Ban Home Births!

[NHSsupporter]

This should be a topic that will get the "rights for women" brigade fired up!

I have listened for several years to a close friend of mine who is an NHS Community Midwife, and have decided that we should bite the bullet and BAN "NHS sponsored home births".

I make this suggestion based on, what I believe to be, several compelling arguments:

1. Child safety

2. NHS Budget

3. Parent welfare

4. In my friends experience between 33%-50% of all home births at 2 hospitals she has worked at in 2 very different areas, seem to end up in difficulties ultimately requiring the attendance of paramedics, an ambulance, and subsequent blue-light evacuation to hospital. Surely it would be better for the unborn child's safety and welfare for it to start being born in a controlled environment, where all of the necessary professionals are already at hand should the need arise, rather than having to be born in an emergency and potentially rushed situation. Surely the welfare of the unborn child should be placed ahead of a so-called "pleasant birthing experience" for the new mother.

5. The use of emergency ambulance resources in 33%-50% of cases and Community Midwives must have an additional financial implication, which is significantly greater than parents, in a controlled way, simply entering the hospital and giving birth in a building, which already exists and is already being paid for, with staff present whose salaries are also part of the fixed costs of running the hospital. In this time of austerity surely this would be a sensible cost-saving exercise.

6. Parent physical and mental welfare would be significantly improved if emergency procedures could be avoided. I would go as far as to say, that I bet that one or more of the annual maternal deaths could be avoided.

I repeat, surely the welfare of the unborn child should be placed ahead of a so-called "pleasant birthing experience" for the new mother.

Comments welcomed?!

FFS

comments, well, erm, seeing as the research shows a planned homebirth is as safe if not safer for low risk women, im not sure where you're coming from with this

if your friend is a community midwife who feels like this, she should not be in the community

why not ban all hospital births ? plenty of women and babies have poor outcomes there

and ban epiduirals? uses up too many resources and aneasthatists

and definitely ban elective sections, far too costly and greater risk of complications for mother and baby, esp if before 39 weeks

let's ban all births in fact, just in case, eh?

mental and phyiscal outcomes are improved iwth continous care and giving birth in a place you feel safe and supported

as is having a 'pleasant\ birthing experience

rights for women brigade

of course, darn those silly women who demand choice for other women, unlike yourself who wants to take it away

Why is my Mw trying ( unsuccessfully) to convince me to have one then?

the trust where I am is working on increasing them as less costly. and a safe good option

Why not school yourself NHSSupporter ? Anecdotal info from your friend will not serve you well in educating yourself on this matter. I recommend Google as a place to start...that way you will saves MNers the bother of supplying you with info you could have found with a cursory websearch.

only if we also ban hospital births and all the risks associated with them.

1. HBs are cheaper.
2. Have you a vagina btw?
3. Have you discovered this site through the Farage web chat?
4. Fuck off.

HTH.

As a m/w I would say if your friend is havingto transfer between 33% and 50% of her homebirths in then she's shit at her job.

I think this person must be some sort of troll.

Anyone who puts rights for women in quotes is clearly a) not real or b) unhinged.

Also anyone who thinks they get to 'decide' to ban homebirths also has a bit of a god-complex

in the case if you are in hospital and require ecs you have to wait 20 mins to half hour for surgery to be prepped, in case of hb you would phone ambulance and phone theatre to prepare and then travel to hospital so the same time would relapse, how about home birth saving money in the way of beds, hospital meals, the mw's and ca's who care for the mothers after the birth?

intervention is less in hb's less money on medications#!

Your reliance on scientific research is terribly impressive...coming from the school of "My mate said..." or even more reliably, "I bet that..."

I'll tell you what,I bet that you're a bit of a tosspot, and I bet that is more factually correct than anything you've managed to spew out.

1. I think the evidence points in the other direction due to excellent screening and antenatal care in this country.

2. Nope, still cheaper than a night or two or three in hospital as routine.

3. Most HBs do not end in an emergency. Where "emergencies" do arise in HBs they are usually retained placenta-type ones. These still happen in hospital.

Nothing like stacking up a few anecdotes ("my midwife mate" who is clearly not in favour of HB in the first place) and getting data, is there, OP?

Obviously the OP is being deliberately inflammatory. Do you think there is any part of their argument that is valid Lulu and others?

I have had four friends who have had homebirths. Two were straight forward, great experiences with great recoveries. One was blue-lighted because she couldn't deliver the placenta, the other had an ambulance called because the baby's cord was round his neck and his heart rate was dropping but she managed to deliver him before they arrived (she was very traumatised). So I can see both sides of the argument from my friend's experiences.

Can we ban births in the car park? Because I have very rapid labours and that's what my consultant reckoned would happen to me if I tried to get there in time. She actually recommended a HB.

Here, have my first ever

Home births are as safe as hospital births for women with low-risk pregnancies.

Most home to hospital transfers are for 'lack of progress'; the mother is not progressing according to a set timetable (which the baby or her cervix have not had the good grace to follow) Very few are actually for medical emergencies.

Women birth more effectively in an environment where they are more comfortable. For many women this is at home. Forcing women to have a hospital birth against their will may well end up with them labouring less effectively. In turn they will then be encouraged to 'help things along' with synto which often then requires an epidural for pain relief, which then often leads to an episiotomy, forceps etc - and of course these frequently lead to PPH/retained placenta.

All of these procedures require MORE staff and resources than a 2 midwife, relaxed homebirth would.

By your friend's reckoning then, 50-67% of home births are successful and do not require an ambulance. So should these be ended just because SOME end in transfer to hospital?

Perhaps you and your friend should acquaint yourself with this site

Your post is hilarious! 'I've decided', 'in my friends experience', 'I bet that one or more of the annual maternal deaths could be avoided.' are all highly scientific arguments backed up by controlled research studies, have you thought of getting a job advising the goverment? I bet they'd give you a job!

ps: I'm not sure, but I reckon my two home births added together didn't come anywhere near the cost of my 4th birth: 3 days in hospital then C section then a further 5 days in hospital with Nicu for a week for DD3. Still, the food was dead good and I didn't have to cook it...

That should be friends' experiences, oops.

ROAR @ "rights for women brigade"

I don;t think that ' my mate says that XYZ happened' is ever a good reason to talk about banning things

on the whole, transfers in tend to be for 'failure to progress' as ahs been noted, or when a woman wants more pain relief than she can have at home

plenty of women in hospital have issues like this too, talking about a 'controlled' environment for birth is a bit daft, hospital has become the default but things can get out of control there

or there is too much emphasis on control and women are hurried into a path of intervention that is not necessarily appropriate

one community MW who is clearly anti homebirth and her mate are not really going to spearhead some sort of worthwhile campain

the intimation the welfare of the baby is being sacrificed by a silly woman who wants to give birth at home just because she feels better about it is just ridicolous.. like women choosing homebirht are somewhow not making informed sentient decisiosn, where on the hwole, most women go for a homebrith based on lots of reaserch and info

JimBob I think emergencies/more than average use of NHS resources happen in alot of births whether at home/hospital/birth centre or in a carpark!

Birth isn't standard. You'll have people like me who plan a homebirth and end up using the resources of 2 midwives for just over 3 hours in total, no drugs, no kit. Cheap as chips!

You'll have HBs who require ambulance transfer and an EMCS. Hospital births who need 1 midwife and no drugs for 6-8 hours or birth centre births that end up in a transfer to labour ward and an assisted delivery that uses loads of drugs, a theatre, several doctors etc etc.

suggesting banning homebirths is NOT a realistic way to save money or improve neonatal/maternal outcome.

And I say this as a doula having been to more births than the OP I daresay and having seen a range of situations/use of resources.

I think it was cheaper for the NHS for me to have my baby at home.
saw a midwife in my surgery didn't use hospital resources at all, midwife was here for 3 hours with DS2 not sure what the hourly rate for that is but it has to be cheaper than me being in hospital.

anyway I know you are winding people up the sad thing is someone will read this and think oh maybe she has a point!

Trot on.