Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 3 4

MNHQ

Ban dads from the birth? Your thoughts please!

88 replies

HelenMumsnet · 20/10/2009 15:48

Hello.

Our lovely Carrie is going to be on BBC London News this evening, talking about whether dads should be present at the birth of their babies - or not.

It's really all about this story in the Observer at the weekend, in which childbirth specialist Michel Odent said he believes the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated if her partner is in the room.

We'd love to know what you think about all this.

Is labour easier without your other half hovering white-facedly nearby?

Or would the idea of giving birth without your partner's support be utterly hellish?

OP posts:

OrmIrian · 20/10/2009 16:37

Now I come to think of it DH was more of a 'hindrance' than I thought. Once things started getting heavy he wanted to listen to the football so as I wasn't actually listening to the bloody soothing music I had lovingly selected to help with the birth , he turned on the R5 to listen to West Ham in the 4th round of the FA cup. He also kept having crafty fags round the back of the maternity wing and then coming back and smelling of smoke. And then telling me to 'Breathe!'. Breathe FFS! What do you think I'm doing? You'll know if I stop by the fact I go blue and fall over.....

And when DS#1 was finally with us the first thing he did was to cry because his useless fuckwit of a father wasn't there to see him. Which all things considered wasn't what I wanted to hear.

upahill · 20/10/2009 16:39

Think it is down to personal choice. I wasn't fussed either way but DH wanted to be there. DS started coming out in a rush then problems set in. After DS was born and 50 mins of stiches I fell asleep. I woke up to find father and son cuddled up on the arm chair.

With second DS I was only in hospital an hour before he praticaly flew out of me!

DH was happy both times, so was I and babies were Ok too. No problem

ButtercupWafflehead · 20/10/2009 16:42

Perhaps as was wisely suggested earlier, if we had a caring, known, professional and familiar midwife then we wouldn't need to have our DHs there to "fight our corner".

I would prefer DH not to be there as he is something else I have to think about, but I can't think of anyone else who would be an adequate substitution for him, as he knows me so well.

I actually think that my birth experience has been more harrowing for DH than for me, because he was powerless and just had to spectate.

whoooooisasking · 20/10/2009 16:45

My childrens' dad could have been in France for all the notice I took of him. I occasionally barked "DRINK" at him (a la Father Jack) but apart from that, I really didn't notice his existence at all.

This held true for both of my children's births. So I would have to disagree with the article - as by the time I was truly into the labour a coack full of medical students/clowns/waiters could have spilled into the room and I wouldn't have cared less.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyZombieSlave · 20/10/2009 16:51

Didn't Michel Odent say more-or-less that back in the 1970s? News is taking a while to catch up these days...

Anyway, different strokes for different folks . And for different occasions.

Actually, more by chance than by planning, DH only arrived at the hospital for DD's birth as she was crowning and I felt that in some ways I had the best of both worlds. He got to be there for the actual birth but I didn't have to think about him during the early stages when, actually, I felt more comfortable on my own (or with the midwife being very hands-off). Then again, DD's birth was remarkably uncomplicated and straightforward.

In contrast, I got quite stressed during DS's much longer and more complicated birth because DH got sent home overnight. Then again again, that may have been more about the idea of DH than DH himself who would probably have been faintly crap and fallen asleep in a corner. It was only circumstances that meant I had to do all of early labour in hospital and if I'd been able to labour at home as I did with DD I'd probably have felt happier on my own. But in a hospital for an extended period I wanted someone there with me (and to be fair I think Michel Odent is quite pro female friends or relatives).

Sooooooooooo... I think "banning" fathers from the birth is OTT and unreasonable, but perhaps it is sometimes suggested too strongly that of course the father must want to be there and the mother must want him there throughout the whole thing.

BobbingForPeachys · 20/10/2009 16:52

DH helped me cope with all the births, and with ds4 was comlpimented by the MW on how much he helped (home birth, second midwife didn't make it in time- he set up the gas and air, etc).

Even for the ffew minutes he was rushinga round outside with his ahnds freezing from escaping g&a (MW'serror LOL, she put cap thingy on wrong way) I missed him dreadfully.

It ahs to be all about choice, and for me DH was an important part of the birth. I am not good with strangers or hospitals and having him made all teh difference. Becuase I knew with the HB I might need to transfer into hospital I hired a Doula to cover that eventuality, but lovely though she was DH was what I needed.

PrettyCandles · 20/10/2009 16:54

"Michel Odent said he believes the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated if her partner is in the room"

My first labour would definitely have been more painful and more complicated if dh had not been in the room.

AFter I had my epidural, the mw wanted to break my waters and give me a syntocinon drip (or was it syntometrin? You know which I mean!) to speed things along. We had to fight like stink to stop her. On my own I doubt I could have done so. I did not want the interference, nor did I need it, and ds1 was born within a couple of hours, six hours earlier than she had insisted he would be born.

She also would not allow me to turn on my side when she topped-up epidural, despite the anaesthetist's instructions to do so, because she was afraid of losing the baby's trace on the monitor. I did not have the ability to stand up to her, and, jsut at thtat point dh was out of the rooom. Had he been with me, he would have stood up for me, I would have turned over, and perhaps the epidural would have worked better, rather than leaving me in extreme agony on one side and with a dead leg for two days on the other side.

So, much as I respect MO's attitudes towards birthing women, and much as he has done to improve labour etc, I think he is making too much of a sweeping statement in this case.

OrmIrian · 20/10/2009 17:00

candles - he only said it 'can' be longer and more painful. I think it's important to say these things to challenge what seems to be the current orthodoxy that fathers must be present. When it isn't automatically normal or natural or better that they are there in all circumstances.

MeAndMyMonkey · 20/10/2009 17:00

Totally a matter of parental choice, althogh I am quite old school and vaguely like the idea of the dad pacing up and down the corridors smoking a fat cigar (in theory).
As it happened DP was v useful in the sense that he thoroughly enjoyed helping himself to gas and air , and for me to moan at and shout that I was dying from pain etc etc.
Truthfully though, I wouldn't have necessarily wanted him to be watching a birth in all its gory detail. Agree with Ormirian that there is almost pressure the other way these days, that men should be there somehow,
As it turned out, I ended up having a c-section and was grateful he held my hand/sickbucket throughout.

Doodlez · 20/10/2009 17:03

My DH did the thinking and talking for me whilst I got on with the business in hand. I think it's a positively stupid idea to 'ban' partners from the birth - who the hell gives anyone the right to ban a family from being with each other?

PrettyCandles · 20/10/2009 17:03

Personally I was never really aware of any pressure for dh to be there. Certainly not from the health professionals. Most laypoeple do assume it, it's true.

I agree that he challenges teh established protocols well, and that is necessary.

But I can still disagree with him from time to time .

mankymummymoo · 20/10/2009 17:04

"the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated if her partner is in the room"

if the partner is in the room of the night of conception maybe...

suiledonne · 20/10/2009 17:08

I had a very fast, very intense (about 1 hr 45 min) labour on dd2. We barely made it to the hospital. I was glad to have DH there. So much so that I made the midwife laugh when I wished I'd had 2 Dh's - one to hold each hand

DwayneDibbley · 20/10/2009 17:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheArmadillo · 20/10/2009 17:25

I think it should be down the people involved to make the choice.

I wanted my dp to be there and he wanted to be there and we were both glad he was.

I wouldn't have wanted to do it without him.

He also got to do the skin to skin contact with ds as I collapsed which I was very pleased with.

No one should be forced to have the father in the room but no one should be banned either.

Lizzylou · 20/10/2009 17:26

Goodness, I would never have made it through either birth without DH, he was amazing. He really wanted to be there too, he'd have been so upset to have missed being there for me and seeing our boys come into the world.

That is despite me warning him that I may get nasty and start blaming him if (!) I was in pain . I didn't as it goes, was enjoying my iced water and handsqueezes too much.

I can imagine that some men may be more of a hindrance tbh, if DH had really not wanted to be there then it may have been a different matter.

Itsjustafleshwound · 20/10/2009 17:30

Dare I say it, but one thing that came out of the NCT classes we attended was that DH's attendance at the birth wasn't compulsory - it just had to be someone who would be able to help and support. I think the whole banning of husbands from the delivery rooms kind of smacks of the return of the good 'ol days when women should know their place and not argue with men in white coats ...

Kathyis12feethighandbites · 20/10/2009 17:37

I presume Odent is presuming there WILL actually be a midwife there for more than just the end 5 mins.

In practice there aren't enough midwives so odds are you are going to be left on your own for most of the labour, and since hospitals encourage you to be at home until the last possible moment (and for good reasons) you may spend a fair bit of it in the car. In these circs, a dh is damn useful.

As for the last bit, I actually had no idea whether dh had been in the ambulance the other week when I had ds2 and I had to ask him afterwards

I think the bottom line is that we are so far from having ideal, natural situations in which to give birth in this country, for most women, that worrying about whether, if everything else was ideal, you would still want a dp there, is a bit irrelevant.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyZombieSlave · 20/10/2009 17:41

I think Odent does tend to encounter lovely independent midwife-attended births, yes...

And I missed the fact that you'd had your baby -- Congratulations? How is life with three?

OmicronPersei8yourbrain · 20/10/2009 18:16

I'd second the fact that midwives aren't necessarily with you throughout labour Although I had good midwife support (in a MLU) with my first birth, with my second birth (in hospital) we only saw a midwife for the pushing bit. If it had been my first baby and if I had been alone I would have been terrified.

A supportive birth partner, whether partner, doula, mum, sister, friend, can make a huge difference for good. 'Banning' looses the message that support is good - who-ever is there.

Pepa · 20/10/2009 18:23

I have had two homebirths and only managed becuase of DH - he was one thing I could focus on in a sea of pain.

Nobody has the right to tell me how I should labour, what is best, where or who should be present. It is a deeply personal decison and has profound impacts on how the woman deals with labour.

hatwoman · 20/10/2009 18:34

isn't odent known for spouting off about childbirth in an "i know more about birth than you lot" patronising very male way? dh delivered dd2. unlike me he remembered everything it said in the baby books about what to do if you have to deliver your own child. including not to cross your legs in a vain attempt to keep the baby in...!

hatwoman · 20/10/2009 18:43

i think I may be getting confused...I just thought I had a memory of being very annoyed by him in the past...but googling fails to show anything up.

ItsGrimUpNorth · 20/10/2009 18:50

Isn't Odent talking more about people who panic, don't really help and generally add contagious adrenaline to a situation?

Most on here appear to have had supportive, soothing partners whose help was conducive to a positive labour experience.

Not everybody is lucky enough to have that. Many do panic, pass out, fluster, do nothing helpful etc.

Also, perhaps some men/birth partners would really like the option not to be present but feel they don't have the right to say so?

Personally, I've a lot of respect for Odent. He's got some far out ideas but I don't think this one is necessarily so massively radical. It is of course up to the family concerned but Odent's highlighting this could also help a lot of people.

OrmIrian · 20/10/2009 18:52

Odent always seems a lovely chap hatwoman. I have his book Birth Reborn on my shelf and I still read it from time to time.

I wasn't scared in childbirth - a bit overwhelmed perhaps first time - but I felt that the professionals with me were on my side not against me.

Flip

1 2 3 4