to think this woman's misguided to say the least?!

[Floopy21]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article6101189.ece

I wonder why this journo thinks that home birthers are free birthers? What makes her think home bith involves no care from a midwife, no documentation to show the 'norm' has not been deviated from, and no planning and projecting of care - just like a hospital birth.

Clearly failed to read the midwives governing rules/NICE/RCOG guidance before writing. Or maybe did, and doesn't mind looking a numpty to please the editor.

i just feel that to me,it would be freestyling-i couldn't get that out of my head-should we ever have another then i might reconsider but for me,for now,my hypothetical next birth would be in hospital (with a midwife/dr outside the door-just in case!) i live half a mile from old trafford football club\the trafford centre-traffic doesn't flow anywhere near freely-couldn't take the risk of an ambulance on match day/when the sales were on.

40 or so years ago, most second or third births would have been at home - with the full contingent of drugs/equipment available at the time. My Mum had 2 home births and 2 hospital births.

If I had a second baby I would consider a home birth.

and by the way, for my 3 hospital births

birth 1... one mw went to lunch right as things were hotting up and another replaced her to deliver my baby... the first mw came in half way through pushing out a baby who was in severe distress and tutted at me for pushing on my hands and knees and wandered back out again. they then proceeded to stitch me up with the wrong type of thread which didn't dissolve and i had to take a nail scisors to 3 weeks later as i was in so much agony from it. dd had to be resssitated and after wards they put her in an incubator to warm up and i couldn't hold her... within a year it was standard practice in this same hospital for all babies to have an hour of skin to skin to regualte temp...i was denied that because i had the misfortune to give birth before the policy changed i was also injected with the medicine to expell the placent against my will. i won't even go into the helllish time i had on the ward as that would take several pages.

birth 2... mostly better but they made me turn over when i said i was pushing despite me explaining that i find pushing on my back unbearable... ended up giving birth to ds1 in that position as i was unable to move back on my own and they wouldn't help me. was able to have a physiological third stage but the mw at one point pulled on the cord to 'check was it ready to come out' as she was impatient after having a fight with the nurse on ward, as she was trying to insist ds1 wear 3 layers of clothes on a boiling hot ward during a heatwave while cuddled up to me in bed, i was completely ignored all night long but kept awake all night

birth 3... had to drive an hour on treacherously icy roads to get to hospital, made it in time but mw almost missed the birth as she was out of the room attending to another woman, his head was out before she got back... so hardly much point in being there. ds1 was snatched off me a couple of hours later and brought to SCBU where the cascade of medical intrusions meant he ended up severly jaundiced and on a massive amount of IV fluids. one simple test could have prevented all that (consultants own words) but the 'lab doesn't do that test anymore' he was there for 5 days, i was discharged after 2 and told parental accom was unavailable and tough luck that i lived an hour from the hospital and was bf-ing.... i drove 200 miles over the next few days, usually in chronic exhaustion mode, almost crashed the car several times in the middle of the night, and drove my baby home from hospital by myself

Isn't it down to individual choice? if you actually have a choice. I didn't as I was considered high risk. If I hadn't have been high risk and had had a home birth I wouldn't be sharing my home with my ds now.

"if you actually have a choice. I didn't as I was considered high risk"

Funnily enough high risk women have choices too. There's no law saying you have to come into hospital.

I was 'high risk' and had a healthy homebirth. Had gestational diabetes and was carrying an 11lb baby. I did end up paying for a private midwife, but I do know people who've had VBACS at home with community midwives, who would also be considered 'high risk'.

Someone mentioned the that homebirths takes up more resources (ie. midwives time) versus a hospital birth. I read a couple of years ago that an average homebirth costs approx £500, an uncomplicated hospital birth with an overnight stay costs approx £1000 and a c-section costs upwards of £2000. Home births though taking up more midwivery time costs less because the mother and baby are not taking up a labouring room and then a hospital bed afterwards.

I don't think homebirths are for everyone but we should be given more information about them during pregnancy.

MollieO - of course it is down to choice and no one is suggesting that any woman should be forced to have a home birth. The issue here is that the article in question suggests that women choosing home births are selfish in doing so. You were identified as high risk so obviously did what any sensible woman would do in this situation and opted for a hospital birth, you would have found it near impossible to find a midwife willing to agree to give you a home birth if you were high risk anyway. Are you saying that had you not for some reason been identified as high risk and then had a homebirth that you or your baby would have died? If this had been the case then surely that would have been an error on the part of your midwife and doctors who looked after your prenatal care for not spotting that you were high risk? If you had ended up with a homebirth then the more likely scenario is that when the problem was identified you would have been transferred to hospital and both you and your baby would have been fine. But your point is redundant as you were correctly advised during your pregnancy and took thesensible option to have a hospital birth.

I've already mentioned this earlier in the thread but it
really winds me up when people say to me "oh well if
I'd had a home birth my baby/I would have died"
implying that those choosing home birth are taking a risk
and are simply lucky to not have a tragedy befall them.
Normally on further discussion you find that these women
would not have been offered a homebirth in the first
place due to something identified during pregnancy or a
problem occurred during labour which would have been
spotted by the midwives in attendance at home and a
hospital transfer arranged. It is simply not the case that
having a homebirth in anyway increases any risks for
women who are considered suitable for a homebirth and such attitudes are unhelpful. I think that some feel that people who have a homebirth are in someway smug and superior about having done so and therefore feel the need to critcise. In my book all women who go through birth are heroes, it's bloody hard work! Whether it's at home/in hospital/in a birthing centre, with or without
drugs, c-section or VB we should be supportive of each other's decisions rather than trying to say that one way is better than another.

What an extremely childishly written article by a woman who quite clearly has issues with home birth and breastfeeding for reasons known only to her.

Words fail me. I'm disappointed to see so many people agreeing with her.

She comes across as very bitter.

Standanddeliver - sorry, pls don't take my post to suggest that you were 'unsensible' in anyway for choosing a homebirth! You obviously made a well informed decision. Congrats on getting your homebirth.

No worries Bellebelle

I thoughts on this is that there is simply no research comparing outcomes for high risk women giving birth at home with high risk women giving birth in hospital as it would be impossible to do.

I personally think that every woman needs to be assessed in terms of her individual situation.

In my particular situation I felt that the additional risks of being at home in a labour following a pregnancy which had developed complications were balanced out by the benefits. I also live (literally) three minutes away from the hospital!

Apologies for terrible grammar, typos. Too early for me

Bellebelle - thank you for articulately saying what I was thinking.

I was considered low risk. I decided to have a home birth. Had my midwife AT ANY STAGE pointed out a valid reason for me to transfer to hospital then I would have done so immediately.

I am not reckless or selfish. My baby's safe delivery was my partner and my only goal.

Some people on this thread seem to have the idea that having a home birth means squatting over a bucket on your own with a rusty pair of scissors to cut the cord.

Not so. My midwives were amazing. They were experienced, well equipped and thoroughly professional.

I was monitored regularly. Baby's heartbeat was checked all the time. I had gas and air and could have had pethidine if I chose to.

Every woman who gives birth is a hero.

Let's stop with the bitterness and scare-mongering and just accept that we all have a choice and we all live with the consequences of said choices.

Think we're all aware that some babies do need modern medical faff, and others don't. A matter of luck, rather than choice. Both mine had to be induced - yes they REALLY did, and in my son's case the placenta was failing and the amniotic fluid all gone. I had a 2.5 hour second stage with him, and emergency forceps. He needed the forceps - lots of heartrate decels. Good luck to those who have easier births if they like to have them at home...

The article is horrible, but I would never give birth at home. Having had 3 babies saved by birth in hospital - I truly cannot see why anyone would take the risk of having their baby at home. I'm sorry if this upseta anyone, but I really do think it is selfish. Some complications happen instantly, and even if you are only a 5 min ambulance transfer away, could be too late. Just not worth the risk....

Plus, don't know too much about the costs associated, I understand a home birth is cheaper (?), but it does take resources away from the hospital (if NHS midwife), and an ambulance transfer and subsequent care due to late arrival in hospital certainly wouldn't be cheap.

I don't understand why having a home birth makes you anti hospitals. I like hospitals, I have spent most of my working/university life in one. They are wonderful things that save many lives and I am eternally grateful that I live somewhere with a brilliant hospital not 5 minutes away.

You don't have to slate someone else's choice, insinuating that they don't care for their babies, and that works both ways, women who are smug about natural births and those who are anti home births.

Fair enough, if I lived 40 mins from the hospital I would probably want a hospital/home from home unit birth, because of the time in transfer. But I don't, I live round the corner from one. The choice is made on personal experiences, circumstances and gut feelings. There is no one size fits all answer of which is better. If you feel safer in hospital that is fine, you should be where you are happiest, but that doesn't mean other people are unsafe or risk taking, or don't love their kids as much as you do.

Also being in hospital doesn't guarantee you will get the treatment you want or need immediately. The anaesthetist turned up 40 mins after I had given birth to give me an epidural.

It's community midwives who attend a homebirth so not taking any resources away from hospitals.

Your perception is that homebirth must somehow be riskier but the figures show this to be untrue. Fine to follow your gut instinct on what is best for you personally but please don't perpetuate the ill informed myth that home birth is in anyway more risky than being in hospital without the facts to back it up.

I had my two in hospital and while they were both pretty different experiences in that my first lasted 18 hours and was a vacuum delivery but was pain free thanks to a fab epidural and the second was short (3.5hrs) but without pain relief and therefore very painful, the experience in terms of attention and care by medical staff was excellent and reassuring. I am all for people having home births if that is the best option for them. I do object though to the way some home birthers act all superior as if those of us who go to hospital are somehow cheating. It is the same with women who go on about natural childbirth as if they are the be all and end all. What is wrong with pain management? You wouldn't go to the dentist and say "hold the anaesthetic - just drill away there" would you?

Yet again, for journalists, an example of the plural of "anecdote" being "data".

I don't understand why there are midwives in abundance in the community so that every mum labouring at home can have two midwives in attendance yet in hospital you have to share one "poor, overworked" midwife between half a dozen labouring women. I'd be interested to see what would happen to these ratios if more women opted for homebirths. I'm sure funding limitatons must exist in the community too don't they?

When I had my second homebirth (1997), my midwives told me that due to provision for legal suits, a hospital birth costs the hospital £3000, whilst a home birth costs £700 because the parents sign a waiver. Worth contemplating before people start getting all puffy about resources...

Agree Bellebelle. Bottom line is, statistically home births are no riskier than hospital births. So actually, all the anecdotal stuff is really not relevant. For any home birth tragedies, there will be at least the corresponding amount of hospital tragedies.

I also think this point about women saying 'Thank God I was in hospital - it saved my baby's life' is interesting, because I bet it's actually incredibly rare that that is genuinely the case. (And as has been pointed out, where it is the case, the woman is likely to have been told she's high risk anyway!)

I think the natural tendency is probably that if you have a high tech hospital birth with interventions, you either go one of two ways: you convince yourself that you needed it, and therefore justify the choice you made to give birth in hospital. Or you subsequently feel unhappy and disempowered by the interventions. For the sake of your own emotional health, it's probably better to fall into the first camp - you only need to read some of the unhappy threads on MN from women who've had all sorts of unecessary interventions to see that it can cause a lot of long term unhappiness.

If I had given birth to my first baby in hospital, I am 100% certain that I would be one of those women saying 'Thank God I was in hospital, my baby could have died otherwise'. It was a very long, painful labour, she was a big baby, her heart rate was decelerating and the midwife in the unit had called in a doctor because she thought a forceps delivery would be necessary. But while the doctor scrubbed up ready for it, she talked me through the final pushes.
I can well imagine that in a hospital, I wouldn't have been allowed to labour so long, I'd have been pushed into the epidural route, which would probably have slowed things down even more, and no doubt ended with instrumental or even C section delivery. And then of course I would have believed that all this was inevitable!

"Yet again, for journalists, an example of the plural of "anecdote" being "data"."

Yes because an opinion piece in the comment section is exactly the same as news article.

The only "data" she refers to is the Dutch study on home births. And the Royal Coll of Obs and Gynae made the point on the BBC yesterday that the figures don't read across to the UK precisely because our hospital perinatal death figures are so much better than the Dutch hospital figures. So taking the home birth figures from the Dutch study, UK hospital births are proportionally safer.

I agree it's a judgey article, but it's a free country, with a free press, in a paper which assumes an intelligent readership. And no, I don't work for it - but I find the attitude that only one point of view should ever be aired a little disturbing. Without reasoned debate, we're all much poorer.

coochicoo; i did agree with her re; home birth is risky, i would never have one, even though i was born at home with no problems at all....i don't think what she's saying is "new", read those views loads of times,....
don't agree on the b/f...i b/f all my dc, my youngest until he was 2.5.

"you convince yourself that you needed it, and therefore justify the choice you made to give birth in hospital"

Violethill - EXACTLY. It's a combination of women being told by doctors that they needed the interventions when in many cases they did not. In hospitals interventions are used when labours aren't progressing as fast as the doctors would like in order to free up beds and allow them to go home.

I think women then do what you say and convince themselves that the section/forceps/induction was in fact necessary.

If we followed our bodies cues and let things happen in their own time there would be a hell of a lot fewer interventions.

I mentioned Ricki Lakes "The Business of Being Born" earlier in this thread. It shows exactly how managed most births are and how in fact the interventions which are deemed "life-saving" are actually CAUSED by trying to rush the labour along.

And then the mums are so grateful to these doctors.....baffles me.