Homebirth, am I crazy?

[rubberducky87]

Just that really. I'm a first time mum and I really want a homebirth but scared because I've never done it before. Only a few more days until I'm due! My midwife is very supportive but I'm still nervous. Any stories to share??

Which quote do you mean, flowers?

My post from 11.29

Sigh, this is getting tedious.

5 in 1000 is incredibly safe, where is your statistic for hospital births? You've omitted that I see.

The birthplace study showed clearly that for low risk women the safest place to give birth was home or an independent MLU, then a MLU in hospital then a CLU.

Life is not zero risk, which I think is the only thing that would appease you?

Again you are posting selective information for your own needs.

Oh and most FTMs transfer for more pain relief or due to failure to progress NOT emergencies.

we've mentioned that umpteen times already!
imo it is an advantage of hb for first time mums. instead of labouring at home then transferring in while in established labour alone , you get a midwife with you the whole time
also of course the birth counts as hb from booking in, so even if, say, your waters break, or you get pre eclampsia, and are sent to hospital before labour starts, it still counts as hb in the stats

My response to that post is that if a woman who was having a low risk pregnancy for her second or third baby told me that she wanted to have her baby in hospital, I would absolutely respect her choice, even though the studies you have referred to show that a hospital is a riskier place of birth than her home. I would assume that she knows her needs in labour and has decided that hospital is the place where those needs would be best met.
And I would appreciate it if, firstly, you acknowledged the evidence that for some women, home is the safest place in which to give birth, and secondly, that people are capable of judging risk based on their own individual circumstances.

Completely agree Holly

i might feel tempted to check she knew the risks first though (tongue in cheek )

Another example of information being presented and utterly ignored because people simply don't want to accept the risks.
Google an article called 'Home birth- what was I thinking of'. It's not as negative as the title suggests but it does contain lots of information and a birth story which really demonstrates my point.

That birth story does the absolute opposite of prove your point. They were happy with their choice. They were safe. The complication was dealt with appropriately.

Flowergirl, have you read the 'what if' page on www.homebirth.org.uk? I think you're labouring (pardon the pun) under a lot of misconceptions (ooh, another pun!). As i mentioned earlier i have had two home births including one where 'things went wrong' with the birth and never regretted it for a moment. I should also mention I'm a massive hypochondriac and extremely risk averse. I did a lot of research before deciding on where i wanted to give birrh and if there had been any real risk, however small, at home i wouldn't have done it. It's interesting that none of the people on this thread who are opposed to HB have actually had one themselves - possibly because they have been given the same inaccurate information you have. Please, read the website i posted and i think you'll be very reassured.

Wanted to add a thought re: risks of out of hospital births for low risk women having their first baby. The Birthplace study suggested that when it comes to this group it's not out of hospital birth per se which is associated with higher rates of problems for babies, but births at home. The group of first timers who chose to labour in FMU's (where a woman will require transfer to access obstetric input) had as good outcomes for their babies as women who started off in CLU's.

I wonder how much of this is down to the high levels of experience of staff working in FMU's, whereas some homebirth midwives working in areas with low rates of h/b may only care for a tiny handful of first time mums giving birth at home a year. And I wonder if case loading makes a difference to outcomes? I'd be very surprised if it didn't...

"Going home in early labour is entirely different to planning to deliver a baby at home"

I have met two women in the last 12 weeks who were sent home from hospital and then gave birth alone on the kitchen floor.

'BBA's' (born before arrival at hospital) account for 1 in 200 births. Some of these women will have been sent home from hospital or will have been labouring at home on the advice of a hospital which is hoping to get them to transfer in in strong established labour.

One of my births was a HB which ended up with the baby in NICU.

So that probably shows up in the negative stats on HB.

However the stat doesn't tell the whole story of the particular factors of why things went badly. To put it vaguely there were 'systems failures' which have now been overhauled by the health board. What happened in my case couldn't happen in this area again.

So I have no hesitation in booking a HB this time. Even the on consultant said that HB is the best option for me (low risk/quick labours). I think she is in a better position to make that clinical decision than some of the posters on this thread.

I had a home birth with my first and second, it was the most amazing thing! Calm, peaceful, relaxing, no drugs offered to me on a plate (which often end up in assistance being needed!) and I'll definitely be having another one with this baby :)
If you'd like one, and you're relatively close to a hospital 'just in case', go for it!!!

Atticus- yes I have read that. I've read the section on cord prolapse also and the real story of a baby who died following a 50+ minute transfer to hospital following an attempted home birth. I've read how the mother involved in that story is still convinced that home birth is ideal.

I am astounded. Her story of how it was dealt with is exactly as mine was. The midwives involved responded the same way in both cases. The difference for me was that the operating theatre was next door and not nearly an hour away. Her baby died, mine was born very healthy and happy. She believes that her baby would have died either way but makes no explanation as to why she is convinced that this is the case.

I've just read that story Flowergirlmum.

If the mum had been booked for a hospital birth she probably would have been at home at the point when the cord prolapse was discovered, without the presence of a midwife to hold the baby off the cord.

She would have been at home because she didn't believe she was in active labour up to that point. It was only when she started having proper contractions that the baby produced thick meconium, which, as a midwife she would have known to have been a sign to transfer to hospital and an ambulance was called.

Agreed. Had she been booked for hospital then she wouldn't have been in hospital anyway at that point in labour so no idea how you can argue that she would have had been guaranteed any different an outcome had she been intending to go to hospital to give birth?

Probably being the key word. She may not have been in hospital at that point, or she might have (as I was). Choosing a home birth meant that she had absolutely decided to be nowhere near one.

I am giving up. I am repeating myself and I don't need to convince anyone. I know (because every health professional who was in any way involved in my baby's birth told me) that had I chosen home birth my baby would not be here. As it is I chose hospital and I was there when it went wrong.

People who believe fervently in home birth (similarly to people who believe fervently in anything really) will continue to believe fervently in it regardless of stories such as mine. It's sad but true.
If I were the woman in that story I would beat myself up daily for not choosing hospital birth and having at least a chance of being in the right place. The fact that she would go for a home birth again beggars belief.
To each their own I guess.

What a nasty snidey thing to say.

Not sure why you think that Penguins. I simply expressed how I'd feel in that situation. As I could have been in that situation but for the want of making a good choice I feel fairly well qualified to express my opinion.

But people who fervently believe in hospital births like you Flowergirlmum, will do so regardless, and something going wrong is 'just one of those things, but would have been worse at home' even if the evidence doesn't support this.

As you can see a significant number of us, don't think like that - we think that hospital births either endangered our babies, or having a home birth was the safest option.

I for one wouldn't dream of telling someone who was dead set on a hospital birth that they should consider the alternatives, just on the basis of my experiences. So perhaps you could do likewise?

I think the home birth vs hospital birth debate is about two things (which are not about "belief" or "fervently" anything - this is not a religious debate please don't make it so):

• what is the line defining when birth goes from a natural biological process to a medical process

• how much can we really control the unknown in birth and prevent disaster

The first point mattered enormously to me. A birth that is normal but managed in a medicalised way is statistically more prone to intervention, which doesn't always end well. A better outcome in this case can often be achieved by a home birth. Mine (first birth, home birth) was in this category. This is as legitimate an experience and as statistically significant as yours, Flower. One birth, one outcome. Yours bad, mine good.

On the second point, this is NOT a straightforward and clearcut thing. I read many Cochrane reviews and other studies as well as midwife-led anecdotal studies when I was pregnant and planning my birth, and it is unknown even in hospital. You can't guarantee anything. Birth is the single most dangerous thing most women will ever do. A blanket "go to hospital" answer isn't a guarantee of safety of mother or baby.

Well that's the problem isn't it, you consider yourself best qualified and let's face reality you are not. It's a very nasty thing you've said.

You fervently believe (your words) your beliefs (misguided and unproven) about homebirth and won't accept any evidence presented. I think your the one blinded by your ideas.

Just please please don't go scaremongering women, really no one needs it!
Like I've said previously leave the advice for the professionals

The fact that you can't see how utterly horrid what you just said is sadly predictable.

"I could have been in that situation but for the want of making a good choice "

This, just so you know, is also massively judgemental. And wrong.

As you have repeatedly been told:

• a woman who had planned a hospital birth who was displaying a risk factor (like you were) would have been told to go to hospital. So as likely to be on a monitor as you were. JellyDinosaur told you that, when she planned to have a homebirth and her waters went pre-contractions, she was asked to go in.

• a woman planning a hospital birth who wasn't displaying risk factors would be as likely to be at home as a woman planning a homebirth. Most areas would have sent you home after a satisfactory trace. Most areas keep you at home in early labour (which you have agreed is right).

I get that you need to believe you had control and made good choices. I do. It's all very raw for you. It doesn't mean you are right. Nor does your experience render you an expert. That woman and her team and entitled to make judgements about what would have happened in other scenarios. You are not entitled to think you know better about what she should have done.

I respect your choice to give birth in hospital. Indeed I have also chosen that in the past. It's a shame you can't respect other women's decision to take different paths.