Unassisted Births

[scotslass]

I don't think my point is clear

 

 

you all had the right to pick what you want if it did not work out well thing don't

remember my one was born at 27 weeks

 

but you had rights to start with, how would you feel if that was taken away ?

 

what you like or don't like think is a mad idea all ok

 

but your rights to start with? your right

 

the mother took on some thing i would not, but i still feel they have that right.

 

In my case, I have a problem with my rights versus the rights of my babies, that's all. How could I be so selfish (and why should I be allowed to be?) as to deny my newborn baby the professional help he or she might need at birth? He/she has rights too, surely? I am not against home births, but I am against unattended births. What the mother chooses to do, risk-wise, in her own life is one thing. When it involves a vulnerable child, that's a different matter.

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

the rights of unborn childern are in my mind very vague does anyone know at what point do they obtain rights legally ?

[Red Rotties]

From what I can find Sam it is at birth although different cases have been to courts during pregnancies for such as medical people or social services trying to save a childs life.

 

Its quite complex, if abortion is illegal from as certain stage of pregnancy then surely that is when the childs rights should begin?

[cocoa]

am just sat here reading it all up,

will come back when i think i have it right

 

I know at 27 weeks i was told they would make me give birth like it or not as the baby was going to kill me !

I did not what that and we had to fight for 5 days till she same anyway.

[cocoa]

right well well well

 

The life of the mother

All human life is of equal value. The life of the child in the womb is neither more nor less important than that of the mother. There is therefore no moral objection to measures aimed solely at curing a life-threatening condition in an expectant mother, even if this leads to the child's death. In such circumstances (for example, ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube), treatment that is ethical does not involve deliberately killing the baby.

 

If an unborn baby is old enough to survive outside the womb, and if it is thought that there will be problems later in the pregnancy, the baby can be delivered early and steps should be taken to sustain the baby's life.

 

If there is disability, social problems or difficult circumstances surrounding the child's conception, the right response is one of compassion for the parents and the child. It can never be compassionate deliberately to take innocent human life.

 

then it comes back to

 

The right to life of all members of the human family is acknowledged in internationally-agreed conventions and covenants such as:

 

* the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

* the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which explicitly refers to such rights as applying to the unborn

* the 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

off to read up on them.

[Rudi]

A mother may well have the right to choose to have her baby at home unassisted. She does not have the right to withhold medical treatment if the child needs it once born - that is neglect.

[Judith gsd]

Every birth is different, my first home birth was quite painful, as his back was towards my back, creating a backache labour. He came out looking the "wrong" direction, but thankfully, he was only 6 lb 13 oz and my third baby, he was also 19 days early.

 

My fourth labour was less painful, but the midwife in charge, was more used to a hospital birth situation and panicked a little when the head started to appear whilst I was still standing up, and unfortunately I was hauled onto my bed and gave birth flat on my back. I had (at my request) a physiological third stage, and when I later checked my notes, there had been some controlled cord traction applied, the two methods should not be mixed.

 

So I had my last two babies on my knees, no chance then of being hauled onto my bed, and all went well. Natural 3rd stage with both, no problems.

 

I was really frightened of the birth thing, and when I had my first although I knew a section was not a good idea, the idea did appeal to the coward in me at least for the delivery!

 

I have surprised myself at my ability to repeat the process more than once. But the support of the local midwives for the most part was superb, and I felt I was letting them do the job the way they wanted to. Plus I never called them out until an hour or so before, not wanting to waste their time.

 

The whole process just evolved and didn't seem to be a "big deal", plus I was there for the other children.

[Kats inc]

I don't think my point is clear

 

 

you all had the right to pick what you want if it did not work out well thing don't

remember my one was born at 27 weeks

 

but you had rights to start with, how would you feel if that was taken away ?

 

what you like or don't like think is a mad idea all ok

 

but your rights to start with? your right

 

the mother took on some thing i would not, but i still feel they have that right.

 

Donna you can quote all you like at me.What you've quoted above is about the moral rights and wrongs of deliberately killing a child in utero to save the mother's life which is totally unrelated to this thread.

 

In this country you can not be tried for murder if you kill a baby in utero by murdering a pregnant woman whereas in America you would be charged with double homicide.So here I guess that means the baby's legal right does not actually start until birth.However we do hold child protection case conferences and have child protection plans in place for unborn babies all the time.

 

When people abuse their children they are given an opportunity to work with us to change that abusive behaviour.If they chose not to for any reason then at that point action will be taken and the matter will be taken to child protection conference and /or put before the courts if neccesary to decide on any orders needed to protect that child/baby.A guardian ad litem is appointed to look at the best interests of the child.She will talk to all of the professionals involved and she acts only in the best interests of that child/children.So you can see it's a very thorough process and one that is quite lengthy and at all points in this the parents have the right to contest any court action with their own solicitors.Interestingly many decide to contest but then don't actually turn up for the court appearance.

For civil proceddings we do not need to have the same level of evidence as that needed for criminal prosecution.

 

My job is always to act in the best interests of the child.I would be considered professionally dangerous if I allowed any relationship I had with a parent to influence my judgement over a child's safety.I will always always always put the child first.It is my job.It is not my job to sort out the mother's human rights,she is able to do that herself and via her own legal team.A child can't and that is why a child protection team is there to do that job on their behalf.

 

One last point.If I came in here saying Mrs Bloggs of 10 Bloggs Drive Bloggville with baby Boris had her child removed today because she got pizzed and chopped his leg off then yes I'd be breaching confidentiality.To discuss broad and generalised matters is in no way a breach of anything.

 

And finally yes none of us like the over-medicalisation of the birth process and are against interventions that seem unneccesary but to take risks with something so precious is just not worth it.I have seen it go wrong too many times.

 

And if you go back to my first post you might want to note the winking emoticon in it.

[fee4]

Donna-you may not agree with me regarding confidentiality: however as the local lead on this issue-at an NHS Trust and as a professionally registered nurse-i can assure you that this discussion does not breech rules on confidentiality

 

on a personal note-i can see why women would want to go the natural route-but i dont get why you wouldnt want someone around in case it does go wrong-birth may be natural-but nature is red in tooth & claw.

many women & their babies have been saved by intervention-and frankly i think thats a good thing

 

 

Fiona

[Rileyroo]

on a personal note-i can see why women would want to go the natural route-but i dont get why you wouldnt want someone around in case it does go wrong-birth may be natural-but nature is red in tooth & claw.

many women & their babies have been saved by intervention-and frankly i think thats a good thing

 

 

Fiona

 

The point is though, that in America where this programme was filmed, the option to have a midwife with you at home isn't available in many state - so women are forced, unnecessarily, into over medicalised hospital births, or into doing it alone.