Home birth

Snuggles

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.

Thanks Milliebear, I was wondering how we compared to other countries. They do seem to manage many services better in Scandinavian countries, but I think they also pay more tax?

Anyway, I have to admit, I am looking at this from the point of view of a woman who has never experienced childbirth, so I can't in all honestly claim to have a clear understanding of why someone would want a homebirth. I guess my views might change drastically if I ever fall pregant!

To the OP, apologies if I've taken your thread off on a tangent, I am just genuinely interested in the issue.

foreversomeday

I would really encourage anyone interested in homebirth - especially if they have been told they are not allowed one - to look at https://www.homebirth.org.uk

I will be having a home birth any day now and this is my first baby. I've researched the risks and as I'm low risk I believe it's actually safer for me to give birth at home.

Staff shortages shouldn't stop you having a home birth, every woman is entitled to a home birth in this country if she wants one.

Here is a quote from the home birth UK site:

Women planning a home birth are sometimes told that the local health authority may not be able to provide a midwife on the day, because of staffing problems. If you hold out for a home birth in these circumstances, you may feel guilty that you would be taking midwives away from other women who need them on the labour ward. This is an understandable concern, but it is important to remember that staffing levels are the health authority's responsibility, not yours. You may sympathise with their problems, but remember that “where there's a will, there's a way”. Trusts which are fully supportive of home birth find a way around this problem; so can yours...

...Every health authority has access to what are called 'bank midwives', and most use them regularly when they have staffing problems in the hospital. These are midwives who work on a temporary basis, sometimes for just one shift at a time (a bit like supply teachers). Some will be midwives who are employed by the same health authority, who are taking on extra work - doing overtime - and others will be midwives who want to work part-time but who have not obtained a permanent part-time job, or midwives who are currently taking a career break to look after their own children, but will work occasional shifts, or semi-retired midwives. All 'bank midwives' are all fully-qualified midwives. If there was a genuine shortage of midwives on the labour ward then the health authority should always be able to arrange cover on the ward from a bank midwife, thus freeing up a community midwife to attend home births.

My_Fathers_Daughter

I live in Wolverhampton and as I understand it the primary health trust there has targets for women having home births. They HAVE to be offered to every woman at their booking in appointment (as does a choice of hospital - even though there is only 1 in the area). I also had to sign to say that I had been offered those choices and had turned them down.

Talk about a postcode lottery!

sooz

Snuggles wrote: »

Anyway, I have to admit, I am looking at this from the point of view of a woman who has never experienced childbirth, so I can't in all honestly claim to have a clear understanding of why someone would want a homebirth. I guess my views might change drastically if I ever fall pregant!

If & when you do, you want one to one midwife care. It is no fun when they rush off to deal with another birth, & then you are told to hurry up to fit their schedule :eek:

At the moment, the only way to guarantee it is to hire an independent midwife - which is £4000, to book a homebirth or to have a water birth (where they are not allowed to leave you).

I'm going for option 3 this time, as I can't afford 1, and I'm booked into the wrong hospital for option 2. If I were to change hospitals to have my baby at home, I'd have be booked in at the worst, dirtiest & most understaffed hospital in the whole area, and I don't really fancy that.

My_Fathers_Daughter

Snuggles wrote: »

Anyway, I have to admit, I am looking at this from the point of view of a woman who has never experienced childbirth, so I can't in all honestly claim to have a clear understanding of why someone would want a homebirth. I guess my views might change drastically if I ever fall pregant!

Or they might not - I laughed when my midwife offered me one - said that the neighbours would have ladders up against the windows trying to get a peek In all seriousness I cannot see the appeal at all but wouldn't life be boring if we were all the same?

mell242

I'm expecting my first in a week and I'm having a home birth. My midwife has been nothing but supportive. My decision was made when I went to my local hospital for a tour only to find that all the delivery suites were full and there wasn't anything to look at. I did want to give birth on the 'midwife lead unit' as I know I don't want anything more than gas and air but that was full and they only have 3 beds there. I also want a water birth and the hospital only has 2 pools.

You are encouraged throughout your pregnancy to make your own decisions about what kind of birth you want but when it comes down to it it all depends on how busy the hospital is whether you can even have a bed! I know my home birth may not go to plan but hopefully it will as I want to be in my own surroundings. My OH is totally for a home birth too, as are my family.

Good luck to anyone planning on one and I am more than happy to let you know how I get on if you send me a message (if, of course, I get to have one)

clairec79

Nicki wrote: »

I'd say its because it is (as I understand it) illegal to plan to give birth without a qualified doctor or midwife present.

No it's illegal for someone who isn't a midwife/doctor to intentionally practice / act as one (with a cause about being under the supervision of one - covering students etc) - you as a birthing woman being completely alone is fine (albeit crazy in my mind but legal) if someone steps in in an emergency that's also fine (unless you cut the cord). You call a midwife and baby decides to arrive prior to the midwife getting there and you'd be covered, you don't call and your husband delivers the baby you are on more dodgy ground legally.

clairec79

sooz wrote: »

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

Were you under the Albany midwives by any chance? They care for all their own women so doesn't matter to them where they go - I think they have something like a 70% homebirth rate

RoxieW

Nicki wrote: »

Most NHS maternity wards are nothing like hotels and most new mums can't wait to get out! They are neither clean nor quiet, and the chances of having a good rest with other babies crying as well as your own, and midwives bustling round doing regular obs must be less than at home. If your friend wanted to stay, that suggests that she was not in a fit state either physically or mentally to go home and look after a newborn. Frankly given how vulnerable newborns are, I'd rather that a mum in that state did stay in hospital where the baby will be safe and cared for, and be supported in feeding, changing, etc before she is discharged, rather than send her home and find the baby back in hospital or worse a few days later with dehydration or having been dropped or smothered. Most mums do of course pick up how to care for their newborns instinctively, but this clearly didn't happen for your friend, so imho it sounds like she made a sensible choice in the best interests of her baby.

I'm well aware of what our local NHS hospital is like - I've had two babies there. And I personally couldnt wait to get home - hence me wanting a home birth this time. My friend was in a fit state. I'm going by what she told me, honestly, that she wanted to be waited on - have the meals etc and a midwife always to hand - rather the have to go home and be thrown into a whirl of 'reality'. I just dont agree that resources be spent on showing someone how to put on a baby grow, then say that they dont have enough midwives to allow mums their choice of staying at home.

RoxieW

Snuggles wrote: »

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.



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.

I take your points - but if they need to scrap homebirths then they should do just that. Not sometimes you can/sometimes you can't. Or you can technically but we're going to put pressure on you and make you feel awful about it? Why offer a choice when there's really only one option anyway?