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.

It absolutely is in certain circumstances, such as baby having severe, non compatible with life, conditions.

That's just silly. You can apply that to anyone who chooses to birth at all. You choose to have a baby, so it's not fair to expect the NHS to fund it, especially if you need NICU or some other expensive thing by that token.

No-one should play sports, go on adventures, drive a car, cross the road.

It costs the NHS far more for low risk women to choose to birth in a hospital. Maybe home birth should be the default and you save the NHS money by only going to hospital if you need to?

If I'd been in labour and been told there was no midwife and I had to come in, I'd have seriously considered just staying at home. Luckily, I had continuity of care and midwives lined up.

The number of people who attempt to freebirth is actually quite small.

The best way to reduce it, imo, would be to make maternity care better. Most women I know who are seriously considering giving birth outside of a setting with a qualified midwife or doctor have been shittily treated in maternity care. Whether that is poor medical care or being treated like shit as a person.

In my experience a lot of vets give their birthing patients more appropriate care than hospitals give women.

Some of these tragedies or all could've been prevented had these babies been born at home.
How? No treatment is available at home. A bad hospital might miss things and not do away with the risks entirely but with an unassisted home birth, you are entirely on your own if a problem arises.

I agree with this - that is a very strange comment@sunshinestar1986, I dont understand how these examples would have worked better without any medical intervention? Like, the lady with eclampsia would have died at home, but at least at the hospital she had a chance (obviously not taken due to negligence). Birth injury also happens in complicated births, so your friend's son probably would have not been alive at all. Medicine is not perfect and there is always a human factor but giving birth in anti-sanitary conditions without any medical help present is mad. Might as well go give birth in a field, like in the olden days.

Because intervention is what caused most of them in the first place.
Induction causes most issues, and they are not even needed.
What exactly was the reason for my Induction?
A week post dates 🙄
Look into the risks of induction and then come back.
Most are unnecessary.
Also, most home births have the calm environment that a birthing woman needs. Sometimes you do need to go to hospital, that’s not the issue but let's not ignore the facts, home births and even free births have better outcomes.
Look specifically into hospital stats then come back.

Read about the risks of intervention like i said. Having intervention causes most of the problems to begin with,no intervention, less issues.
Also, you do need to have a bit of common sense, and a plan ready to have hospital transfer if needed.
But being in hospital isn't the best environment for giving birth ironically unless its actually a life and death situation, and birth isn't supposed to be a life and death situation.
Also, read up about the stats for black and brown women, are they also safer in hospital?
Please 🙄

My DIL had pre-eclamsia which was picked up at her antenatal check ups and ended up having an emergency caesarian at 32 weeks, her consultant told her she was very likely to have it again during her next pregnancy and would definitely need another section.
Despite this, during her second pregnancy her midwives kept telling her she was down for a normal vaginal delivery. Of course she was very ill towards the end of her pregnancy, I was staying with her at home because we all felt that she should not be alone during the day, and was taking her to hospital daily for a BP check - why not a community midwife coming to visit her?
At 34 weeks they had to admit her, to a large antenatal ward with just one midwife who was two hours over her normal shift with no replacement in sight and no doctor in attendance for the three hours we waited there. Fortunately a doctor did appear then and she had her CS immediately. Problems in hospital are often due to long-term lack of money which has led to insufficient staff and possibly insufficient training.
However she was better off in hospital, even with these problems. Things can go wrong anywhere, often due to staff mistakes coupled to simple mischance, but if she had been at home (and had received no antenatal care) she would quite definitely have died.

Can you link the stats that say free births have better outcomes than hospital births please? I can’t find anything reputable that says this.

Home births attended by midwives, with hospital transfers available when necessary, are fine for low-risk pregnancies. But remember that the fact that hospitals take all the high-risk mothers in the first place in itself skews the stats.

I agree that over-intervention is an issue that should be addressed though. There is certainly room for improvement. However, in general, giving birth is now much safer than it was and this is because of the increased medical care available before, during and after birth.

I was prepared to lock myself in the bathroom and refuse to come out. I knew I could call a paramedic as a backup. Looking back, that's obviously very silly, but it's a reflection of just how traumatised I was by the previous hospital birth. There was no way I was letting another obstetrician get within 10 feet of me.

To be fair, home births are very very low in the UK. In reality hardly anyone does it. I have, but I don't know anyone else who has. I know one person who tried but in the end went to hospital for pain relief (not in an emergency) because her labour was very long. I am in an area with higher than average home birthing and it's a measly 7%.

I don't understand why it makes women who haven't and would never have one so angry. No-one is trying to make you do it. You'd prefer a hospital environment? Great! It's freely available for you on the NHS. Have at it.

I understand. I'm sorry you had to go through that. Your feelings aren't silly either. You feel how you feel, and that's okay.

What have I just read! A baby being asphyxiated to the point of irreversible brain damage while a bunch of thick idiots tell the mother ‘you are a queen’ and ‘you are safe’!!!! While this could have been prevented if there was a medically trained clinician present. Yes you might survive and even have a good birth on your own or with whichever lunatics you choose to accompany you, but you might not, how is it ever worth the risk???

The problem we've got, to put it bluntly, is that that exact scenario can and does happen in hospital with trained medics attending.

Babies suffer unnecessary irreversible brain damage in hospital with medical staff attending. The NHS pays out millions of pounds a year in damages to families where this has occurred. So it shouldn't be at all surprising that some women don't view hospitals as a safe haven, or trust doctors, or are willing to put the health of their baby in the hands of a stranger they've only just met and know nothing about, even if he is an obstetrician.

No you are not being unreasonable- if an individual wants to put themselves at risk that is their choice, but in the case of birth the child has to be considered.
In a country with free healthcare the burden such individuals are putting on the system and other taxpayers has to be considered also.
As to you not being able to grow a baby you can't birth hundreds of years of statistics and maternal and child deaths call this out as a dammed lie- it is perfectly natural for one in five of labouring mothers to die within 2 weeks of the labour, and somewhat greater proportion of the babies, these are not good odds.

I don’t know the exact statistics, however I’m prepared to bet that the risk of not having a medically supervised birth is significantly higher than otherwise. If the worst happens in hospital there are records, debriefs and investigations and accountability. I bet the cult weirdo’s who essentially harmed the baby in the article got off scot free and are still advocating their insanity.

I had a seriously dehumanising experience with my first hospital birth (and postnatal time). I am grateful that we're both still alive but it came at such an enormous cost. My child is only still alive because myself and my husband advocated for him constantly throughout. A decade later I still get nightmares about it. I can understand why some women would never go back to a hospital birth.

Birth of my first born was certainly a life or death situation for me. We're talking minutes here. It was traumatic. I hated the thought of a c-section the second and third time around but my instinct was to be a close to the operating theatre as I could physically be!

That's a ludicrous thing to say. You could attach the same logic to anyone who drives a car, takes part is sport, etc etc.

The answer to obstetrics care not being good enough is surely not no care at all!

It also sort of suggests the medical emergency itself is the fault of the mother choosing to freebirth, which is highly unlikely. Many of the obstetric emergencies that occur do so regardless of where you're birthing (e.g. baby in distress, cord prolapse, postpartum haemorrhage). So while an argument can be made that it's better to be close to life saving facilities, in the majority of cases the emergency would happen wherever the birth occurs so 'should not necessarily expect to flip back to the NHS because your free birth hasn’t progressed as hoped' is completely ludicrous.

Also, would we really turn away dying mothers and babies because the mother made a risky choice for her birth?? How would you account for accidental freebirths?

I still think freebirthing is risky and not a good decision but some of the rhetoric around it is silly and callous.

I do agree with this, but I also sincerely believe if obstetric care was made much better then only an even tinier proportion of pregnant women would choose to attempt freebirth.

It still shouldn't be 'banned'. Nothing good comes of banning stuff like this.

This is the Cruz of the matter. Excellent post

I don’t think free birthing itself should be banned but these people peddling disinformation should be banned for sure it’s disgusting what they are getting away with. I would never have a free birth the idea horrifies me . I think it would be against human rights to ban people from doing it though.