Defending the right of Mums to have a safe home birth

Joel B1 says:

09:19am | 30/07/09

We had two in hospital and the most recent at home. The hospitals were crap, no other way to put it. No staff, no blankets and screaming teenage new mothers.

The home birth was quick, easy and aside from me “having” to bury the bloody placenta relatively painless.

(Why do home births have to be just slightly hippyfied?)

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:36am | 30/07/09

All well and good if the birth comes without complications, but if they need emergency pediatric care or a cesarean, they are going to be away from the hospital with it’s specialists and dedicated equipment.

Dianne says:

09:36am | 30/07/09

I am not a parent but having children at home is common and not frowned upon in The Netherlands. Being born at home 34 years ago must have been a great experience for my mum. Not sure about the difference in training for midwives here. I am not sure what all the fuss is about and why it is considered a ‘hippy’ experience as Joel B1 points out so deftly. An interesting article about the structure of services for birthing in The Netherlands can be found here.

http://www.washingtonmidwives.org/netherlands-study.shtml

Old Feminist says:

10:00am | 30/07/09

Those of us old feminists who marched and demonstrated for a woman’s right to choose find this winding back of the clock a very sad decline in womens’ and family rights.We must have proper support for all women in their choices.

Isabel says:

10:01am | 30/07/09

The govt is only banning UNINSURED home births. Without insurance the midwife takes the risk. The insurance companies will not provide cover.

Formersnag says:

10:27am | 30/07/09

Poor old Feminist is like new one’s, so focused on a woman wanting to chose the right to damage children with birth difficulties/defects that she is incapable of recognising blatant child abuse when its directly in front of her.

Motherhood and apple pie just aint what it used to be.

Kieran says:

10:46am | 30/07/09

Maybe expectant mothers should ask themselves why it is that insurance companies won’t take the risk of insuring home births?

Come on. Think about it.

Liz says:

10:55am | 30/07/09

“Risk of giving birth at home” article source: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25753668-2682,00.html

HOMEBIRTHING is a dangerous option no mother should consider, the Australian Medical Association says.

State president Dr Andrew Lavender said twice as many babies died during homebirths as in hospital deliveries. He was responding to controversy about changes to midwifery legislation expanding the rights of some midwives but effectively ruling out homebirths not organised through a hospital service.

“Homebirthing may appear to be an emotionally-fulfilling option but history has revealed it as clearly more dangerous for babies and mothers than birth in a hospital,” Dr Lavender said.

ARE HOMEBIRTHS A SAFE OPTION? Have your say in the comment box below.

Homebirth Network of SA co-ordinator Tanya Bingham said homebirth was as safe “if not safer than” hospital birth.

“Women planning homebirths have lower intervention rates, higher levels of satisfaction, experience less pain, use less pharmacological pain relief, and have more autonomy,” she said.

Dr Lavender countered that, saying: “People must realise that when things go wrong, they can go very wrong – and very quickly.

“Doctors cannot always rescue mothers and babies from emergency situations when retrieval from home has cost valuable and potentially life-saving minutes.”

Macbeth de Hateley says:

11:18am | 30/07/09

I love it when people, especially good old Aussie blokes (of which I am one) offer opinions on home birth when prior to the discussion they’ve never given it any thought or done any research upon it in their lives. There is a “common sense” assumption by vast members of the public—and this was propogated quite nastily on QandA last fortnight, despite Tony Jones trying to clarify that homebirths wouldn’t be outlawed, which in fact they will be—that birthing at home is unsafe. The research points out the opposite. Let me explain why.

Any random woman in the world choosing to birth at home may in fact be in some danger. However programmes and midwives supporting births at home do not allow any woman to birth at home. There is a deliberate screening of women who might have complications and they are in most instances steered toward birth clinics attached to hospitals (of which there still remain too few, and which will be in screaming demand if the latest legislation gets through). The majority of women who are allowed to birth at home are surprisingly normal (and yes, non-hippy), relatively well-educated women who have been ticked off by an over medicalised approach that often produces the very complications it fears (preventative caesareans as a solution to possible complications—now let’s see the research highlighted on the health nightmares that flow from that). In a best practice environment, which most home birthing programs use, childbirth is the most normal and, yes, wonderful experience a family can undergo. It’s what human beings have been doing since they were roaming the steppes of Pangea.

And why wont insurance companies insure home birthing? Because they don’t have to, so why take the risk! Get serious, people. When we start basing our decisions on the views of big corporations then I know we are all in real trouble.

Rachael says:

01:45pm | 30/07/09

You know Shane, just because you are at home doesn’t mean that you can’t not transfer if you do need medical help. There was a recent study of just over half a million people who compared home to hospital births and found no difference in the time it took to get to hospital.

Lets also remember that the government withdrawing homebirth ISN’T and issue about safety, it is an issue about midwives not being able to access insurance. This is because there are too few to be able to access affordable PII. It simply isn’t economical for the insurer or the midwife.

Currently the only way to access maternity care as recommend by the world health organisation is via HOMEBIRTH with a privately practicing midwife.

Chris R says:

02:08pm | 30/07/09

Insurance companies don’t have to insure anyone, but in order to make money they have to take risks. Looks like this is one risk that even an insurance company won’t take. 

Hmmm….perhaps we should hand this over to the bookmakers. They’ll bet on anything!

Razor says:

02:08pm | 30/07/09

The births of our two children where both deliveries that started out normal and ended up requiring emergency intervention.  One could have resulted in the death of the baby and the other my wife.  Fortunately having an Obstetrician and Peadatrician on hand saved the day.  If these deliveries had of been at home it would have been a disaster.

Why take the risk?

Andrea Quanchi says:

02:18pm | 30/07/09

We need to stop mixing the issue, The government isn’t saying home birth isn’t safe in fact it is encouraging state health ministers to expand their funded homebirth programs because that is the cheapest and easiest way for them to get insurance to cover midwives.  What it is saying is that it will not provide insurance for privately practicing midwives because it is too expensive. The registration issue is a different issue as it will not be possible for midwives to register unless they can get insurance which is currently unavailable there fore the end result of this is that it will be illegal for a midwife to attend a homebirth as a private practitioner.  It seems the easy solution is to have publicly funded homebirth available for all australian women and midwives to work this way but where are the programs to roll out across Australia to do this.  The number of birth centres have not increased despite the demand for them to do so so what are the chances of having homebirth programs rolled out across the country.
What is needed is a program that midwives willing to provide homebirth can enrol in regardless of where they are living / working and then any woman who wants a homebirth can contact the midwife in her area. This would enable regulation of the midwives which seems important to some people who seem to believe all homebirth midwives are cowboys but not restrict these services to the same minority who always seem to be in large cities without thought for rural women. Women in the country have very few choices other than to employ a private midwife and if they loose that choice without anything to replace it with iit will be a sad day/

Claire says:

02:18pm | 30/07/09

Come on Kieran, think about it!!!!!
Big insurance corporation - what matters most? the bottom line of financial profit !
number of practicing home birth midwives? - less than 200
amount of pay out should the hypothetical payout occur? millions
conclusion: too small a pool of midwive’s fees to cover a potential payout !
Result? no insurance for home birth midwives - because it is potentially financially unviable, NOT becuase home birth is unsafe.
Suggestion - think a little, read a little, and find out more actual facts before you post a comment

Felicity Gibbins says:

02:21pm | 30/07/09

Outlawing assisted homebirth is outrageous and dangerous.

If you had your first baby at home and then was pregnant with another and the govt told you, you couldn’t have your baby in hospital this time, it’s now illegal.
How would you feel?

Like your choice was taken away from you, that your precieved risk had increased, that you didn’t feel safe in the home environment.

Well that is how homebirthers feel when their right to birth with a midwife at home is taken from them.

This maternity review needs to solve this problem of

Di says:

02:28pm | 30/07/09

Thank Goodness for a polli who has been listening!
Isabel, although what you say is true, its about uninsured midwives not being registered to attend homebirths.
Kieren,The insurance companies withdrew insurance after a very large OBSTETRIC case in the early 2000’s. The pool of independent midwives is not enought to fund the increased payouts that followed this precedent. So its not about homebirths being unsafe! In fact all the studies looking at this cite similar outcomes for hospital and home.
Shane, midwives are highly trained to recognise abnormal labour when it happens and seek access to higher level care (just as happens in private hospitals , where for the most part of a womans labour, her doc will be home in bed or out on the golf course until the midwives call him/her). This means transfer when difficulties arise , or managing with emergency measures , which we have the skills to do.  the arguement that “my baby would have died if I were home” doesnt hold water at all. Its not like we stand around a baby that needs resus exclaiming “oh dear what a shame” We resus ! We carry emergency drugs to stop mothers bleeding, We can resus adults, we can unstick stuck babies..but most importantly…We can protect the birth space so the liklihood of these dramas happening is significantly reduced compared to our sisters birthing in hospital.

Chris R says:

03:03pm | 30/07/09

Anecdotes about who had a great home birth and who had a terrible hospital birth are as irrelevant as they are unrepresentative. There will be terrible births for some unfortunate mothers and babies whether they are at home or in hospital. It’s just that it’s safer for your baby, if your birth starts to go wrong, if you are already in hospital with instant access to life-saving measures.

Home births are an exercise in Russian Roulette.

Peter T says:

03:10pm | 30/07/09

Obstetricians advised the Govt. on the legislation that makes it a criminal offence for a midwife to assist in a home birth without insurance.  Obstetricians advised the Insurance companies not to insure midwives.  No advice was sought by the Govt. or insurance companies from a midwife.  Obstetricians are only protecting their income. Australian Obstetricians perform more caesareans per 100 births than almost any other country   You do the maths….......

According to the Fairfax Mycareer website
average annual wages of an Australian Obstetricians $270,166
Average annual wage of a Midwife (Hospital employed) $67,416
Average annual wage of a private Midwife is not listed but is believed to be about $40,000.

Jo Watson says:

03:50pm | 30/07/09

As a Midwife who worked in the hospital system, I choose to have my babies at home. Critical review of the literature, and anecdotal evidence of womens’ lived experience shows that home birth is a safe and very desireable option that should NOT be made illegal. This is a human rights issue. Choice is the issue, not safety. If safety was the issue, smoking would be illegal, would it not? Oh, silly me - smoking MAKES money for the government, home birth doesn’t

Formersnag says:

03:53pm | 30/07/09

Peter T, have you ever wondered why there are hardly any female obstetricians? Is it because women are too stupid to make the grade? Or because successful female medical students graduating as doctors are too lazy to go into a high-pressure/long-hours/hard-work speciality like obstetrics? Why are their hardly any male midwives for that matter? Could it be about women also protecting turf?

MC says:

04:34pm | 30/07/09

All the statistics show that a homebirth is as safe as a hospital birth in a normal pregnancy. And if a woman needs to transfer to a hospital then a midwife will recognise this fact & help implement it - true emergency caesareans are very, very, very rare. And a midwife is able to do everything that a hospital can apart from an emergency caesarean.
A strange fact: in Australia a woman can have an abortion by choice, but this new legislation will mean she cannot choose her baby’s birthplace.
This new legislation does not protect babies or mothers. It simply removes women’s rights.
There is a rally on the steps of Parliament House, Canberra @ 11.30am - 2.30pm on 7th September. Come along and preserve the right to choice for all Australian women, and for future generations to come.

Clodia Porteous says:

05:23pm | 30/07/09

As a home birthing woman / family within Jamie’s electorate I am so pleased to see him supporting our right to choose where and with whom we will birth our babes.  Thank you Jamie for speaking out on our behalf.

Home birth CAN be just as safe IF NOT SAFER than hospital birth for low risk women with appropriately qualified (midwife) support.  Pushing homebirth underground, forcing those who would choose it to go unassisted, is a VERY backwards move, especially when you look at this issue on a global scale.

Homebirth WILL NOT go away as a desired choice for some birthing women, and the (highly trained and incredibly experienced) Private Practice Midwives are an essential part of our current Maternity Services options.  In my opinion, they are the gold standard in Private birthing care.

KS says:

06:46pm | 30/07/09

The notion that the relative success and safety of any model of care should be measured solely on how many mothers and babies survive it is horrendously short sighted. Yes, at the end of the day we all want a live mother and a live baby, but there are other issues to be considered - women so traumatised by their birth experience that they have difficulty bonding with their baby or contemplating another pregnancy or even resuming sex, for instance. Or women who suffer long-term complications following a (sometimes unnecessary) episiotomy, epidural or caesarean section. Are we really suggesting that as long as both mother and baby still have a pulse, nothing else matters?
It is a devastatingly sad fact of life that some babies die. All parents can do is to make an informed and evidence-based choice about what THEY feel is the safest and most appropriate birth choice for them and their baby. This would be much easier if the evidence wasn’t so often manipulated by those who are mostly concerned with their own hip pockets.
Do the research! Take a look at what peer-reviewed studies tell us about the outcomes of one-to-one care from a known midwife in a home setting. 

I think there is a game of Russian Roulette happening out there, but I don’t think it’s the homebirthers playing it.

Chris R says:

08:24pm | 30/07/09

I guess the essence of Jo Watson’s argument is that, in the same way that smokers are allowed to CHOOSE an UNSAFE activity (because it is legal) so should mothers be allowed to choose a less safe way to have their baby.

Unfortunately their baby is also affected by their ‘right’ to make this choice but have no say in the matter. So like all ‘rights’ arguments, one human being’s rights are more important than another less powerful human being’s rights.

KS says it all in her first line:  “The notion that the relative success and safety of any model of care should be measured solely on how many mothers and babies survive it is horrendously short sighted.”

Sorry KS; I actually safety and survival are the main issues…Mothers’ Rights take a back seat.

Clodia Porteous says:

08:28pm | 30/07/09

I’m sorry Formersnag, but if there’s ever anything that women need to protect their turf over it is birth.  It is the single biggest event in any mother’s life, and each and every one has the right to having their choices and decisions respected and supported by their care givers and their communities.

You think women are afraid of hard work, long hours??  What is motherhood to you??  And do you know the hours put in by our independent midwives??  Their hours are much less diarised and predictable than any obstetrician I’ve ever heard of.  Tell me what response I would expect from an obstetrician if I were to call them on their home phone at 11:30pm worrying about my 11month old with a high temperature??  My beautiful midwife (and nurse) spent a good 20 minutes on the phone with me going through his symptoms and going through possible scenarios.  And it wasn’t even birth related !!  Every time you make an appointment, coffee date or send out an invitation to a midwife the response is guaranteed “... unless I’m at a birth ...”

And there are both female obs and male midwives.  Some great male obs, some terrible male obs, some great female obs, some terrible female obs.  Some great male midwives, some terrible male midwives, some great female midwives and some terrible female midwives.  Damn that whole ‘individuality of the practitioner’ thing ... makes it really hard to put people in boxes, don’t you think??  Also makes it so important that anyone should be able to choose the health practitioner that best suits themselves and their families.

Kim says:

08:29pm | 30/07/09

At the end of the day, I choose to make an informed choice about the birth of my children that suits MY family situation. I’m horrified that women’s choices in childbirth will be limited by the government’s proposed reform.

There are some previous posters here that have some pretty radical views about the apparent “dangers” that homebirth entail. Well, lucky you have a CHOICE. Because unless these proposed reforms are sorted out, myself and many other families will be denied our valid CHOICE.

JudyC says:

09:06pm | 30/07/09

There is no one more qualified to decide on the safest birthplace for her baby than the mother who has done a lot of research on the options. Homebirthing women will really look into all of the pro’s and con’s. Unfortunately many women birthing in hospital don’t and end up being traumatised as a result.
No woman wants to risk losing her baby at birth, babies die as often in hospital with all of the equipment and personnel around. Women MUST have the choice of the safest place and attendants at her birth.

Robin says:

09:53pm | 30/07/09

Get a serious promise to restore legal, attended homebirth into the Coalition platform for the next election, and you’ll have my vote.  Between a foolhardy scheme to try and censor the internet, and following through on the series of legislative changes that will effectively outlaw the safest form of normal birth, I’m really starting to wonder about the Federal Labor (hollow laugh) government.

Those assuming that homebirth is more dangerous, you need to read the research - in low-risk births, homebirth is just as safe for the baby, and considerably safer for the mother.  The ONLY studies “showing” home birth to be less safe are studies that include high risk births, and many of those studies even include late-term miscarriages delivered at home!

Liz, consider why the AMA might want to get every birth into a hospital: these are tough times, and private yachts don’t pay for themselves.

Dr E says:

10:33pm | 30/07/09

Alright, I confess, I’m one of those nasty doctors who traumatises women in the hospital system.
That said, no question about it, my babies will be birthed by a midwife, hopefully with minimal medical input (midwives see birth as a healthy process and this promotes decisions that lead to a healthy experience). But there’s no way I’d birth at home.  I want to know in the case of a sudden fetal bradycardia that I have access to someone who can do a vaccum delivery or caesarian within the 7 minutes to fetal acidosis. Any birth can go wrong at any time. (even though most don’t)
I’ll take the higher risk of surgical intervention and bastardly doctors any day over the possiblity I’m putting my baby at risk.
It’s fine to decide to birth at home. But the trade off for having less medical intervention is that you’re running a risk. Mother nature can be very cruel.

Chris R says:

10:48pm | 30/07/09

Looks like a clique of homebirther midwives have hijacked this forum what there snide remarks about yachts and golf!

Did you do a ring around girls?

Mike says:

11:19pm | 30/07/09

Judy C wrote that no one is better placed to make a decision about how to birth her child than a mother who has done the research.

Really? The same mothers who don’t immunize their children because of “research” they did on the Web? Or the mother whose child died because she decided homeopathic cures would cure the childs’ eczema?

A few hours on the Websites of other obsessed lunatics is not the same as having verified skills in the particular field. The doctors who deliver babies, and who have to deal with complicated pregnancies, say it is dangerous. Enough said.

Grant Horsfall says:

12:17am | 31/07/09

Thanks Jamie for stepping up and providing this opportunity for community discussion of this issue.

I think it is important to highlight what the vast majority, ie the hospital birthers, are loosing here.

For the Hospital Birthers:

Would you have liked to have a care provider personally follow you & your family through your whole pregnancy & postnatal period?

How about the same person, someone you hand picked for the position, interviewed even, who visited you (& your partner/family) in your own home?

How about if these visits were a relaxed (yet professional) 2 hours over a cuppa, where you could ask anything you wanted, and have it answered & discussed in as much depth as you wanted?

How many of these visits would you like, how about 14 home visits during the pregnancy then another 14 in the six weeks after birth? Wow! What sort of relationship do you think might develop over that time?

How about if you could also chat on the phone/email between visits whenever you wanted? How might that have helped with your confidence & stress levels during pregnancy and after birth as you navigated those first weeks of sleeping, feeding etc.

What if you could even have that same person do it all over again for your other pregnancies? 

What if this same person could support you wherever you wanted to birth, even if you wanted to birth in a hospital?

You must be kidding right?

YES I am kidding, because this legislation will take that right away from you, a hospital birther. This legislation will make it illegal for a professional, qualified, experienced (currently registered) Independent Midwife to come to your home and provide prenatal and/or antenatal midwifery care for you.

Maybe you never thought of choosing to add this level of professional maternity care to your birth plan, maybe you didn’t even know it was available. This choice is being taken away from you & your daughters, just as it is being taken away from us.

We value this sort of care very highly!

We also like the option to have the birth at home too, unless indicated otherwise. If we go to hospital we know that our hand picked, professionally qualified & experienced Independent Midwife has invested many months, visits & hours getting to know us all very well so that we can be supported through whatever the hospital birth may entail. At hospital, and we get back home, there s/he will be, day after day, week after week as we get to know our baby & integrate the birthing experience.

ALL OF THIS will be taken away as a choice, not just attendance at the potential homebirth!

Olivia Watson says:

01:03am | 31/07/09

Here here Jamie! Thank you for listening and respecting and for not falling into the simple trap of deciding for others. Your words are wise, birth is so very personal.  How can anyone else say what is good for another!
A Liberal male from the Adelaide Hills has it hands down over our female mother and lawyer to boot health minister. Sadly Nicola has played a game of diminishing this debate and suggesting that a minority of women do not matter. Who’s next.  I support a woman to make choices in her health care just as I support a family to make decisions raising their children.  I have read enough to understand that homebirth is a safe option for many.  I am cynical enough to know that medical interest is a very powerful empire with no interest in giving women rights over their bodies. Wake up Australia the women fighting this are our frontline feminists.  2009 and a woman thinks she can dictate to other women in regard to such a personal act. Shame Nicola and the rest of the Rudd Cabinet.

Kerry says:

01:19am | 31/07/09

Studies show again and again homebirth to be at least as SAFE as birthing in hospitals in relation to mortality rates. Why then do people continue to claim homebirth to be risky? Seems to me that these people would rather be sensationalist than informed.

Could we think for a moment that perhaps the intervention that occurs in hospitals may actually be creating problems. Three times as many babies die from c-sec than from vaginal births, yet this practice is seldom criticised by the public.

What about the use of drugs in childbirth - these affect the babies too, yet women are not called selfish for wanting access to them. However women who choose to birth at home and provide their child with a natural entrance into the world, without having them affect by drugs and trauma, are damned for putting there own desires ahead of their childs? Give it a rest please!

ACB says:

01:55am | 31/07/09

I’m not a midwife. I’m a woman who birthed her second son at home. Why? Because the first time round I did it in hospital. I couldn’t count on my fingers and toes the stupid things they did to ‘help’ me birth my son. Not only were they stupid but some of them were just plain unsafe. I know many, many women who have been through the ‘cascade of intervention’ in hospital only to end up with a live baby and a damaged soul and/or body. If I had birthed at home I still would have had a live baby. He would have been healthier, too. We wouldn’t have been separated. I would have also been intact myself.

Second-time round we did it at home. The baby came in 20 minutes. If I’d been planning a hospital birth I either would have done it by myself unprepared (I actually researched birth, funnily enough, Mike, on the ‘Net and learnt a lot of very useful information. Homebirth wasn’t invented with the Internet, you know) or birthed my son on the road. Don’t go spouting the ‘hospital is safe, home is not safe’ BS with me. In my case, homebirth was MUCH safer.

Just one small fact for you, Dr E: Fetal Bradycardia is common AFTER administering an epidural. Ever heard of epidurals being offered at home? Ever heard of brain damage to an infant after a ventouse or forceps delivery in hospital? I have! No, I didn’t ‘research’ it, I just speak to a lot of mothers who have birthed in hospital whose babies were forcibly removed and damaged. Who were induced because they were 10, 14, 12, 2, 5, 8 days overdue (pick your arbitrary overdue date from the list provided). Who were given caesareans for no reason other than a ‘failure to progress’. And a myriad of other unnecessary interventions.

I’m sick of this safe/unsafe argument. It has no bearing on this issue at all. We all know car travel is unsafe but we still carry our children around in cars all the time. We let our sons and daughters climb rocks and abseil down them. We allow alcoholics to buy alcohol.

Thanks for blogging about this, Jamie. I just wish you had the ability to change the law. Please speak to your Liberal Senators and encourage them to reject this bill outright until a solution has been reached. This violation of human rights can not go unchallenged.

Jessie says:

09:19am | 31/07/09

Bravo for a wonderful article, Jamie!
Hospital is for sick people - not pregnant women!

Flea says:

10:28am | 31/07/09

While I agree with the thrust of your article Jamie (and thank you for writing it!) I would just like to point out that horrific birth experiences don’t just occur in “state run public hospitals”.

It is private hospitals that have the highest rates of intervention and caesarean section - and it is these practices, when used without good reason that are a root cause of birth trauma.

I have birthed two babies - one naturally in a public hospital, the other I went private, believing I was assured better care.  It ended in what I now understand to be a completely unwarranted induction at 38 weeks which resulted in an emergency c/section.  Three years later I am still scarred and angry about my son’s birth.

This is a fundamental human rights issue - NO ONE should be effectively forced to birth in an environment not of their choosing.  Yet that is what this legislation will acheive, in practice.

I’m so angry and disappointed in this government.

Formersnag says:

11:46am | 31/07/09

The feminists who are advocating dangerous home birth, leading to an increased risk of negative health outcomes, are the same feminists who have been advocating that women have children later in life, (which has always radically increased dangerous complications for both mother and child) instead of in their late teens and early twenties, which has always been considerably safer.

When will somebody be brave enough to call this child abuse?

Sheridan says:

01:12pm | 31/07/09

Why are people just ignoring the part where is says homebirth has been proven to be safe for low risk women attended by a midwife?

The government agrees. That’s why they run homebirth programs. Its not about the safety of homebirth, it never has been, it never will be, its about the option of choosing your own midwife.

To those who keep harping on about the dangers of homebirth. Go and do a bit of research and look up the facts, and then come back if you have something to bring to the table. Homebirth for a low risk pregnancy attended by a professional midwife with transfer available if necessary has been proven to be extremely safe. Its a fact. Lets stick with a few of those. Its not just the opinion of some hippy feminist groups. Humans are the only mammals who don’t have the option of choosing the safest place to give birth.

Lee says:

01:28pm | 31/07/09

I birthed one child at a hospital birthing centre, the other at home. No complications for either, but my second child would almost certainly have resulted in a surgical birth had I chosen a hospital for delivery.

Here’s why: I was an elderly mother (over 35), epileptic (on medication), the baby was post-dates (12 days over), she was poorly positioned (back to front), and the waters broke nearly 3 days prior to birth.

Each of these points would encourage a hospital to induce. But induction significantly increases risk of foetal distress, which invariably leads to encouraged (enforced!) caesars in our hospitals.

If I had birthed my daughter at home, I’d have almost certainly had a caesar. And she, an unborn baby, would have been pumped full of drugs (for the epidural) that have still not been tested for safety on newborns. This fact alone is abhorrent.

By choosing to birth at home, my outcome was *better* than had I opted for hospital. Which is *why*, as an educated woman, I opted for homebirth. And at no time were my daughter or I at risk.

The discussion thus far in this article has been about the risk of homebirth. But I’m arguing that the risks of hospital birth can sometimes be higher than those of homebirth.

Clodia Porteous says:

01:38pm | 31/07/09

Formersnag you are an underinformed sensationalist.  No wonder you are a ‘Former’ snag, there certainly isn’t anything ‘SNAG’ing about your lack of compassion and understanding on this issue.

Child Abuse??  Come on, there are so many procedures (ABUSES) that babies and mothers are subjected to in the hospital environment, without proper informed consent or support, that cause long term problems and are rarely questioned.  We are so lucky and grateful to have a great medical system for those who need it, but the vast majority of women ARE ABLE or shouls I say WOULD be able - our system currently makes it an uphill struggle for women to achieve this) to safely birth their babies without interventionist care.

You need to recognise that your obvious bias is NOT supported by the world’s foremost research on the topic, and is in contradiction to international human rights.

Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529, 688 low-risk planned home and hospital births (BJOG, 2009).
Results: No significant differences were found between planned home and planned hospital birth.
Conclusions: This study shows that planning a home birth does not increase the risks of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low-risk women, provided the maternity care system facilitates this choice through the availability of well-trained midwives and through a good transportation and referral system.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 1.  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 12.  No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 16.  (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

FIGO Resolution on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights - A Social Responsibility for Obstetricians-Gynaecologists.
Affirming that improvements in women’s health need more than better science and health care; they require state action to correct injustices to women. Recognising that women’s health is often compromised not by lack of medical knowledge, but by infringements on women’s human rights.
Calls upon all members of the profession to: stand for women’s sexual and reproductive rights in their countries respect and protect women’s rights in their daily practice * Cairo document para 7.3These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children, and to have the information and means to do so; and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.  It also includes their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.  The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as expressed in human rights documents.

Home Birthing Mother In Adelaide says:

10:39pm | 01/08/09

Thank You for Listening Jamie!!

Thank you for helping to keep CHOICE alive and well!

This issue has been keeping my husband and I up at nights, and me in tears. After my hospital birth and subsequent depression, I wrote off more children altogether. I even begged my Dr for a tubal ligation. Thankfully he didn’t do it, because years later, I am now expecting my second child, to be born via homebirth in about a month.

I struggled and researched and talked myself hoarse meeting people, reading everything I could get my hands on - you name it.

I discovered that countries like NZ, UK, Netherlands and many many other countries all have homebirths of about 30%. Their governments actually SUPPORT these wonderful births and their midwives.

I discovered that ** I ** could have one too!! It was a revelation.

The more I learned, the more I healed.

And do you know what?? Contrary to ‘some’ peoples opinions, it IS safe.

Do you HONESTLY think that after a year of trying, 9 months of carrying this precious, wanted and completely loved child, that I would risk even a smideon of them?? HONESTLY??

And Funnily enough, I don’t want everyone to have a homebirth.  I want everyone to have the CHOICE.

Thanks again Jamie!

Appalled_mother says:

11:32pm | 01/08/09

Reading the responses to this article highlights why this is such an important issue to discuss in a public forum.  The government ought to open this up to a debate between health professionals on both sides.  Certainly insurance company bottom lines should never enter into a HUMAN rights debate. 

I birthed my first (and so far only child) in a hospital.  I never considered homebirth.  Mostly this was because I would have been too scared of what could go wrong.  I had a very straight forward birth and probably wouldn’t have needed an epidural had I been better prepared for the pain that hit when I transitioned into labour.  I don’t regret the decision I made, but I certainly will look into other options for subsequent pregnancies and births. 

A few weeks ago I would have sided with the anti-homebirth squad, but after researching and reading peer reviewed articles reporting findings of well conducted birthing research, I now feel ashamed to have jumped so readily on the bandwagon.  Homebirth is no more dangerous than many of the decisions we make daily for our children.  They are more likely to die in a car accident or from heart disease as a result of our choices than they are from being birthed at home with professional medical support from a qualified midwife (who, by the way births non complicated children in a hospital).  That some people would lay guilt on mothers for making an informed choice is unthinkable. 

A number of people have said babies need to be protected from mother’s poor decisions.  I agree as far as this applies to clear cases of child abuse.  Surely birthing at home is a far cry from child abuse.  If it was then why is it not illegal all over the world.  Open your eyes people.  This is not a debate about safety.

I am sure that if the government proposed to make it illegal for people to sell junk food to parents who feed their children or illegal for people to sell cars below the highest safety rating to people who transport children most of you would be defending people’s rights to choice.

Done it both ways says:

09:01pm | 02/08/09

This is a very emotive issue… as all this debate shows. People get very worked up about it - I know I do! But this is no excuse for the ignorant, sexist and uninformed comments from Formersnag, who would perhaps be even better known as Completebigot. Thankyou, Clodia, for your excellent response to his comments… which really don’t deserve attention anyway…

And I would like to draw attention to Jo Watsons comment… if anyone has got this far and hasn’t read it, it deserves a scroll-back to read it.

I am tired of all the pointless debate about the safety of homebirth. This is really not the issue here, it’s about corporate bottom lines and profit margins being once again considered more important than human rights, which include the right to choose a safe birthing environment. Government iniatives support homebirth. Insurance does not. Now the government is diddling the equation, and families who choose homebirth are in line to suffer the consequences. It’s that simple, and it’s wrong. It needs to be stopped.

If the government was so concerned about safety over profit margins they would outlaw smoking, as Jo so rightly points out. The would probably even be seeking another form of transport as road accidents are one of the number one killers in this country. The safety aspect is a smokescreen (no pun intended!)

Thankyou, Jamie, for being open-minded and savvy enough to see this issue for what it is, and giving another space for discussion on this very important issue.

Rebecca says:

02:08pm | 03/08/09

Thank you Jamie for listening, for researching this topic rather than just going with hearsay, assumptions and the status quo.

Thank you for representing the women in your electorate so valiantly.

tubal reversal says:

09:54pm | 08/06/10

Home birth is preferable just when everything is normal.But better is that hospital is best because during any emergency doctors can handle every problem.here i want to share about tubal reversal a surgical procedure to conceive pregnancy after tubal ligation.