TandemJeremy – Member
Its not as simple as that honourablegeorge. there are known, documented and proven downsides to hospital births as well.

any indication of anything other than a simple straightforward birth then hospitals are best. No contraindications to home birth – its a matter of preference and a balance of risks and benefits

What kind of downsides are you talking about, TJ?

Me and the missus are due in 8 weeks

Boy are you in for a shock when you realise where the baby comes from. (Clue – did you notice that your missus got really big round the belly area?)

Anyway, on a more constructive note, some info about home birth in Holland where it is more normal than in the UK

The point I am making is that waving around that 45% stat’ is meaningless with out further research. Unless you know why labour was moved and how many of those were due to complications in the labour its unhelpful to people thinking about a home birth. It does make a good news headline I suppose.

it doesn’t really matter what the cause of the 45% stat is (if it is true I don’t recal reading it in the BMJ article but it might have been in a table that I glossed over): I can assure you that following an ambulance with your wife in labour with the birth plan thrown out the window is not a pleasant experience for anyone (even more so when it pulls onto the hard shoulder and stops… …what do you do?). I have personal experience of that (it was hospital-hospital transfer not home birth) and if nearly 1/2 of planned first time home births do end up that way then its probably worth asking if you want an “OK” experience in a hospital from the start or a toss of a coin that it starts nice but ends up with a scary bit in the middle. When a midwife tells you she needs to take your wife to hospital midway through you probably aren’t going to talk her round that the kitchen floor is a better plan!

Drac’s experience is similar to mine. Monitors don’t need to ‘tie patients to beds’. Existing medical history meant Mrs P was monitored throughout with 1st birth, but encouraged to move around with the monitor on – there was even a wireless monitor. 2nd birth was rather less smooth but monitoring didn’t restrict movement then either – medical complications did, and whilst you could argue it initiated a C-section, I’d rather have had that and the effective resus and week in Neonatal ITU that means I have an amazing daughter today than the alternative.

Despite two “medical” births that couldn’t have been done at home, I don’t feel the need to tell others that home births are bad. We knew before Mrs P got preagnant that it would never be an option. If we had been an easy case it might have been considered.

honourable george

incase you missed docrobsters link on the NHS thread

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/July07/Pages/hospital-births-home-births-compared.aspx

Its useful to read the entire thing but this is a couple of key findings

It is also important to note that there was no increased risk of neonatal death with home birth compared to hospital birth once the analyses excluded those studies of home births attended by people other than certified midwives. That is to say, when the home birth was assisted by a certified midwife, there was no increase in mortality compared to a hospital birth.

Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions, including epidural analgesia, electronic foetal heart rate monitoring, operative delivery and episiotomy (an incision to widen the vagina). In terms of maternal outcomes, mothers who had home deliveries had fewer infections, vaginal and perineal tears, haemorrhages, and retained placentas (no difference in the rate of umbilical cord prolapsed).

Its definitely an area for informed consent – you get the information and yo make your own mind up. This obviously only applies if there is no reason to suspect anything but a straightforward delivery