to think home births are selfish?

[woozlet]

I just watched a 'desperate midwives' that I had recorded and there was a home birth on it which went wrong. It worked out ok in the end and the baby was ok. But I was really scared watching it, it just seemed like an unnecessary risk to take.

I see it from your pov op, having had a baby saved at birth in hospital.

You will probably find that most posters on this thread will be very angry that you even dared to voice this opinion.

OK, you're convincing me.

I already thought that the stats would not show it to be riskier because it's only low risk births which can be at home. I suppose the more relaxed = less traumatic birth all makes sense.

I must admit, I did just post this in a reaction to that programme. Those of you who saw it - do you agree that the mum on it WAS selfish????

I mean - she jsut idn't want to give birth in hospital, it seemed too much about her. And then they phoned an amulance and it still hadn't arrived 15 minutes later! Then the baby was born not breathing and it was all very scary.

The midwives are fantastic though.

Morloth - you have a point! (Though I think my arms would get tired). Incredibly glamorous though, don't you think??

Oh urbandryad

I wasn't at all trying to imply that mums who have hospital births are really selfish, I don't think that at all. Just making the point that everyone has to make their own choice.

I don't think anyone is selfish for listening to their healthcare advisors and taking their advice.

But your situation illustrates the fact that it's definitely not a clear cut "hospital safe/home risky" divide.

So you're basing your opinion on ALL women who have their baby at home on one potentially selfish and irresponsible woman? (haven't seen the programme so can't comment). A wee bit daft don't you think?

I had my daughter at home. If my midwives had any cause for concern I would gone been straight to hospital (a 4 minute drive away).

There are as many stories of awful things happening in hospital as there are in home births. Unnecessary interventions, neglectful hcps etc. I remember reading about one woman who during a c-section had the oxygen tube forced down her oesophagus instead of her trachea and slowly suffocated while surrounded by nurses.

Stop generalising and get some education about the subject.

Sorry my typing is awful.

And bibbitybobbityhat - thank you!

The thing is, I still don't think that you can say the woman in the program was "selfish". You don't know the reasons why she wanted to stay at home - she might have suffered some horrific birth trauma previously, or have a real phobia of hospitals. I think she may have been ill-advised, or perhaps unwise, but selfish in this context, is a harsh word to use IMO.

It is higher risk though - it has to be. There is no way a midwife can have all the equipment that's available in a hospital. All the doctors I know are against home birth for safety reasons, and I really don't think it's part of some patriarchal conspiracy to control women.

Even if a woman is healthy you can't predict every problem - that's why there are emergency caesarians, because of complications that didn't become apparent until labour was established. I think basically with home births if you're fine you're fine, but if you're not you're a bit fucked. It takes a lot longer to rush you to hospital than it does to transfer you to another room in a hospital - you can't always guarantee there will be an ambulance available. It's more of a risk.

Most midwives are great, but they aren't doctors. They don't have the same level of medical expertise, although some seem to think they do and that is another risk - they delay transfer to hospital until it's too late, thinking they can deal with it but then finding out they can't.

I hate hospitals and would do anything to avoid them. But I would feel that I was risking my own and my baby's health by having it at home. No one ever tells you the home birth horror stories, but there are plenty.

Of course NICE support home births - it's cheaper. And because it's all about choice, if you or the baby dies they can't be sued because you chose it. It's a win-win situation [cynical]

Could get messy though, also would need catcher's mitt for midwife.

Bunny - if an oxygen tube was involved that implies general anaesthetic which implies emergency section which implies necessary intervention. Not that that excuses straight forward negligence in any way.

But bibbitybobbity - I can totally see that in your case it was the right decision.

But how would you feel if someone started a thread saying "I think that mums who give birth in hospital are ignorant"?

If people are cross at this thread, it won't be because Woozlet has an opinion - it's because the title insults everyone who's made a different choice.

Morloth - true. But suggest ball gown - possibly in scarlet taffeta.

Not EXACTLY agreeing with the OP but one of the reasons I chose not to have a home birth was because community midwife resources are very scarce in our area and I didn't want to be using these up when provision was already being made in hospital. Births have increased by 20% in the last two years in our area (SW London) and midwife staffing is not keeping pace.

Once I was discharged from hospital I had to wait TWO WEEKS to be seen by a midwife. They kept missing their appointments because they had to attend home births which took priority. I eventually made a formal complaint to the PCT because i felt the lack of midwife care could have endangered my baby.

So while i don't think mothers are putting their own needs before their babies in choosing a home birth, I do know that other new mums might be missing out on midwife care in order that these births can be facilitated.

Other people will quite rightly respond that that's not the mother's problem, but personally, I thought it would be selfish of me to make that choice, and I can't help but feel frustrated that other mothers' choice of a home birth meant that my baby didn't get the care it needed.

I don't think its selfish, they are not necessarily more risky. I think they will only be allowed if the midwives are not too worried about it, and no complications in the pregnancy, so in those cases why not? Although I wouldn't personally go for it, because I want the hospital pain relief but i don't think its selfish @ all unless they have been told it will be dangerous in their case and try to insist on it, which is not normal

I have seen the programme, and the woman concerned was waiting for an ambulance, which never arrived. I don't recall her refusing to go to hospital

We need lulu or Marsy on this thread really, or mears. I'm sure they'd have some "home birth horror stories" for you IMLH.

Or maybe not.

I kind of agree, for the following reasons:

In some countries (NL for example) HB is the norm, and therefore the systems and infastructure is geared towards this

In the UK, hospital birth is the norm and therefore our systems are geared towards this

So by having home birth in the UK, you are taking resources away from where they are usually based....maybe depriving others?

IF this becomes the norm in the UK, then maybe thigs will change?

But I agree OP is saying that it seemed to be more about what the Mum wanted and less about whats right for the baby

Sorry - title was very imflammatory. Was just annoyed at the programme and was being stupid by putting that.

There would be less intervention in hospital births if all labouring women had the luxury of 1 to 1 midwife care plus 2 when push comes to shove. Intervention in hospital simply has to be caused in many cases by the sheer lack of midwives.

Inmylittlehead - sorry but your post has a lot of inaccuracies.

1. Very few "emergency" cs are true crash cses. Normally it takes at least 15 mins to page a doctor, prepare an operating theatre and find a surgeon. In my case the transfer time to hospital was less than 5 minutes - it would have taken longer than that to wheel me down the corridor.

2. Yes it's possible there might not be an ambulance available. Equally it's possible there might not be an operating theatre or a surgeon available.

3. A MW intensively monitoring a woman would usually transfer with warning signals before this.

4. Your point about NICE is very wide of the mark. A HB is not a get out clause for being sued. Medical incompetence is medical incompetence wherever it occurs. If a MW spotted warning signs and failed to advise the mother to transfer, she would be just as culpable at home as in hospital if she saw warning signs and failed take action there.

TAFKAAAAAAAAAA - so you're saying that nothing ever goes horrendously wrong during home births? Got to be bollocks, hasn't it, if you think about it logically. Birth can go wrong wherever, but it's just slightly more serious if you have no medical equipment or consultants around. And I definitely do know a fair few horror stories, btw, but will not link them because I don't want to scare anyone planning on a home birth.

But I wouldn't necessarily say home birth is selfish - as it uses up less NHS resources than hospital births I can't claim it as an issue affecting the rest of us, so it's the mother's choice.

The thing is, having heard a lot of birth stories it seems to me that a lot of the situations where the mum ends up with an EMCS it's a cascade of intervention.

For example, in my case, the mw's said my waters had gone, when they hadn't, which meant I had to go into hospital to be induced, but because my waters hadn't gone they ramped me up on the maximum dose of Syntocinon before they realised this. So when the registrar broke my waters (without telling me what she was going to do - just shoved a crochet hook up my fanjo) the contractions came so thick and fast I couldn't cope with them - which meant an epidural. Then - possibly because of the unnatural labour hormones in my body, or perhaps because it was at 38 weeks and ds wasn't ready to come out yet - baby went into distress and we were all prepped up ready for an EMCS.

All of this could have been avoided, and I could have had a complication-free HB (as had been planned, and as I had with dd) if the mw's had examined me properly in the first place. So I have to wonder how many of the EMCS could have been avoided - I mean, the hospital where I had ds has a 30% EMCS rate! That's absurd!

In answer to those saying it's selfish because it takes resources away from women who need them

1. It's cheaper - so if more women had home births there would be more money to train and pay midwives

2. In many areas there is a specific home birth team which manage the home births alone, so you are not taking a MW from a woman labouring in hospital.

3. Home births are usually shorter and attended for a shorter period, so you probably use less MW resources overall.

4. Yes there should be 1-1 midwife staffing in hospitals - but not having a homebirth is not going to achieve this. By having a homebirth you are conserving NHS resources and making it more likely to happen for others.