Opinions on Free Birth?

I read this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/28/experience-i-had-a-free-birth

I have to say I had a pretty negative view of that lady's birth.  I am a big believer in general of letting people do what they want, until it impacts other people.  This lady's funny ideas could have impacted the baby's quality of life for ever, with no real justification.  She could have impacted the NHS and by extension all of us if something simple that would be fine if addressed earlier turned into a giant expensive nightmare. 

I'm no doctor, but I don't think a woman's body "tells her" if there are problems and avoiding scans because of that is pure stupidity.

What do you guys think?

I read the first paragraph of her article and that was enough pseudoscience, yoga BS for me to stop. Absolutely right to allow people to do what they want but only if we don't have to foot the bill and the life of an innocent child isn't compromised because of well, go see my previously used adjectives!


UKC married to USC 2012.
USC is on FLR(M) - 1 year to go to ILR

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just wow ... I think this woman was incredibly lucky there were no problems. There's a reason for pre-natal care and checkups, it improves both maternal and infant mortality rates around the globe... This is just nonsense and honestly dangerous for them to be publishing in the era of antivaxxers etc.

I think the main thing that ticked me off was the smug bit at the end where she pretends her experience is similar to the women in less developed countries who are forced to give birth without adequate health care.  She was checked twice during labour by a mid wife and had the full NHS just one phone call away. 

 

When I was pregnant with my two children I only saw a midwife 3 times before they were born.  Just after my 1st missed period I went to see my GP and he was able to confirm I was pregnant.  Met with the midwife when I was 15 weeks for booking in appointment when we talked about the birth, I opted for home delivery and we arranged to be seen be her at my home when I was 30 weeks.  I saw her again when I was 38 weeks to check I was ready for delivery.  There was no scans no blood tests.  The day I went into labour the midwife popped in to check on me twice and then we phoned her to let her know I was ready to deliver, she arrived 10 mins before my son was born and was gone within 1 hour of his birth.  I feel that today people have made birth a medical issue that has to be managed by Doctors and hospitals, pregnancy and birth are natural events and your body know exactly what to do. Yes there are times when medical intervention is needed but it should become "the norm"
 

I think the main thing that ticked me off was the smug bit at the end where she pretends her experience is similar to the women in less developed countries who are forced to give birth without adequate health care.  She was checked twice during labour by a mid wife and had the full NHS just one phone call away.

Sure, her care may have been similar (in her eyes)....but it's not because these ladies in third world countries don't want the healthcare.... They simply can't have it and I think it would probably upset a lot of women in undeveloped countries who can't afford the care to see those you can have it for free (more or less) deciding to turn it down and put themselves and their child at risk.

When I was pregnant with my two children I only saw a midwife 3 times before they were born.  Just after my 1st missed period I went to see my GP and he was able to confirm I was pregnant.  Met with the midwife when I was 15 weeks for booking in appointment when we talked about the birth, I opted for home delivery and we arranged to be seen be her at my home when I was 30 weeks.  I saw her again when I was 38 weeks to check I was ready for delivery.  There was no scans no blood tests.  The day I went into labour the midwife popped in to check on me twice and then we phoned her to let her know I was ready to deliver, she arrived 10 mins before my son was born and was gone within 1 hour of his birth.  I feel that today people have made birth a medical issue that has to be managed by Doctors and hospitals, pregnancy and birth are natural events and your body know exactly what to do. Yes there are times when medical intervention is needed but it should become "the norm"

I also agree that 'overmedicalisation' of pregnancy and birth is a legitimate issue. 

I'm really glad that you had a healthy pregnancy, and a healthy baby, and that you were happy with your care.  And I don't fault you for wanting to share your experience, and celebrate that outcome.

However, there's one other thing that I really wish women who've shared your kinds of experience would acknowledge, at the same time:

You were lucky.

Things didn't go so swimmingly for you because you had so few prenatal visits, or because you didn't get tests and scans, etc.  You had a healthy, normal, issue-free pregnancy because you were lucky.

My sister had all the normal, American pre-natal care, and yet we nearly lost both her and my nephew when she had to be delivered at 25 weeks, because the lupus they didn't know she had caused massive complications.

These things would *still* have caused complications, even if she'd never been for a scan, etc.  The difference is that, when the crap hit the fan, the time she wasted bouncing around ERs, while unknown doctors tried to get up to speed, might have cost her and/or the baby's lives.

Now, again-- you feel free to do you, and I'll continue to be genuinely happy for you.  But please, let's not confuse complete freakin' coincidence with causation.

You got lucky.

I also agree that 'overmedicalisation' of pregnancy and birth is a legitimate issue. 

However, there's one other thing that I really wish women who've shared your kinds of experience would acknowledge, at the same time:

You were lucky.

Thank you for this! A friend of mine had a normal pregnancy, a couple trips to her OB for the standard checkups (as it was here in the states), and upon going into labor experienced pre-eclampsia and lost the baby before she'd even gotten to the hospital. Thankfully physically she was ok, but that is a grief that will never leave you.

Modern medicine is a wonderful thing when it helps, but there are still so many things it misses. I also probably wouldn't be here if I hadn't been born in a hospital with a neonatal unit, because they had my mom's due date wrong and I was actually 6 weeks early instead of the 2 they originally thought. Being able to have a home birth with no complications is the definition of luck!

That woman needs to do three things:

1) read up on historical maternal mortality rates

2) ask some of those women in places where medical care isn't available if they'd like to change places with her

3) consider what she's going to do if someone is dim enough to listen to her and winds up with serious or fatal consequences because they weren't as lucky as she was

I also agree that 'overmedicalisation' of pregnancy and birth is a legitimate issue. 

I'm really glad that you had a healthy pregnancy, and a healthy baby, and that you were happy with your care.  And I don't fault you for wanting to share your experience, and celebrate that outcome.

However, there's one other thing that I really wish women who've shared your kinds of experience would acknowledge, at the same time:

You were lucky.

Things didn't go so swimmingly for you because you had so few prenatal visits, or because you didn't get tests and scans, etc.  You had a healthy, normal, issue-free pregnancy because you were lucky.

My sister had all the normal, American pre-natal care, and yet we nearly lost both her and my nephew when she had to be delivered at 25 weeks, because the lupus they didn't know she had caused massive complications.

These things would *still* have caused complications, even if she'd never been for a scan, etc.  The difference is that, when the crap hit the fan, the time she wasted bouncing around ERs, while unknown doctors tried to get up to speed, might have cost her and/or the baby's lives.

Now, again-- you feel free to do you, and I'll continue to be genuinely happy for you.  But please, let's not confuse complete freakin' coincidence with causation.

You got lucky.

I did not get lucky!!! this was the norm.. women have been having complications of pregnancy and child birth forever does this mean every woman should be subjected to a high medical intervention during pregnancy and birth... No it is up to each individual to decided what is right for them and their baby.  I see the amount of medical intervention that goes on today and I am glad that it was not available when I had my children and if I was having children now I would not choose to have the amount of medical interventions that some woman feel is needed.

To each their own...

There is a very good scientific article on the Lancet that is worth a read!

Basically, doing nothing at all or having too much medicalisation are both bad. 

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31472-6.pdf

As an outsider (having never given birth), it looks like to me, that the NHS has a decent balance of doing necessary things and yet not making it out to be such a huge, expensive, need lots of consultants kind of thing. (Unless necessary of course)

sh*t happens though.  My friend, a GP, had a very normal second pregnancy, very routine. She had a c-section with her first baby, due to birthing complications, but nothing too drastic and was aiming for a "whatever birth I need to have" with her second.  Her waters broke at band practise, and she said, "Oh I'm heading home (40 minute drive away), to collect my stuff and then head to the hospital (back another 30 minute drive)"  No worries. As a medical professional, she was not worried in the slightest with her second baby.
She didn't make it home. She barely made it to the hospital a 10 minute drive from band practise. Her c-section scar tore and the baby escaped into her abdomen.  If she had been at home, she and her son probably would have died. Being at band practise saved her and her son's life, because she got to hospital quickly.  Her cute wee boy has cerebral palsy now, but of course, having him alive and her alive, is way better.
She was unlucky, these things are very rare and could have never been predicted.
 But sh*t happens and not having any/limited medical care at all, well that seems extremely risky and extremely unwise to me!!     

There is a very good scientific article on the Lancet that is worth a read!

Basically, doing nothing at all or having too much medicalisation are both bad. 

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31472-6.pdf

As an outsider (having never given birth), it looks like to me, that the NHS has a decent balance of doing necessary things and yet not making it out to be such a huge, expensive, need lots of consultants kind of thing. (Unless necessary of course)

sh*t happens though.  My friend, a GP, had a very normal second pregnancy, very routine. She had a c-section with her first baby, due to birthing complications, but nothing too drastic and was aiming for a "whatever birth I need to have" with her second.  Her waters broke at band practise, and she said, "Oh I'm heading home (40 minute drive away), to collect my stuff and then head to the hospital (back another 30 minute drive)"  No worries. As a medical professional, she was not worried in the slightest with her second baby.
She didn't make it home. She barely made it to the hospital a 10 minute drive from band practise. Her c-section scar tore and the baby escaped into her abdomen.  If she had been at home, she and her son probably would have died. Being at band practise saved her and her son's life, because she got to hospital quickly.  Her cute wee boy has cerebral palsy now, but of course, having him alive and her alive, is way better.
She was unlucky, these things are very rare and could have never been predicted.
 But sh*t happens and not having any/limited medical care at all, well that seems extremely risky and extremely unwise to me!!   

Oh my goodness.....never given birth or anything either but reading that literally I had my hand to my mouth with my mouth wide open. That's insane! Very happy to hear your friend and her son are both okay (as you said, being alive is better than not!). That is something that would never even cross my mind! Brutal!

There is a very good scientific article on the Lancet that is worth a read!

Basically, doing nothing at all or having too much medicalisation are both bad. 

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31472-6.pdf

As an outsider (having never given birth), it looks like to me, that the NHS has a decent balance of doing necessary things and yet not making it out to be such a huge, expensive, need lots of consultants kind of thing. (Unless necessary of course)

sh*t happens though.  My friend, a GP, had a very normal second pregnancy, very routine. She had a c-section with her first baby, due to birthing complications, but nothing too drastic and was aiming for a "whatever birth I need to have" with her second.  Her waters broke at band practise, and she said, "Oh I'm heading home (40 minute drive away), to collect my stuff and then head to the hospital (back another 30 minute drive)"  No worries. As a medical professional, she was not worried in the slightest with her second baby.
She didn't make it home. She barely made it to the hospital a 10 minute drive from band practise. Her c-section scar tore and the baby escaped into her abdomen.  If she had been at home, she and her son probably would have died. Being at band practise saved her and her son's life, because she got to hospital quickly.  Her cute wee boy has cerebral palsy now, but of course, having him alive and her alive, is way better.
She was unlucky, these things are very rare and could have never been predicted.
 But sh*t happens and not having any/limited medical care at all, well that seems extremely risky and extremely unwise to me!!   

Yikes!!  So glad she is okay.

I agree that the NHS does a good job of being as hands off as possible while still ensuring mom and baby are safe.

Had I not had medical care during my pregnancies, my husband wouldn't have me or our two children.  Fortunately I had some of those "horrible first world medical interventions" and as a result I have two healthy children that I am around to see grow up.   

There is a very good scientific article on the Lancet that is worth a read!

Basically, doing nothing at all or having too much medicalisation are both bad. 

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31472-6.pdf
 

Good article, thanks for posting it.

This, exactly. Moderation in all things, including moderation.

I'm viewing this from the point of having women in my grandmother's generation (born in the 1920's -30's) who were farming people that died or lost children from complications of home births or merely living several hours from any medical help, and knowing women currently living who have had those serious or fatal complications I mentioned before just because they're either poor and got shoddy care, again lived quite a distance from advanced medical help, or belong to sects like Quiverfull that eschew modern medicine.

Glad that your friend and her son are still here  ;0)

I wish anyone who's fuzzy on this could ask them, living or dead, whether they'd've rather had the help or preferred being dead, losing a child, or having long term health problems as being "more natural".