My mother spent 40 hours in labour with her first baby; and was not offered a whiff of anything when they stitched her up!
She worked hard every day of her life, and was stronger than many men! So much for that theory!
My own children were delivered via Caesarean, given the pelvis just wouldn't dilate, even with drugs and a 12 hour wait.
My eldest, when delivering her first, spent around forty sweat soaked exhausting hours in labour.
Birth complications account for a horrendous death rate among third world women, who are simply not offered anything, except natural birthing!
A hospital Doctor being cranky with mostly overweight or obese mums!
So what?
Babies know nothing of hospital timetables or whether a single doctor doing the work of ten, has had enough, or any rest.
I'd bet if you had worked around the clock for three or four days, with little more than a comfort stop/coffee break, you'd be cranky too! But particularly, with the selectively deaf!
Natural births are the best and first choice, but they really ought to occur in a hospital setting, where any complications, like say dangerous postnatal bleeding can be attended to, by trained professionals, with an operating theatre at their fingertips!
We say that native women have been giving birth naturally, since time immemorial!
True, but quite often standing or crouching, where gravity assists! And job done, it's straight back to the back breaking hoe or the plough.
At the end of the day it's not all about you, or any other know it all control freak; but rather, the new and extremely fragile life you bring into this world.
Finally, be truly grateful there were no complications, given any mature age related or other complication, you could have conceivably bled to death in the hour and a half, you needed to travel to hospital!
And who would have looked after or breastfed the baby then?
People do have a freedom of choice, always providing that choice is fully informed and doesn't include another, who is never ever given a say!
Rhrosty

Such is researcher bias. The arguement between medicine and midwives perhaps should be labled the thousand year war.

Typically the mothers who choose midwife birth for a birth plan, would be of a different demographic the majority of mothers.

Typically data bias occurs when midwives deliver the majority of uncomplicated deliveries and the obstretricans get the vast majority of preterm and complicate births.

I should add, people love comparing horror and misfortune stories about their health care.

Women can choose. It is an absolute furphy that anyone tells them what to do with their own bodies, or forces them to avail themselves of the benefits of medical science. So by all means take what risks you choose. Your risks, your choices, but do not forget to own the responsibility later.

I reckon this is just another dimension of the feminist war on ordinary women. Another case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is also aimed at preserving an occupation that has finally received the attention of regulators and so it should have.

Honestly you only have to see a display of the tools and techniques of midwives to realise how far medical research has helped women, saving their lives and their infants.

Women in country areas would bless the availability of hospitals and medical specialists, especially where neonatal resuscitation is available.

If it is the deliberate choice of a woman to home birth so be it and good for her. Being adult means informing oneself of the risks benefits and being accountable for any outcomes, both positive and negative.

I have been driving for over 30 years and have have never needed my seat belt, but have always worn one. Similarly birthing does not need doctors, etc unless something goes wrong.

The claim that babies are smarter because of home birthing is purely anecdotal and not supported by evidence.

No judgement here;

I'm just glad that when my little guy got into trouble they were able to zip mummy downstairs and whip him out safe and sound.

Great article! The medical profession horribly underestimates (if they don't just dismiss it completely) the importance of feeling safe and supported in order for labour to go smoothly. For some women a hospital might do this (especially if they've been scared and not helped to address those fears), for others it definitely doesn't. I recommend anything written by Sheila Kitzinger and 'Birthing from Within' by England and Horrowitz. Great writers who helped me prepare for 2 home births after an unnecessarily traumatic hospital one.

I found this article annoying in the extreme.
English women do birth at home more often than in Australia or America, but that is because there are Hospitals much closer to those English homes if something goes wrong.
Australia is a much larger country, with larger distances to hospitals in general.

As far as I am concerned, women who birth at home are selfish .
They are looking after what they want, and not considering their babies.
Babies don't care where they are born.

Years ago, when all women birthed at home, the rates of maternal and baby deaths was high.
When they moved into hospitals, the mortality rates decreased.

I wanted the best chances for my baby, so I had her in a hospital, and all was well.
I didn't want to take the chance of birthing at home... at least half an hour from any hospital, only to find one of many complications happened.

I could never live with myself if my 'choice' resulted in any harm happening to my baby.
Having said that, I still believe women should have the choice to birth at home if they please.

Simply a reversion to the pre-medical era of giving birth ie the early 1900s. All the misplaced confidence of a Russian roulette survivor.

To those who believe home birthers are misguided, selfish or worse...

Years ago when all babies were born at home many women and children died in giving birth. Yes, can't dispute this, but the present in the rich world is different.

Many of the problems that accompanied birth are not here and now relevant in the most part, or they can be screened for. For example; placenta praevia, which causes severe haemorrhage, can be detected, women are not suffering from malnutrition (a significant cause of morbidity and mortality); we have antibiotics to combat post-partum infection; we have trained birth attendants. I could go on...

Hospitals have however created problems that did not exist before - For example; women should be allowed to give birth in whatever position they want to - reclining or semi reclining unless that is what the woman wants is lunacy (imagine being forced to crap in that position); there is no evidence to support continuous foetal monitoring as improving outcomes, but it does create panic and increase interventions. I could go on...

I do not know of a single woman who would willingly risk the life of her baby - we make our choices after reading the evidence and understanding the risks. I am pretty sure that your average home birther has done a lot more work and research on this than your average hospital birther, and the data says that for a low risk pregnancy the outcomes are no worse for a planned home birth with a trained attendant, than for a hospital birth.

Wherever it takes place, every woman has to live with the consequences if a birth goes wrong. To imply that home birthers do not care about their baby's welfare is utterly outrageous. You may not agree with her, but perhaps if you took the time to listen and understand, you might might not be so quick to judge her motives.

You might also surprise yourself.

So the home birthers cherry-pick the healthy best prospects and where anything goes wrong the stats will be against the hospital and medical specialists where the ambulance arrived?

I don't care what decision a woman makes if she is to be responsible for the outcomes both good and bad. However Taxpayers are right to get interested where it could impact on hospital services, stretched as they always are, and something gone awry is expensive to fix, if it can be fixed at all.

It is up to government to have proper regulation and accreditation in place. Can we trust the present federal government to do what is warranted and effective? Not so sure on that one. But the State health departments are usually dependable in identifying the regulatory flaws and they are unfortunately up for the extra hospital costs.

There seems to be an assumption that things *will* go wrong in birth - but this isn't the case. There is a risk, yes, but for many pregnancies that risk is very low.

If you find it hard to think about the different levels of risk, you could compare a low risk pregnancy to crossing a quiet street and a high risk pregnancy to crossing a motorway. I don't think you'd try to cross a city motorway on foot, but neither would you travel 2 miles to the next bridge to cross a small street in a small town, would you? Prenatal screening and looking at evidence based data is equivalent to looking at the road and the number and speed of the cars in order to decide where and how to get across.

Finally, a home birth, even one which needs an ambulance transfer (although I can't comment if helicopter or plane transfer is needed) typically costs a lot less than a hospital one - it isn't hard to work out why. If more people who are suitable for safe home births had a home birth then the hospitals wouldn't be so stretched and could take better care of those who really do need their facilities - either from the start or as transfers

The problem with what AlexD is saying is that there are cases where home birthing has resulted in the death of the child, several last year if my memory is correct. I also recall children dying because of their parents belief in natural therapies.

Logic is often overriden by "belief" in a person's decision, and home birthing is a typical example.

AlexD's stats are a problem. For instance, the stats for low risk group in hospital also includes admissions from the low risk group cherry-picked for home birth.

The inference to be taken from AlexB's misleading analogy of road users is that the most common birth complication of oxygen starvation at birth is not to be concerned about. Two points: first, I wonder if indigenous mothers who often give birth without of a well equipped hospital would agree with AlexD; and secondly, what about brain injury from hypoxia in survivors, as well as the death stats?

Suseonline nailed it with her:
"As far as I am concerned, women who birth at home are selfish .
They are looking after what they want, and not considering their babies.
Babies don't care where they are born".

But by all means go ahead, that is choice. I am concerned that women are properly informed of risks, and that the stats are kept separated as far as hospitals and medical specialists are concerned. My concern is more about escalating insurance premiums for the hospitals and medical professionals, and the costs to Medicare.

"Home Birth midwifes assert that naturally born babies are brighter, more alert, often more intelligent and better at processing life's inevitable ups and downs."

Asserting something does not make it true!
However show us the Double Blind clinical trials so we can review the data.