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.

Thats nothing to do with birth. Mostly poor sanitation, malnutrition and other diseases or injuries.

The OP said that freebirthing should be banned. I am saying that no woman should be forced to accept any medical intervention she doesn't want, simply because she is pregnant.

I would never have a home birth. But watching the ambulance program recently which shows just how bad shortages are I think it’s utter maddness..

From an informed position no sensible person would choose to free birth. The chances of something going wrong in childbirth are high and can happen without warning. And of course no-one should be prosecuted for precipitous birth (nor miscarriage as some US states try to do) but if your choice to free birth results in a dead or injured baby that otherwise would have been ok then you should be prosecuted because you have acted recklessly and harmed someone else. We do not have total bodily autonomy. Others care about us and our children - we should bear them in mind when we make choices (we will probably make the same choices, of course, but we should not inflict misery on others for a principle that we hold and they either do not/or cannot hold).
And yes, misinformation should be prevented - if this is possible (I doubt it's possible because of the internet).

In the 1800's 95% would survive the birth process.

Some would die without medical intervention, not many.

If it were not for medical interventions both I and my DS would undoubtedly be dead. The women responsible for promoting and profiting from this cult are straight up evil imo.

Two of Henry VIII's 6 wives - two of the four who actually gave birth - died in childbirth. As did his mother.

Queen Victoria was only Queen because her cousin died in childbirth along with her baby. She is often criticised now for her dislike of pregnancy and childbirth - but probably much of the reason for that was because every time she got pregnant she was worried that she might not survive the pregnancy.

Newly pregnant women often had their portraits painted so that their loved ones would have something to remember them by if they died, as everyone knew there was a high chance of that happening.

'Natural' childbirth might just be safe if there are no complications, but we all know that there is a high chance of things going wrong; if they do, mother's and baby's chances are vastly higher with medical intervention. It is so easy to be complacent about the past and disregard how dangerous life really was, and just how much safer modern medicine has made this process.

Those who promote 'free' birth are just the same as those who scaremonger to anti-vaxxers; they are evil.

Not true, and with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Mothers dying in childbirth has nothing to do with birth? How embarrassing.

You were talking about 5 year olds. Nobody is born aged 5. Well, not on this planet, anyway.

It's a mathematical thing - when you add up the age of the dead children, there were so many that died as a result of being born that it dragged the average age of death down. Conversely, increase the survival rate at birth and even if they subsequently died of measles, mumps, consequences of rubella, TB, being run over by carts or getting trapped in factory machinery, etc, the age at which they died means that the average is higher.

No she wasn’t. She was talking about neonatal mortality rate being so bad that the average life expectancy was 5. Do you know what neonatal means?

In early industrial Britain, the neo-natal mortality rate was so high that the mathematical average life expectancy was age 5

He did used to visit them, but he was a bit of waster by all accounts, and a heavy drinker. The wider family were all back in Ireland and Scotland.

One of the saddest parts of all was that the boys and girls were split up and put in separate orphanages and didn’t see each other again until they were adults except for in church, where they could wave to each other but weren’t allowed to speak to each other. 😢

You either didn't read my post properly or you didn't understand it. Either way I'd rather you refrained from misrepresenting what I said. You're free to spout unscientific nonsense if you wish. You are very wrong to twist the words of other posters on order to mount a "critique". The Free Birth movement is reprehensible bordering on criminal.

From an informed position no sensible person would choose to free birth

In your opinion.

I'm somewhat confused why you've latched on to my posts. You are welcome to make your point independently. We disagree about the premise of the thread.

Have you got a source for that claim?

@Delatron Conversely, I would never have a hospital birth.

There are awful Facebook groups encouraging this and bashing midwives.

That's a useful statistic to ponder, I think. So, in the 1800s, without so many of the developed medicalised options and knowledge we have available today, 95% of women would still survive the birth process.
Which somewhat opposes the MN view of so many posters who categorically believe they definitely would have died without intervention in labour?

It is lucky we all have the choice.

And every birth is different. But I was very glad to be in hospital when mine went wrong very quickly.

I think for me it’s the ambulance issue that is the real problem. If you need to get medical help quickly and there’s a long delay. So obviously a home birth with all the right criteria would be fine. (Ambulances that can get there quickly and not far to hospital) But it’s not a risk I’d be prepared to take.

I was in a Midwife led unit but was very grateful to be whizzed only upstairs when DS heart rate dropped dramatically. I would not have wanted to be waiting hours for an ambulance.

@Delatron I felt lucky to have two incredibly experienced midwives with just me 24/7 so likely any issues picked up at the earliest opportunity. I was absolutely not afforded this in hospital for my first two labours.
Homebirth, for subsequent pregnancies, is just as safe as hospital.
Also, hospital births in UK not great in terms of safety stats compared with other EU countries. Many reasons for that.

Yes it’s such a personal choice and I’m pleased it was successful for you.

Sorry you had an awful experience with hospitals.

It’s hard for me to guess what would have happened if I’d have home birthed. Maybe the mid wives would have picked up on issues with the first delivery and got me in to hospital (but then I would have had a hospital birth anyway!).

Second birth was massive post partum hemorrhage and retained placenta with significant blood loss. No signs that this would happen and I needed a lot of blood quickly. Look I don’t know. I have no idea how a home birth would have gone for me in that situation as it appeared to be an uncomplicated birth.

Maybe I was lucky as I had fantastic midwife care in the hospital and when the shit hit the fan I couldn’t fault them. I know others have had a bad experience which is a shame.

you realise a 95% survival rate means a 1/20 chance of death? Scaled up to population level, that makes many deaths in most people’s books.

Home birth - under medical supervision, for a pregnancy judged to be low risk - and with a qualified midwife present - is not the same thing at all as 'free birth' so they should not be equated in any way.

I remember screaming and begging the doctor treating my post partum hemorrhage to stop. I have never experienced pain like it before or since and it left me with PTSD.

if she had though I would have died. I’m grateful to her for ignoring me and saving my life.

I was supposed to be a predictable second pregnancy as well, and I had considered a home birth which again would have likely killed me.

I know that NHS natal care is not always what it should be - but overall it is still overwhelmingly the safest option. We should campaign for it to be better, not encourage mothers to opt out of it altogether with all the attendant risks.

It’s a complex issue, the interplay between the rights of mothers and the rights of the unborn child. When I used to work with drug and alcohol using mothers, I found it quite disturbing that there was nothing we could really do to protect the baby. Foetal alcohol syndrome and prolonged substance misuse can cause all kinds of lifelong issues. But how would this be enforced? In my ideal world, we’d have wonderful inpatient services where we could detain women with these issues and offer a great level of care and kindness that benefits her as well as protects the baby. But I understand some would read this and find it dystopian, the idea of detaining women for this reason. I think the same principles apply to this free birthing discussion. Either women are allowed to make bad decisions and harm their babies, or they are not.