirely unchecked.

This. People have to consent in all other areas of healthcare (some people have literally bled to death because their religious beliefs conflict with having a blood transfusion that would save them) so the same goes for pregnant women 🤷‍♀️ I think it’s interesting how this is the area that seems to spark these conversations about consent or limiting choices…

You could argue that the real problem is the commercialisation of birth

Yeah, and I agree. Being properly informed means a medical professional explicitly saying to you "if you go ahead with this decision, you and your baby could die - you understand that right?" It also means offering alternatives, giving accurate risks of adverse outcomes and giving them a way to back out "if you change your mind, we can intervene immediately with xyz".

One should not tell one's obstetrician to 'ef off' - there are two lives at stake not one, and no-one has the right to make a dangerous choice for someone else

Women absolutely have the right to make choices about their obstetric care: I think it's abhorrent that you are suggesting otherwise. This is not the handmaids tale. Women are not birthing objects. They are people, with full bodily autonomy and capacity to make their own decisions about medical care during birth as with any other time.

Thank you for understanding this, from a mother who was subject to a violent medical assault because of attitudes like the one you are expressing.

But lots of women don’t understand the dangers of childbirth and that dead mother or baby isn’t a totally implausible outcome , especially without timely intervention

A lot of people on this thread apparently don't understand the dangers of removing consent and bodily autonomy from women, I consider that far more dangerous than childbirth personally.

Really? I think it's more likely mothers are informed of the dangers than they get pregnant and unwittingly the first thing they stumble across, before they've spoken to any medical professionals, is a fringe radical freebirth movement. I mean, almost every depiction of birth on TV or film I've ever seen is in hospital or attempting to get to hospital.

That said, freebirthing cult leaders are completely in the wrong (and should be prosecuted) for grooming and misinforming women.

Freebirth itself is inadvisable but should not be illegal or banned.

The background to any birth by anyone is nature can kill and birth is one of the most dangerous and unpredictable things women do.

Even with all the incredible modern medicine we have and access to scans and all the rest even with that ,babies die ,women die and babies are born deformed and damaged.

There is a cult around birth and when I went to NCT classes about candles and oxytocin ,I noticed the lady had a twinge of shame when after the births each one spoke of horors one a near death experience and weeks in hospital ,another a week In and damaged bladder ,another injured and so on .

@puppymaddness we don't have it anyway , we can't really chose a x section without fuss.

And the greatest choice of all ,how we die is also denied to us

It’s what I’ve noticed from having a baby. Beforehand it’s all positivity and empowerment with the occasional horror story usually involving a premature baby (who is now fine) or a bit of blood loss , and a glib haha it’s called labour for a reason.
afterwards it’s like you’ve been inducted to a secret club, full of stitches and prolapse and incontinence and indignity, that had you known existed you might have thought twice about wanting to join ,( even if you do now have a whole human who you have some mind bending attachment to )

Of course we do.
And as I posted my experience up thread, my DIL DID have the dangers spelt out to her but was so far down the free birth cult mantra (of body autonomy, medical conspiracy theories etc etc) that she walked out of the hospital. Baby died inside her within the following 48 hours.

The point of the article was how it affects those who lose all rational thought (and that can come from fear) and get caught up in a belief system that peddles untruths and false woo woo ideology.
That was my experience and that's how my healthy grandson died.

The Free Birthing Doula wasn't about candles and breathing, she was into hospital conspiracy theories and that natural birth meant zero intervention at any point. And she had the 'power' to persuade my DIL that anything medical was a threat to her safety, her body and her baby.

True - but when this extends to doing fuck all to help babies who are out of the uterus and failing to breathe on the grounds that they'll work it out for themselves/it'll harm them to try and help, it goes more towards to the intentionally killing entirely separate human beings.

I have a 9 week old DD and did hynobirthing for the (whole 26 hour labour), it was absolutely amazing and I really think it made what could have been a traumatic and scary experience empowering and almost enjoyable. I was in hospital.

However, free birthing is insane to me and borderline neglectful.

Without medical intervention me and and my last DC would probably be dead. Before that I had a birth that was very straightforward, I'm sure we would've been fine without medical intervention. So, I would've continued my family line, preventing extinction, but I'd much rather my older child didn't have to go through the loss of a sibling and growing up without a mother.
On the basis of not needing medical intervention to prevent extinction, would you refuse any medical treatment? Antibiotics, surgery, cancer treatment?

Two people are involved in a pregnancy. The legal idea that a feotus has not the same rights as the mother works where we are looking at saving the mother's life. Obviously you save the mother. But it doesn't work when you are talking about choices around childbirth which have implications for both mother and child and which may result in one of them dying unnecessarily. Informed consent is needed, but choice is a bit of a luxury when you are in obstructed labour and the choice is life (and a caesarian) or death.
We don't have bodily autonomy. We are humans, linked to other humans and our choices do not just affect ourselves.

One of the examples above, where a woman risked a highly desired baby's life because she became enmeshed in 'free birthing' and would listen to neither her own mother, nor her obstretrician nor midwives, but only to an ill-informed doula is a case in point. She exercised her right to bodily autonomy and no-one could prevent her. The regret that woman must feel and those around her must feel can only be torture - and they are regrets which need not have been brought about had she listened to others and informed herself about the dangers of childbirth - it's natural, yes, but one of its natural outcomes is death of mother or child or both, in some circumstances. Sometimes I wish women would read a bit of social history round childbearing, it might make them understand why we have interventions and how we know they are needed.

"We don't have bodily autonomy." 😱Awful. I mean, at a very basic level, if we don't have bodily autonomy, we don't have anything.

@Grammarnut OK, if a woman completely denies the use of forceps, episiotomy, caesarean, induction etc and medics think her baby's life is at risk, what are you actually suggesting? Pin her down and cut her / do it anyway? Is that really what you're saying? What about if the baby's life is only at increased (but not immediate) risk? Say a woman has gone to 42 weeks pregnancy - still pin her down and force her? Don't you think this would actually increase the risk of concealed pregnancies and freebirths?

Alright.

This is my opinion:
When women stop getting elective abortions (where a healthy pregnancy that will carry to term with minimal medical/clinical concern is ended) then I might have a very detailed opinion on the subject of free birthing (it sounds bloody terrible, but c'est la vie (What happened to B*Witched?)/fais ce que tu veux).

Closing statement:
Bring the pile-on if anyone wants, you won't get a response and I will say no more on the matter.

returns to her normal happy demeanor sipping a cuppa

Have a lovely evening!

and that is what the focus needs to be on. Not taking away body autonomy, not taking away a woman's right to consent to or decline interventions but warnings about those kinds of doulas and education.

Lets also not forget that yes, whilst forcing someone to be induced or have a c-section or whatever it may be against their will would save a baby in some cases, it's not all necessarly going to be hunky dory afterwards. The woman may feel violated, develop PPD etc holding a woman down against her will and performing a c-section on her can cause a whole load of issues too which shouldn't be minimised.

No, of course not. That is taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme which no-one would accept. But if you are in protracted labour and won't have forceps or a caesar what is anyone going to do? Do you want to die, have your baby die because you want to exercise your (non-existent at this point) bodily autonomy and not have forceps? How will you feel when you have exercised this right and your baby is either dead or damaged and you also are damaged? You can't sue because it was your choice - and other people had to watch the awful outcome when they could help if you would let them. Sometimes we have to give up this idea we have bodily autonomy for the sake of having a good outcome. Do I refuse to be carried out of a burning building because it infringes my bodily autonomy? No, I do not.

So really you hold two opposing views at thr same time.

If the mother wants the baby then the baby is another human life and should be protected by law at the expense of the mothers views of how the birth should go.
I.e. the state knows best

If she doesn't then another human life is not involved and the mother can do what she wants regardless of the viability of the foetus. I.e. the mother knows best

It just seems incoherent to me.

On a slightly different note, I saw Gloucester hospital has stopped doing home births as the midwives don’t want to experience a situation like the case a few weeks ago in Manchester where the mum and baby both had totally avoidable deaths.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is education that is needed (and in the US proper, free at point of access healthcare instead of the for profit model) and this would help many. Certainly no-one should advocate forcing caesarians, forcepts etc and I do not. Explanation - before the need arises, probably - so that uninformed 'doulas' such as the one mentioned are shown for what they are: ill-informed and ignorant and peddling dangerous nonsense.

But it doesn't work when you are talking about choices around childbirth which have implications for both mother and child and which may result in one of them dying unnecessarily. Informed consent is needed, but choice is a bit of a luxury

what on earth are you talking about??!
What does informed
consent mean to you, if you want to remove a woman's right to make decisions about her medical care ?

The rate of stillbirth used to be around 4%, it is now 0.4%.

I say that as someone who refused several medical procedures during my 2 births.

Well, that doesn't happen to the vast, vast majority of women because most of them accept intervention if needed (like I did).

It's just pointless (and dangerous) saying women don't have autonomy (they do) and that intervention is sometimes needed (which is obvious). If you wouldn't hold women down and force them, then you are admitting that they do have bodily autonomy because they cannot be forced against their will.

Bodily autonomy is a good thing! In the vast majority of situations women will consent to intervention if needed. In a tiny minority of cases they won't which can (not always) lead to some horrible outcomes but the human right of bodily autonomy is not something that can be sacrificed.

The burning building example is just silly. Only an actively suicidal or psychotic person would refuse to be rescued from a burning building, at which point they wouldn't have capacity to consent. It's not even comparable to the idea of expecting pregnant women to 'get over' the idea of bodily autonomy because she has been told she must have medical intervention even if she wouldn't consent to it.