Unable to have home birth as no midwife

[Grandmatobe]

Just wondering how often women are unable to have a home birth due to no midwife being available and what reason was given?

"It means that with the benefit of hindsight I can see hospital was the safest place for me."

Would add, that there are so many iatrogenic complications associated with hospital birth that it's usually not possible for women to extrapolate their situation to a different setting and come to any sort of meaningful conclusion. PPH, fetal distress, poor progress in both the first and the second stage of labour, all these things are more common in the babies of low risk women who choose hospital as their setting for birth (as are probably higher incidence of meconium stained waters because of higher rates of fetal distress).

Had 2 homebirths here. First and second babies. Both times on calling to say I was in established labour I was told the on call community midwives were not available but as soon as I pushed and said I wasn't coming into hospital they were miraculously freed up and I had my home births. It is the job of the community midwives to assist in home births they had been seconded into the hospital wards to 'help out' at the time. It's not my problem if the wards are not staffed well enough to accommodate ladies in hospital and the community midwives were fully supportive of my right to have my homebirth. Afterward DD2 I even got a note from one of them saying how glad they were I had been insistent on my right to a homebirth.

I had DC4 at home and had 2 midwives with me at all times, actually 4 at one point, when they were changing shift and three when DC4 was actually born because the student opted to stay on for the birth. I felt completely safe and looked after.

In contrast, when in had my eldest three in the over stretched hospitall:

DC1 was delivered by flapping, terrified, lone student, who completely messed up and I ended up with very bad tearing and lots of stitches.

DC2 was delivered very competently by two midwives, but in a curtained cubicle on the busy ward, because no one listened to me when I told them how strong and close my contractions were.

DC3 was again delivered by a lone, but thankfully competent midwife who ordered DH to ring the bell for help because of cord problems, (although no one actually came).

In my personal experience it is bollocks that hospitals are safer.

Beloved72: I would just like to back up your comments.

It was my mother who pointed out to me that all the women that I knew who had had CLU births had some sort of problem in labour or postnatally, albeit usually minor, and that none of the MLU ones had. Those opting for CLU births might have been higher risk cases, but quite honestly, I very much doubt whether all bar a couple were. Once the Place of Birth study came out, this backed up her observations.

Do you like the idea of giving birth on the floor with no pain relief and then using a completely unnecessary ambulance to transfer you and your baby to the hospital when the midwife finally turns up??

That was ds1. It was pretty good actually, my best birth. I didn't go in to hospital though, a midwife just checked if I needed stitches (didn't) then left. GP came out to do baby check. If wasnt even a planned home birth but all dealt with.

Beloved - I'm sure this is not what you mean to convey but you do realise that your phrasing in your posts there may be taken to imply that women who choose hospital birth are to some degree at fault for the complications that occur. Not helpful at all.
For your benefit - yes I do think the PPH would have happened wherever I was because the only identifiable risk factor in that labour applied wherever I gave birth. It was a spontaneous labour and straightforward delivery but it was also my third baby. I didn't have a transfusion btw.
The meconium, yes intervention was needed from the paediatrician and I was told the meconium probably related to two factors, cord around her neck as I said but also she was a 41 week baby. Otherwise a straightforward and progressing labour. I was active in labour on both occasions. We lived 5 minutes from the hospital so no long, distressing journey in labour either.

Northrnlurker - I didn't read Beloved's post like that. To say something is iatrogenic does not to me imply any fault on the woman's behalf, but puts the blame squarely on hospital systems being followed blindly. I often wonder whether women who say things like 'X hospital saved my baby's life', should really be saying 'X hospital endangered my baby's life in the first place' but I am not unkind enough to say that to them.

This is speaking as one who had a forceps delivery for a first birth, which I am pretty sure was caused by hospital protocols being followed slavishly.

In the context of birth choices though? You think there's no chance other women won't read that post and think 'oh if I'd stayed at home then x, y, z wouldn't have happened and therefore it's my choice to be in hopsital that led to everything else and that means it's me that was at fault....'

I understand what iatrogenic is. Which is why I was more than a bit surprised to be asked 'are you sure you would have had a PPH if you had given birth at home?' (my italics)

I'm looking for a home birth for my 1st - I'm aware that as a healthy & fit mother, there is half a chance I'll be transfered into hospital for pain relief/slow labour and a 1% greater chance of emergency for the 1st (just as safe for 2nd baby as hospital). I think the 50% transfer date for 1sr baby gets often used as an emergency rate when it's not... I want to start off at home and will trust the MW with her recommendations.

I think women have a tendency to blame themselves whatever happens, even when something is clearly not their fault. When I made my previous posting I had in mind the woman who 'had' to be induced, subsequently ending up having an EMCS and being grateful that the hospital saved the baby's life, and maybe not questioning how necessary the induction was in the first place. Without knowing her circumstances it's impossible to say, but this then goes back to my mother's observation that all the CLU cases had some sort of intervention, and our wondering as to whether these women were really at higher risk. Hence the Place of Birth study gave some substance to our anecdotal observations.

You say that women choose the CLU: I do question how free women's choices really are. Locally this depends on which surgery you are registered with. One makes automatic referrals to the CLU, ignores the MLUs, even though one is in the same hospital as the CLU and used to throw people of their list if they even asked about home births. Another offers the MLU as a matter of course, but is OK about home births if asked.

I was told when I went into labour with DD2 that the person at the end of the phone "couldn't get hold of a midwife".

I threw a hissyfit.

Two rather marvellous midwives turned up, delivered the baby in my front room, and departed in due course. Over 11 years later I'm still glad I threw the hissyfit.

"Beloved - I'm sure this is not what you mean to convey but you do realise that your phrasing in your posts there may be taken to imply that women who choose hospital birth are to some degree at fault for the complications that occur".

No - I think you are seeing something ill intentioned which is not there.

Maybe you should reflect on that.