Home birth

traveller

Hi, I would love to know what area of the country you all live in as I was pratically begged to have mine at home:rotfl: .Although It was my 4th it was not something I'd thought about.I live in London . so I don't really buy the staff shortage bit as my local hospital was so stretched it was a joke!
I have to say at first, I wasn't keen.But, It was the best birth I'd ever had.No stress. no being treated like a weirdo for not wanting pain relief(I find it does nothing for the pain, just makes me too light headed and groggy to deal with it)no shift changes.It was a lovely calm experience and I would never go near a hospital out of choice to give birth again!

However, If It was my first, because there is know knowledge of how your body may react to it all, that may mean they take a negative stance to it now, but will allow it for subsequent births.

I hope you do get what you want though and good luck to you.

Loopy_Lobes

I had a home birth with baby number three - a fantastic experience. I too found my midwife a little unsupportive at first but I kept on and on about it and she came round in the end. Personally I wouldn't have had my first baby at home, I hadn't a clue how I'd be in pain etc and I wanted drugs available should I need them! However after two labours in hospital on gas and air I knew I would cope at home with the limited pain relief available.

It really was a fantastic birth, the longest and hardest of all three but being at home was special. Also, being able to sink into your own bed with your baby is just wonderful.

You have lots of great advice above. Congratulations on your pregnany and I hope you get the birth experience you wish for.

sooz

traveller wrote: »

Hi, I would love to know what area of the country you all live in as I was pratically begged to have my at home:rotfl: .Although It was my 4th it was not something I'd thought about.I live in London . so I don't really but the staff shortage bit as my local hospital was so stretched it was a joke!

In a rather deprived part of south london where I initially booked in, I was asked to have my first at home.

traveller

milliebear00001 wrote: »

It's strange then, that other countries (particularly those of Scandinavia) seem to be able to manage approx. 60% of their births at home, while we manage about 2%. Make no mistake, this is a funding issue - it is perfectly possible (and cheaper) for the majority of women to have their babies at home.

Totally agree with you!

Snuggles

RoxieW wrote: »

My point is that there should be adaquete resources - whether for a hospital or home birth ie a midwife per woman when needed. .

Hi Roxie,

I guess what I can't understand is that you could make this point about any aspect of the NHS, but it doesn't mean that it can realistically happen. Affordability has to come into it at some point. I personally detest going into hospital for anything, but I realise that if I want to make use of those resources, that's where I have to go.

RoxieW wrote: »

Not allowing homebirths in my area is because they dont have a midwife who will be able to stay with you for 4, 8 , 12 or whatever hours. My experience of hospital was that I saw very little of a midwife until I was in dire straits. No wonder there is more need for intervention/epidurals etc with hospital births - all of which cost the NHS more money.

I totally take your point, but I guess if resources are always going to be limited (and let's face it, they are), then it is always going to be more practical to have women giving birth in hospital where a midwife can spread her time between patients, rather than having that scarce resource tied up with one woman at her home. I'm not saying it's ideal, we would all like one to one care in the NHS, but I just don't see that it's viable.

traveller

sooz wrote: »

In a rather deprived part of south london where I initially booked in, I was asked to have my first at home.

Well clearly living in London, is the way to go for a homebirth ,as they are literally begging you to have them.

Mrs_P_Pincher

I had my first baby at home in 1983 and it was a wonderful experience. I'd support anyone who wanted to exercise their right to have their baby at home. I was in labour on the day of the midwives' monthly meeting, which they had in my front room.

I had my second baby in hospital in 1989 (by choice). I delivered 10 minutes after the evening meal and was offered no food until the next morning, even though I had been in labour all day and I had to stay for 48 hours because my doctor was too busy (or too drunk knowing him) to sign me out.

Never again. Stay at home if you can, it's much more relaxed and afterwards you can just get to know your baby without distractions.

Mrs P P

sooz

Snuggles wrote: »

I totally take your point, but I guess if resources are always going to be limited (and let's face it, they are), then it is always going to be more practical to have women giving birth in hospital where a midwife can spread her time between patients, rather than having that scarce resource tied up with one woman at her home. I'm not saying it's ideal, we would all like one to one care in the NHS, but I just don't see that it's viable.

That makes no sense. The midwife is the cheapest resourse in this equation, & they are not employing enough. If the mother has one to one care, there is much less need for intervention, for an obsteatrician, aneathatist, theatre...aftercare, (I cannot spell any of these words )

becca2008

there's a campaign called "one mother one midwife" (i think), which aims to get exactly that - one to one care for pregnant and labouring women. it's not going to happen overnight, but it's not impossible.

one to one care is much more common in places like new zealand, where the majority of births take place at home or in midwifery led birthing units rather than in consultant led hospital units. if they can do it, i reckon we can do.

giving birth is cheaper at home than in hospital - women are less likely to require interventions and expensive pain relief, the cost of having a bed available in the hospital is taken away... the only thing currently stopping it happening is the shortage of midwives

milliebear00001

sooz wrote: »

That makes no sense. The midwife is the cheapest resourse in this equation, & they are not employing enough. If the mother has one to one care, there is much less need for intervention, for an obsteatrician, aneathatist, theatre...aftercare, (I cannot spell any of these words )

That is absolutely the reason why home birth is the cheapest option for obstetric care.:T