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.

So you’re pregnant and have a headache and go to buy some paracetamol…the govt have decided it may cause autism and you’re refused service at the chemists. You ok with this?

You’re 36 weeks pregnant and your blood pressure is going up a bit and the consultant says you should have a planned section now to make sure the baby is ok. But the ctg has shown the unborn baby is currently fine. You want to wait 24 hrs to see if the blood pressure medication works and that would mean you can avoid an unwanted section and also baby gets a bit more growing time as you’re worried about them being early. But dr says you have no bodily autonomy and you’re dragged against your will to theatre. You ok with this? Because the baby has just as many rights as the mother yes?

I do know that, actually. No the hospital didn't cause anything, I knew I was ill before I got there and had symptoms that showed it. Nice of you to try to presume my hospital's staff were to blame for the complications without any evidence whatsoever, and regardless of the knowledge that pregnancy/childbirth complications are common and nobody's fault. And for alluding to my disabled DS as being 'not an amazing outcome'.

I don't share the details of my experience lightly, I have done so because I hope that it may persuade even a few women to ensure they get appropriate medical advice rather than believe the advocates of dangerous 'free' birth on here. But I can't do this any more, I am off this thread.

The impression I got from the article is that the mothers did want the best for their babies but they had been sold a lie about leaving babies to breathe on their own / not needing medical attention.

Monumentally stupid, but changing the law wouldn't help this and just risk criminalising women who run into problems in late pregnancy.

I would probably take the medicine if I had a bad headache.
The second scenario, I'm not sure, I would probably rather wait the 24hrs but if I was advised I should have a section right then and there I would have to trust that was the best decision, I suppose.
I just don't see the point in putting the baby at any unnecessary risk.

I can't believe I have to say this, but having a baby at home is not about fecking candles. Will people stop banging on about bloody candles. Not only is it utterly patronising, it totally misses the point.

It is about a minimally stressful environment, avoiding the stress of trying to get to the hospital whilst in labour, about supporting the mental health of a woman who may well have had a very traumatic hospital birth previously, about being able to give birth somewhere that you know is clean and hygienic, giving yourself the best chance of avoiding the cascade of intervention which so often goes hand in hand with giving birth in hospital. When I had my second child at home, I had to have consultant agreement. The midwife came to our house beforehand to check that the house was suitable for a home birth, that it was clean, that we had easy access to the hospital should we need it, that we knew who to call and when, and what would happen. They made sure we knew what would happen if a hospital transfer was needed and that I understood I could go to the hospital at any time for any reason. It was far, far more support than I got with the hospital birth the first time round. It was three hours from start to finish, no intervention, no tearing, no stitches, no trauma.

And no effing candles and music, FFS.

It may not have been in your case but yeah many complications arise due to unnecessary intervention

Definitely not unreasonable. I had both my babies under 35 when I was "fit and healthy". First baby was a shoulder dystocia that needed three manouvers and several staff to intervene to get him out safely. Second baby was a planned C section as scans showed partial placenta previa. I shudder to think how either of these situations would have gone if I was at home without trained professionals to help me.

On another note, I look after severely disabled children in my work. Lots of these children's disabilities were from birth injuries (HIE). Some of these injuries were bad luck and some were preventable. Obviously those parents love their children but their lives are forever changed. It's different than having a child that was always going to be disabled.

It’s not down to massaged statistics, no. And there are maternal and infant injuries in hospital that are caused by unnecessary intervention, intervention that wouldn’t have happened if mum had stayed at home. The majority of the ‘it’s a good job we were in hospital because XYZ happened and I/my baby could’ve died’ stories are often the result of hospital practices, like lithotomy, rigid timing of length of labour…. And so on.

In that case, laws would have to change. Including also banning pregnant women from drinking, smoking etc.

You can't ban it. You either push it further underground or women will find a way. If I'd wanted a free birth I'd have planned a home birth with a midwife and 'oops, the baby just suddenly came so fast!' In fact, that happened on three occasions and the midwife wasn't there until well into second stage, since it took me by surprise. Not a candle in sight.

I would never choose to free birth because stuff happens, but love the idea. While I trusted my body, medical intervention does have it's place. My last home birth involved lights and sirens and blood transfusions and ICU for me.

Though it’s a sliding doors moment. No one ever knows how it might have gone otherwise

current policy in France is to induce at 41+4 if labour hasn’t started naturally. Which means if induction fails they would be doing a C-Section at 42 weeks.

And what if you don't agree? Will they arrest you and do it anyway against your will

@LeavesOnTrees In the 1800s. Pre scanning etc. Pre modern medicine. Pre pretty much anything we have by today's standards.

No. But they definitely present it as the plan rather than an option, with an explanation as to why that’s the plan. And you have to sign normal medical paperwork before any procedures to show you agree you’ve spoken to the drs and midwives and understand the risks/benefits of whatever the procedure is. If you don’t agree they’d probably try to talk you out of waiting past 42 weeks because the risk of still birth increases considerably. But no one’s going to be arresting you for going against medical advice in France.

Is this in reference to maternal death rates ?

These interventions are what the free birth movement is against.
They argue in favour of rejecting all medical attention during pregnancy and birth and letting nature take its course.

Women in the 1800s had midwives and some medical attention.

@LeavesOnTrees As a pro home-birther I do feel many (although of course, not all) births are over-medicalised.
It is simply incorrect to argue that the natural process of birth is always inherently dangerous or risky as the 1800s statistic supports.

I agree with you and for sure interventions can cause complications that wouldn't occur if it had just been left alone. But it is equally wrong to say that birth is never dangerous or never goes wrong. To home birth at all costs is a problem, though may come down to a philosophical argument about freedom to reject intervention no matter what the cost.

I'm not against home births either. They generally involve a qualified midwife who knows what's she's doing.

If something goes wrong, which it quite often does, then following the Free birth mantra of rejecting all medical help absolutely puts the mother and baby's lives in danger

I'm against criminalising it though and women need accurate information and free choice.

My post was just pointing out that a 5% death rate (although apparently it's more like 1-2% ) may not sound much but in terms of overall maternity death numbers it's huge.

I think this is more a US problem anyway. From what i understand their maternity care is very medicalised, with high caesarian rates and consultant led. Their health insurance system leads women to have to consider finances as part of their birth choices. The NHS has other problems (mainly lack of funding).

I actually gave birth in France, where home births aren't a thing but it's very midwife lead in the hospital. Basically, you give birth with the midwife and your birthing partner and they only call the obstetrician if needed.

They are massively into their epidurals unlike in the UK.

This. It's the story of DD2's birth as well. Also not a candle in sight, just me working (labouring) to birth my baby with the encouragement, monitoring and support of a sensible and competent midwife and my lovely DH.

The whole point about free birth is it is outside the realms of rules and legislation . free birth wil still happen even if you ban it.
however thst way madness lies
you cannot legislate for stupidity.
if people believe they are better off without ultra sounds then they wish to live in the dark ages. And yes. Plenty of women and babies died in that era.

I would have preferred a home birth. Not a free birth. However. At that time it was tricky to find a midwife to commit to being your midwife at home. Therefore the whole reason to choose it for me - continuity of care with someone I trusted - didn’t work. However. It would have been much less stressful for my 2nd birth. Especially as it was so ridiculously fast.

home birth is often considered safer, for certain families, and when I lived on the south coast it was very much encouraged by the local NHS for that very reason.

however. Birthing at home with a midwife is not free birth and I cannot imagine many families choosing free birthing in an equitable world.

@Philandbill Mine too. My home birth was at the height of Covid. I was told if I wanted my husband to be present for the birth of his first and last child in hospital, I would be forced to have fingers inside me by a midwife. Absolutely not.

Being aware of a family who chose to free birth and ended up needing emergency medical intervention, putting much more pressure on health services than an NHS based labour and delivery would have. My opinion is if you’re choosing a free birth you’re also choosing risk and so should not necessarily expect to flip back to the NHS because your free birth hasn’t progressed as hoped, it’s not fair on highly stretched services to go against the grain and then just expect to rejoin the mainstream because you need to.

Rather than trying to control what other people choose, why not address why women are choosing to run this risk to avoid the trauma of escalating interventions so common with hospital births?

Women want not just continuity of care. They want continunity of CARER, building a relationship of trust during the pregnancy so that they can feel well supported during the birth.

Many women want to have home births, plan for home births, and then are denied that choice because "you'll have to come in, as we have no midwife to send to you".

I'd rather put my energy into making things better, rather than exerting control.

@mivona Agreed. We had initially booked our home birth on the NHS but they pulled these in Covid due to needed all midwives on wards. I paid a private IM.