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.

The difficulty with this point of view is that giving birth isn’t just about what’s best for the mother - it’s also about the wellbeing of the child. The Guardian’s expose was both upsetting and infuriating because there were clearly instances where maternal choice carried irreversible and devastating consequences for their babies. That’s not to say that errors in judgement don’t happen in hospital environments, and clearly questions need to be asked if failures in maternal and neonatal care are encouraging some women to shun all medical support during pregnancy and childbirth. Unsatisfactory standards of care are widely acknowledged, but women making the choice to free birth must live with that responsibility, that their baby will be impacted - especially if things go wrong.

The founders of the Free Birth Society clearly know that forgoing all medical care comes with higher risks, which is why they try and normalise instances of stillbirth or infant mortality - I’m paraphrasing, but they preach something along the lines of ‘no one will grow a baby they can’t birth.’ It was horrifying to read about mothers watching newborns struggle for breath, which was encouraged by the FBS. Yes, people shouldn’t be forced into medical procedures they don’t want - by all means refuse a transplant, or a transfusion or a vaccine - that’s on you. But don’t impose your autonomy on a baby by buying into free birth - they don’t have the luxury of choice.

I don't think it is straightforward by any means, seriously. From the moment I was pregnant the baby was everything to me. It was a really complicated pregnancy and by the time I got to the point of giving birth (by C-section, which was necessary for medical reasons but which I would also have elected for reasons personal to me had it not also been required) the only bullet point on the birthing plan that my NCT leader insisted on me preparing was "baby and mother survive". So I personally completely agree with you and I will never understand why some mothers put their birthing experience above their baby's best interests and survival. But I am politically 100% pro-choice and for women's physical and mental autonomy, and the only way that works is if the mother has complete control over her body until her baby is born. So that's where I draw the political line, but I agree that it is a hard line to draw, and it doesn't stop me from being very blunt in my own views where I think that a poor decision is being made.

Agree with you in every sense - no one should ever have a choice forced upon them in any instance. The grey area around childbirth is the extent to which you can have ‘control’ of the situation - some might get lucky and their birth plan goes perfectly. (I suppose I was one of them - opted for an elective C-section, which went very smoothly.) But many people will have matters taken out of their hands if circumstances change - I was the only one in my NCT group opting for an elective C-Section, but recall most ended up have one. Plans change depending on the needs of the mother and the baby. It doesn’t sound to me as though free birthing is responsive to circumstances changing - more of a ‘what will be will be’ approach, nature doing its thing. At what point does the choice you make on behalf of a newborn baby tip into negligence? I don’t understand how the advice not to call emergency services in the event of a labour lasting six days (tragically ending in stillbirth - per the article) or a newborn struggling to breathe - doesn’t leave people exposed to lawsuits?

Or umbilical cord wrapped around baby's neck - in my friend's case.
Nuchal cord is not dangerous, that’s a myth used to scaremonger women into hospital.

https://www.rachelreed.website/blog/nuchalcords

Or massive bleed after placenta separated - my cousin.
Was this a physiological third stage or did they clamp & cut the cord immediately, inject her with syntocin and pull the placenta out by the cord?
https://www.rachelreed.website/blog/active-management-placenta

Or my baby being a "stargazer" and refusing to turn over.
not dangerous; https://www.rachelreed.website/blog/in-celebration-of-the-occipito-posterior-baby

Interesting article(s). My third baby was born at home (planned, it was my second home birth) with the cord wrapped around her neck (and she was absolutely fine, born in the pool, delayed cord clamping, no complications... just had to be untangled as she made her way up out of the water!).

Well done for completely devaluing experiences of other women... Yes of course its all natural. But dying in childbirth is also "natural".

Cord round neck - baby had severe oxygen deprivation, now has cerebral palsy. If it was not a hospital birth it would be dead.

My cousin bled because of some rare genetic abnormality only detected after birth. She ended up with a hysterectomy. Would be dead if was giving birth at home due to the volume of blood loss.

My child was in distress and close to not making it as he could not get out. He was out only due to surgery. Would have died otherwise.

Cord round neck - baby had severe oxygen deprivation, now has cerebral palsy. If it was not a hospital birth it would be dead.

Once more, nuchal cords do not deprive babies of oxygen. If this baby was deprived of oxygen it was for some other reason, not the cord around the neck. A prolapsed cord can do this, but for a nuchal cord to cause reduced blood flow is very very rare, the ‘risks’ are exaggerated as it’s a perfect ‘no-fault’ scapegoat for hospitals

You are deliberately giving snap-shots of these situations, drip-feeding information to make it sound like these are common risks. There’s so much detail missing, pertinent detail, and because I’m aware of how often best practice is ignored in obstetric situations I’m willing to guess that there’s much more to each of your stories, but it suits your “we must all give birth in hospital or every mother and baby will DiE” narrative.

Yes, the narrative that women don't ever need help blames countless mothers for their own deaths. Some of these deaths are due to better sterilisation of equipment, but the truth is that there WILL always be births that need medical help, and to say otherwise is wholly untrue and harmful.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3511335/

That is untrue that 'nuchal cords don't deprive of oxygen'.

Nuchal cords do not usually deprive the baby of oxygen, but they certainly CAN.

https://www.bila.ca/umbilical-cord-around-neck/#:~:text=also%20be%20helpful.-,Brain%20Damage,%2Dterm%20effects%2C%20such%20as:

Nowhere in the article does it mention the problem where the cord is around the neck and the baby can't put his/ her chin down enough to easily come out so gets stuck....

This wasn't realised until the final end pushing stage, so the dr used a ventouse and baby came out quickly.
There wasn't any messing about with cutting the cord or trying to feel what was going on.

Personally, I was happy to have a qualified team on hand, including a paediatrician, but each to their own.

I’m willing to guess that there’s much more to each of your stories, but it suits your “we must all give birth in hospital or every mother and baby will DiE” narrative.

My narrative is more "dont give birth fuck knows where without any medical help as it might cost you dearly". But of course you know better what I meant.

Baby was deprived of oxygen as cord was tightly wrapped around its neck, twice. It was a very short time but enough to cause brain damage. Its a real story, but apparently it doesn't matter as it never happens.

I said in my earlier posts that women should be listened to, and allowed to make choices. They should be educated and supported, they should give birth the way they want - but should be aware of the potential risks. Your posts just support my view that these extreme points of view are pretty much a cult, where no other point of view is allowed and alternative opinion is mocked as rubbish.

I agree. Choice and autonomy is important - but only if that is a fully informed choice. Childbirth is dangerous and we are at risk of forgetting this. Some will argue that the undesirable outcomes are all because of hospitals and ‘unnecessary interventions’. As though hospitals intervene for the hell of it.

A natural ‘breathe the baby out’ birth is sold as the ultimate aim for everyone. And if you have any drugs, or help you have failed.

For some people birthing is always going to be tricky. I have a retroverted uterus, which meant despite me not lying down for 40 hours and trying to achieve an ‘active birth’ it was a back to back 40 hour labour. I actually think the attempted water birth slowed me down.

Many women are better off in hospital. The free birth groups are dangerous but so is the NCT and its constant ‘cascade of intervention’ talk being rammed down your throat.

Well she went into labour at home and it must have been fast it wasn't a slammed free birth. But having a breech birth with midwives there should be fine.

When my friend was having a breech birth, her husband a doctor who had seen breech births go bad really fast, begged her to have a c-section. She decided on a trial of labour which culminated in the consultant not waiting for a porter running with her trolley screaming for the staff to get a theatre ready when he found a troubling amount of meconium in her waters. So really, I wouldn't be that keen for a midwife to manage a breech birth. I had a prolapsed cord - I was lucky my child survived and he survived because I was in a hospital with specialists with nice sharp scalpels and midwives would have been near useless. My child would in all likelihood have died or been severely brain damaged in a home birth. Still I suppose this is Darwinism in action.

How long ago was this? I had my babies 9 and 11 years ago and I had scan at around 37/38 weeks or so to make sure the baby wasn't breech? I thought it was common practise?

( asking because I'm curious )

Victorian women had a 1 in 20 lifetime risk of dying in childbirth. Plenty survived (19 in 20) so no chance of extinction but I would imagine those 1 in 20 women who died would have appreciated medical intervention, don’t you?. Intervention free births are totally appropriate for lots of women but for a minority of women, interventions save their lives and the lives of their babies.

I think pp’s friend did know the baby was breech, presumably from scans, hence the husband begging her to have a c-section.

What if they refuse to sign anything?

https://mol.im/a/15358949 excuse the source (daily fail) but I saw this and remembered this thread.