If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Women should have birth choice
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From the BBC:
Women in England and Wales should be able to choose where they give birth, NHS advisers suggest
What do people think?
I was a little disturbed by this: And Health Minister Ivan Lewis told the BBC he believed the evidence that hospital was safer than home was "flimsy".
There still need to be more studies done, but I was under the impression that raw figures show a higher rate of infant mortality across the board even in studies such as Patricia Janssen's study, "Outcomes of Planned Home Births vs Planned Hospital Births in British Columbia (CMAJ, 2002)" (although I'd need a bit of backup on this as the study itself had a lot of criticism).
To be honest, wherever a woman wants to give birth is her choice, so long as she's aware of any anticipated risks and benefits. And she should be aware that even with the healthiest of pregnancies, you can't predict something going wrong (e.g. prolapsed cord, meconium aspiration, shoulder dystocia etc). But I can't help thinking this is being encouraged due to staff shortages, cutbacks in an attempt to ease the load and save money rather than what's in the interest of pregnant women and their infants.
Women in England and Wales should be able to choose where they give birth, NHS advisers suggest
What do people think?
I was a little disturbed by this: And Health Minister Ivan Lewis told the BBC he believed the evidence that hospital was safer than home was "flimsy".
There still need to be more studies done, but I was under the impression that raw figures show a higher rate of infant mortality across the board even in studies such as Patricia Janssen's study, "Outcomes of Planned Home Births vs Planned Hospital Births in British Columbia (CMAJ, 2002)" (although I'd need a bit of backup on this as the study itself had a lot of criticism).
To be honest, wherever a woman wants to give birth is her choice, so long as she's aware of any anticipated risks and benefits. And she should be aware that even with the healthiest of pregnancies, you can't predict something going wrong (e.g. prolapsed cord, meconium aspiration, shoulder dystocia etc). But I can't help thinking this is being encouraged due to staff shortages, cutbacks in an attempt to ease the load and save money rather than what's in the interest of pregnant women and their infants.
0
Comments
And for all the happy stories of giving birth with ease in the comfort of your home, we must not forget that it was not so long ago that death in childbirth was not uncommon.
I think there is a marked dichomotomy between those who want as little medical intervention as possible during pregnancy and those who want all the pain relief and close observation (and peace of mind) that comes with a hospital birth supervised by obstetricians.
Personally, I think home births are fine for low risk women and they should be available. But women (and their partners) should be made aware of the pros and cons of such a decision. And the chance of being rushed to hospital if something doesn't go according to plan.
i also think it may be because of staff shortages too, yet the birth rate is supposed to be falling?
How stupid.
It is safer to have a baby in hospital, doesn't take a genius to work it out.
If had James at home chances are both of us would have died. I'm glad i went to hospital where everything was on hand when i needed it.
I had to have a very rushed emergency c-section, can't do that at home can they?!
There are no guarantees though, of course, and even if a home birth is decided upon and everything expected to be fine it can go very wrong. My sister in law planned out a home water birth with her midwife and after all her excitement about having a drug-free birth in familiar surroundings she and the baby ended up being rushed into hospital with serious complications which was incredibly distressing for everyone involved. She was considered to be low-risk and no one could've predicted the problems encountered, it was just unfortunate and luckily upon being admitted to hospital everything was fine.
Of course women need to have choices and be able to feel in control of the situation; which is helped most by being in an environment you feel comfortable in. As long as the mother understands the advantages [and disadvantages] of each scenario I don't see how it can be a bad thing except for the potentially problematic staffing and resource issues. Hmm.
Y'all might be interested in this and this, which may give you an indictaion on what the NICE Guidance will say.
Home births have a role, but as the DRs here will know birth is a matter of life and death. Every single time. And that's the life of both mother and child here.
My wife was low risk and nearly bled out. My sister in law was low risk, until pre-eclampsia set in.
Personally, should I be fortunate enough to have more kids, I will encourage my wife to go to hospital. Not that she will need much persuasion.
but they get that now don't they? Only difference is now the women aren't given enough information.
In my experience, home-births aren't really presented as an option, more as something to be disuaded against should a parent bring it up. The most cost-efficent way of mass delivering babies would be by appointment for induced/c-section births probably,at least in terms of labour costs (tee hee, ok, I know I'm STILL not funny). Anyway, more information is always welcome and on a personal level, if I were having a low risk pregnancy I think I would rather plan for a home birth.