Unassisted Births

[Kats inc]

I knew a mum that delivered all her own babies at home without any care at all.We ended up removing them all from her.So be warned,it is not always a good idea to decide to be so independent and walk away from health care

[Judith gsd]

Quote "We have had 2 of our children in hospital, and 4 at home. Guess you can see where we preferred to be."

 

But I did receive regular antenatal care at the gp's and with the midwives at home and at least two midwives were present at every birth.

 

I felt I wanted to be in familiar surroundings and let the midwives perform in a way that gives them a feeling of independence and control.

 

It was great having the antenatal appointments at home too.

[K9Fran]

I had my first two in hospital, and the last one (and biggest) at home, all three with only gas and air as pain relief.

 

The best experience was definatly being at home.

[Rudi]

I knew a mum that delivered all her own babies at home without any care at all.We ended up removing them all from her.So be warned,it is not always a good idea to decide to be so independent and walk away from health care

 

Were they removed because she had them at home, unassisted?

[cocoa]

Were they removed because she had them at home, unassisted?

 

 

I am sure they said on the tv that , that has never happen ?

 

they said that you could have your baby at home on your own that they only thing you could not do.was to say you was a doc or midwife !

[colliemad]

I watched this programme and as a trained midwife was horrified at the risks these women took with their own and their unborn childrens lives.

 

The woman who had no antenatal care really worried me, she had no way of knowing if anything was wrong and was taking a unwarrented risk IMO.

 

I know only too well that when things go wrong in labour they do so very quickly and it is unlikely that the woman would have time to summon help even if she realised something was wrong.

 

When people talk about a return to the'good old days and letting nature take its course' they fail to realised that in the 'good old days' death rates for mother and baby were high. Intervention (which can always be refused) is to safeguard two lives and is the reason that it is thankfully uncommon these days to lose a child at birth.

 

I have been present at births where everything went perfectly until the baby was almost born or had been delivered and then a problem arose. If this had happened at home with no one in attendance the risk of death to both mother and child would have been high, and in some cases inevitable.

 

Women can always refuse pain relief although in my experience many woman who were adament that they did not want it changed their mind when labour became established!

 

My own labour was induced and I had intervention in the form of a 'drip', fetal monitoring and drugs. I only used gas and air for pain relief as this was my choice. The monitoring enabled the staff to realise that my son was in distress and they delivered hiim with an emergency section. I was disappointed that my labour did not go exactly as I wanted but had I not been cared for by qualified and experienced staff it is very likely that my son would have been stillborn or damaged through oxygen lack. My son is now grown up, healthy and happy and I consider my disappointing birth experience a small price to pay.

 

The ideal would be for every woman that wants a home birth to have one but unfortunately in todays financial climate that is unlikely to happen as two midwives have to be present. This is to safeguard both the mother and child and also the midwife, since should something go wrong the midwife could be sued up until the child was 21 years old!

 

While I am all in favour of woman having control over their bodies and lives I think it is foolish and in fact selfish of them to not take advantage of the advances in care available to them.

 

The women on the film were lucky but we did only see a few women and if anything had gone wrong it is unlikely that it would have appeared on the film.

[phoebejo]

While I am all in favour of woman having control over their bodies and lives I think it is foolish and in fact selfish of them to not take advantage of the advances in care available to them.

An interesting view. Do you think that it's possible your son became distressed due to the induction and drugs you had to take? In my experience many of the advances in care lead to more and more interventions, resulting in an instrumental delivery or c-section, one thing leads to another whereas if a more natural approach was taken these babies would arrive in their own time.

[colliemad]

No. I was induced at 42 weeks. My son became distressed due to a long labour. The only drugs I took were those used to help the uterus to contract efficiently. I had no other pain relief apart from gas and air, and fluid to prevent me becoming dehydrated.

 

After being in labour 20+ hours it was obvious that things were not progressing well, the pressure of the babys head on the cervix caused it to become swollen and this had the effect of preventing it opening as it should do. Before resorting to section other methods were tried, eg. changing position, walking around but nothing worked, and the babys heartrate was dipping with contractions and not recovering afterwards. Without monitoring this would not have been picked up as there were no obvious signs of his distress.

 

I am not advocating unnecessary intervention, in fact I am very much against it, but was stating that I consider it dangerous to give birth unattended.

[Kats inc]

Were they removed because she had them at home, unassisted?

 

Partly yes.Long and complicated story really and this was only one factor but she gave birth in the bath,cut the cord herself and clamped it with a wooden clothes peg With the last one no-one even knew she was pregnant until she turned up at school to pick up the older brother with a baby in a pram

[cheryl33]

girl at work gave birth to a healthy little girl on Friday night on her own. She went into hospital on Thursday with contractions, they sent her home and told her to take some aspirin and have a lie down.

 

She gave birth on the sofa within a few mins. The ambulance crew were 15 mins getting there

[cycas]

My friend had a healthy little boy without the problems she was worrying about, thankfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have named him

Wilfred

. Is it just me, or is that a somewhat comical name for a small boy?

[Rileyroo]

No. I was induced at 42 weeks. My son became distressed due to a long labour. The only drugs I took were those used to help the uterus to contract efficiently. I had no other pain relief apart from gas and air, and fluid to prevent me becoming dehydrated.

 

After being in labour 20+ hours it was obvious that things were not progressing well, the pressure of the babys head on the cervix caused it to become swollen and this had the effect of preventing it opening as it should do. Before resorting to section other methods were tried, eg. changing position, walking around but nothing worked, and the babys heartrate was dipping with contractions and not recovering afterwards. Without monitoring this would not have been picked up as there were no obvious signs of his distress.

 

I am not advocating unnecessary intervention, in fact I am very much against it, but was stating that I consider it dangerous to give birth unattended.

You were induced though - it wasn't a natural labour from the outset. Was your placenta breaking down, or were you simply induced because 'it's policy'? If no clinical indications then induction at 42 weeks as routine is unnecessary.

 

Induction is often the start of the cascade of medical intervention, which many women would wish to avoid if at all possible.

[colliemad]

No it wasnt policy to induce at 42 weeks. As a midwife I was very aware of the problems that could arise if the placenta became less efficient and in fact had been present at the stillbirth of 2 babies who had been born post 42 weeks. My baby was bcoming less active and I wasnt prepared to risk his health. When I went in for the induction I was already in very early labour and the cervix had already began to dilate.

 

Although it was classified as an induction as my membranes were broken artifically labour had already started.

 

I would agree that induction often leads to more intervention but this has to be balanced against the risk of doing nothing.

 

My point in the original post was not that I thought all labours should be induced at a certain point of pregnancy nor that every intervention possible should be performed at every delivery. In my career I have always kept the mothers wishes in mind as regards the type of labour she wanted, and provided there was no risk to either, allowed her to labour without intervention.

 

My point, and I stand by my observations, is that to labour alone without any skilled help is risking the lives of both mother and child and to do so without any antenatel care is foolhardy. However well informed the mother may be if she is not a trained midwife it is impossible for her to forsee every possibility that may occur.

 

It has taken many years of research to make labour as safe as it is today and this is the reason that people expect to be delivered of a normal healthy child. There will always be people who deliver unexpectedly and on their own and everything is fine but this is not always the case.

 

If people do not wish to go into hospital there is always the option of them paying for a private midwide to oversee their pregnancy and labour.

 

The expertise is there to be used, why take an unnecessary risk?

 

I would think that the majority of people have been vaccinated against the common diseases and see their Gps if ill and their dentists regularly, to prevent any problems occurring and to get them treated before they become serious threats to health.

 

This is exactly the same prevention being better than cure.

Edited July 14, 2008 by colliemad

[Kats inc]

My point, and I stand by my observations, is that to labour alone without any skilled help is risking the lives of both mother and child and to do so without any antenatel care is foolhardy. However well informed the mother may be if she is not a trained midwife it is impossible for her to forsee every possibility that may occur.

 

It has taken many years of research to make labour as safe as it is today and this is the reason that people expect to be delivered of a normal healthy child. There will always be people who deliver unexpectedly and on their own and everything is fine but this is not always the case.

 

If people do not wish to go into hospital there is always the option of them paying for a private midwide to oversee their pregnancy and labour.

 

The expertise is there to be used, why take an unnecessary risk?

 

I would think that the majority of people have been vaccinated against the common diseases and see their Gps if ill and their dentists regularly, to prevent any problems occurring and to get them treated before they become serious threats to health.

 

This is exactly the same prevention being better than cure.

 

I completely agree with you.There is a whole range of potential difficulties that the average woman will never have heard of,such as shoulder dystocia which can have a dramatic effect on the outcome for both mother and baby. Personally having seen how nay things can go wrong I would never put either myself or my unborn child at risk. Yes some women do deliver at home unassisted but that is usually because of an unexpectedly rapid birth which hasn't ever been planned.Usually some sort of medical/midwifery intervention is then welcomed to check the baby and mum over and get them any treatment needed.Many of the women refusing care would and have still refused care that has been strongly advised by trained staff.For example the mother in my case refused to allow her hypothermic baby to go to hospital which was totally against medical advice.Needless to say appropriate action will then be taken to ensure that baby's safety and health needs are met.

[ReikiAnge]

I knew a mum that delivered all her own babies at home without any care at all.We ended up removing them all from her.So be warned, it is not always a good idea to decide to be so independent and walk away from health care

 

Partly yes.Long and complicated story really and this was only one factor but she gave birth in the bath,cut the cord herself and clamped it with a wooden clothes peg With the last one no-one even knew she was pregnant until she turned up at school to pick up the older brother with a baby in a pram

 

I've no idea of the legalities, but it sounds from your reply to Rudi's question that the children weren't removed from this particular woman purely because she gave birth at home unassisted, although one might be led to believe this was the case from your first statement.

 

I haven't had children (yet) but I am terrified of hospitals. I feel incredibly uneasy and sick at the thought of having to go into hospital to give birth. I wouldn't want to give birth without a professional either, but the idea of a home birth with midwife(s) in assistance (which isn't the reason for this topic, I know) sounds a good compromise, but I don't suppose that's very well thought of for first timers is it. All this is very much hypothetical! I am just curious.