Natural Birth
Anyone going unassisted?
Is anyone considering an unassisted homebirth or unassisted pregnancy?
What are your thoughts on UP/UC?
This discussion has been closed.
Is anyone considering an unassisted homebirth or unassisted pregnancy?
What are your thoughts on UP/UC?
Re: Anyone going unassisted?
No, because I'm a fan of low interventions and thinking holistically, not of being an idiot.
I think you can tell my opinion of UC.
edit: You know what? That was rude. Let me explain. For me, the appeal of natural childbirth is that lack of unnecessary interventions is the safest way to have a baby. Evidence based practice appeals to me. For me it's not about shunning all modern medical knowledge and practices simply because they are modern or "not natural". To me that's naive and irresponsible. Sure, most pregnancies, labors, and births are perfectly uneventful and you could be fine on your own, but there are real problems that pose real dangers. Someone who is trained and skilled (I happen to prefer nurse midwives) should be monitoring for those problems.
In a romantic, primal sense I like the thought of going unassisted. But I also am scared of the what ifs. Like of hemmoraging. At least with a homebirth accompanied by a midwife I could recieve a shot of pitocin in 2 seconds to help the uterus contract.
In the sense of the actual birth, Id go unassisted. But I dont think I ever will just because I would worry about that immediate postpartum period.
I have definitely considered an unassisted birth, but it was mostly because I was scared of the hospital and wasn't clear on my options for midwife assistance. Even now, I sometimes fantasize about having such a quick labor that baby just comes out before I have time to dress and leave for the hospital. Of course this is just me hoping for the fastest labor in all history and I know baby and I will be safer having a natural birth WITH professionals who are trained to react in emergencies. I'm not sure why anyone would want an unassisted pregnancy...the birth itself -whether assisted or not- would be much MUCH safer if you received prenatal care to ensure that your pregnancy is low risk or to help in the event that it's not. It is common for low-risk women to have uncomplicated births that wouldn't have needed any assistance. However, as other posters have said, there are risks associated with the period immediately after birth- such as hemorrhaging- during which you would most definitely need a trained professional present.
If you don't mind me asking, what are your reasons for wanting an unassisted birth/ pregnancy?
When I had my natural birth with my son, I felt completely drunk near the end. Everything was fuzzy and my vision was narrowed. It took my doula and husband combined to convince me I should put on pants for the ride to the birth center. Later, I was too consumed by my newborn son to realize that I hadn't delivered my placenta - my midwife gave me two shots of pitocin, kept asking me to get into more favorable positions, and was putting on long gloves to prepare to scrape it out manually before I finally delivered it. My doula had to tell me all this later, and I only remember the one shot of pitocin. An hour or so after delivering, while my husband was holding the baby, I felt great so I was changing my clothes in the bathroom, getting ready to go home, and generally flitting around the birth room -- the student midwife had to keep reminding me to at least sit down because I'd lost a lot of blood.
Basically, I was behaving primally in labor and was in a complete endorphin rush after the birth. Both were normal and wonderful feelings for the birth process -- but I was NOT of sound mind to notice things that may require medical attention or to make the best choices. Trying to care for myself and my newborn in that state would have been like trying to care for my child when I was falling down drunk.
This. I think home birth is a good option for many mothers IF they have a qualified and trained midwife/doctor. UC creates unnecessary risk in a way that a home birth with a qualified birth attendant does not. I don't think a woman and her husband reading a few books on catching babies is any replacement for the real life experience of a midwife.
It's one thing to read about how to handle a shoulder dystocia or PPH, and another thing entirely to have it happen to you with no one but your husband or doula in the room.
ETA And I think a UC without any prenatal care is even more reckless. If you don't have prenatal care, how are you going to know if you are high risk? Do people who do this think they will become an expert at diagnosing pathologies of pregnancy from reading about them or taking their blood pressure at the drugstore?
Yep.
I would never consider it for myself. The fact that my own midwife, who has probably forgotten more about birth than I will ever know, still chooses to have a midwife at her own births... yeah. That is reason enough for me.
But I did read the blog of a local woman who chose to UC for her fourth baby. She had a scheduled c with her first (breech). She attempted a VBAC with #2 but ended up with a repeat c sec and a really negative hospital experience. She got her VBA2C with #3, but not after being dropped from care by her midwife at 42 weeks, having a bad experience with the CNM who took her on, and enduring another crappy hospital experience.
So I can see how FOR HER, UC might have been the only way to get a positive, intervention free birth. She said that if she had found a midwife who truly supported her unconditionally and believed in her body, she would have used her... but she couldn't. I can sorta understand that. I'm just glad I'm not in that kind of position where I feel like I can't have a positive attended birth.
Here is the blog for anyone who wants to read it: https://theskinnyonjanuary.com
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
I'm all for low intervention and am myself having a home birth but in all honesty I think an unassisted delivery is extremely foolish and an unassisted pregnancy (I assume you are talking no prenatal care) is negligent. Prenatal care is extremely important whether it come from an OB or a MW.
I would never do it... I believe its putting your baby and your self at so many risks..
My DH has a cousin who REFUSES to let anyone deliver her babies except for her husband.. Her mother is a MW and wont even let her do monthly check ups or come over when she is in labor.. Her last daughter who was born with out the help of a MW was breech and came out blue and not breathing.. The husband had to do CPR and call 911. EMT were able to get her breathing again but she was a very lucky baby.. That was her last daughter.. I believe it may have cured her from trying to do that by herself...
That is disgusting. She's a selfish fool for being so focused on herself and her "positive birth experience" that she ignored the very real possibility of uterine rupture with a UC VBAC after THREE c-sections--especially since VBAC2 and the UC birth were only a year apart!
There are very few things that are absolutes in the world, but the "doing what's right 'in her situation' " crap has gone too far when women are 100% ignoring their child's well-being to get what THEY want.
Never considered it and never will.
After having a pretty stressful pregnancy after 29 weeks, I am glad I had the medical care I did. Not to mention, my son popped a hole in his lung (a pneumothorax) with his first breath and had we been unassisted or even at home, he might have died. 5 days in the NICU. I am pretty sure no one would want to go through that unassisted.
agree with this. i had a homebirth with dd. i locked myself in the bathroom for the entire labor and wouldn't let the midwife go near me. when it was time to push, she coaxed me out and cheered me on as i pushed and caught my own baby. while i was confident that i could give birth myself, i was very comforted knowing that someone was there in case of an emergency. and that paid off! i did have very heavy bleeding and needed that pitocin shot. and i tore, and she sewed me up. i'm very grateful that i had her there.
Thirded.
I've actually met this woman in person before. I don't think she's a selfish fool.
To be clear, her UC was after two c-sections and a successful VBA2C, not after three c-sections. There's a huge difference... one less c-section, and also, studies show that women who have had a successful VBAC are at lower risk of uterine rupture during subsequent deliveries than women attempting their first VBAC.
Also, her VBA2C and her UC birth were 20 months apart, not 1 year apart.
As for putting her child's well-being at risk... well, you could flip that around and say that she would have put her child's (and her own) well-being at risk by NOT UC'ing. Knowing the birth options here in our area, I know she would have had a VERY hard time finding a provider who would allow her to VBAC. And even if she had, she most definitely would have been induced by 42 weeks or possibly even earlier. So, was UC'ing really riskier than either a third c-section (and I should mention that she and her husband plan to have more children... and the more c-sections you have, the greater the risk to mom/baby, and the harder it is to find a provider willing to let you VBAC) or an induction after two c-sections?
Even given all that, I'm still not sure I could do it myself if I were in that same situation. But I definitely don't think it's as black and white as "she's a selfish fool."
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
I agree that it's not all black and white. I understand that for some women, UC might be their only choice to have any control over what happens to their own body during childbirth, and that is really unfortunate. I can understand in her situation why she would be weighing the risks of UC with the risks of having another cesarean, especially if she wanted to continue having more children after that. I think what always gets lost in these discussions is the mother. We always talk about risks to the baby, as if the baby is all that matters. But the mother matters too, and by being compelled to undergo a third cesarean, especially if she is planning to have more children, her life is also being put at risk. What if she were made to have that c/s against her will and then died of placenta accreta hemorrhage in her next pregnancy because of that third cesarean?
And yes, there is a difference between having a primary VBAC after 3 cesareans, and a VBAC after 2 cesareans and a prior successful VBAC.
I think it's beyond irresponsible and would never consider it for myself.
med-free birth x2, breastfeeding, baby wearing SAHM
My BFP Chart
Not a chance. I have a friend who has had 2, but I never would. She had a vaginal birth, then a classic c-section (vertical scar) with her twins, then a hospital VBAC. For the next kid she was told she was not longer allowed to attempt VBAC in the hospital so she went UC and did the same for the last kid. Her husband was a paramedic for a year in Panama about 20 years ago but I wouldn't call him "trained" in anything.
I have seen too many bad outcomes (all of which are removed from MDC when they are mentioned, including a very outspoken UC proponent and another in New Zealand who both had babies die in childbirth) to consider not at least having a professional available.
I was excited to read this discussion. I like to think our board and community is focused on birth as a natural process and on not forcing mothers into someone else's (or ACOG's) idea of the safest way to be pregnant and deliver a baby.
Perhaps unassisted is not a good choice for all, but it is an extension of the goals of natural birth. What I see in so many responses is potentially even more judgmental than those who claim we are selfish for our decisions to go unmedicated or **gasp** without the safety net of a hospital. Writing someone off as selfish or being all ego? Not much compassion or empathy there.
Could have been a good discussion.... Sad. (If I were the OP, I wouldn't add any more details for this crowd to criticize either.)
I don't agree that UC is necessarily selfish or all about ego. But I do agree it is generally the least safe way to have a baby. And in that sense, I don't think it's an extension of the goals of natural birth.
Personally though I'm not interested in natural birth as some ideology of pure birth. I'm interested in evidence-based care that can provide the safest outcomes for mother and child. I don't think UC can do that but I would be happy to read any medical studies you might have showing otherwise.
And I'm interested in mothers having rights to their own body. So I would not try to forbid or outlaw a mother from having a UC--it is her right. That doesn't mean I have to pat her on the back and tell her I think it's wonderful. I think UC creates needless risk and I don't have to pretend otherwise because of some theoretical goal that you think all NBA should aspire to.
I am not planning UC, and honestly never even considered it. I learned about different approaches and listened to my instincts. I didn't mean to suggest it is an ideal to aspire to, but rather more like an approach further down the continuum of natural and intervention-free. Planned c-section on one side? UC on the other?
I appreciate that not many people would endorse this approach, but I found the comments about someone being an idiot, selfish, or egotist for their decision rude. Particularly when that was their entire post. I am not as vocal as I'd like about my own homebirth plan because of this same type of judgment. I don't want to be judged; but for me, that comes with the responsibility to not judge others.
(FWIW, I just spent Thanksgiving with some seriously judgmental family, so I'm feeling really sensitive to it... politics, birth, money... it comes up everywhere.)
But now we are getting back into the territory of "what is a natural birth?" How is UC inherently more natural than an assisted birth in which the attendant allows the labor to progress on its own? I would argue first of all that due to the physiology of human birth and the social nature of human societies, it is very natural to have an assisted birth. It's erroneous to suggest that there is only one default or natural way for people to approach childbirth, so I don't think that UC can claim to be the most natural form. Nature gave us big brains that made childbirth more difficult; those brains also gave us the intelligence to address the problems that can arise from those big-brained babies by having assisted births. I don't think that is a coincidence.
Second of all, I don't like the idea that the more someone shuns interventions of any kind, the more natural her birth is. Not all interventions are inherently unnatural. A midwife helping a woman change positions to facilitate labor or save the life of a baby with shoulder dystocia is not unnatural. There are interventions like this that actually facilitate a "natural birth." A mother making the choice to accept help or interventions is not necessarily giving birth less naturally than someone who refuses them.
I'm not advocating for UC and not meaning to celebrate it as more natural or better.... Just trying to figure out where it fits in the scope of this choice we are all making here in a non-judgmental way.
You make a good point, natural is a loaded term. I'm not sure what natural means, and it likely means very different things to each of us. Would it be fair to say it is more (or most) intervention-free?
Same subject, different question... You bring up another good point - about using data. I wonder if there are any statistics to back up the comments that it is so much riskier. Mortality rates? Higher rates of complications?
The better question is: what is the point of going unassisted if not for ego? What is the point of it? Why not forgo prenatal care and any and all discussion of pregnancy and childbirth as well. Hell, if it is truly going to be unassisted, better turn off the heat and hydro (and running water) while you're at it.
Do you raise you child without help? Do you feed and discipline and educate them without help? What on earth could giving birth unassisted do other than to give something the birth mother has to brag about?
If a woman has issues with her support during pregnancy, and is concerned that interventions might be employed that she considers invasive, then the mother needs to find support better suited to her wants and needs.
Rachel, I get what you're saying... people often say that homebirthers are selfish, are only doing it for their own ego, are putting their babies at risk, etc. So it's a little funny when people on this thread -- many of whom are planning/have had a homebirth -- pass the same judgement on UC'ers.
I do think that SOME UC'ers ARE selfish, ARE only doing it for their own ego, ARE putting their babies at risk. But the same is true of SOME homebirthers, and heck, SOME hospital birthers, too. But I don't go around saying, "Anyone who has a baby in the hospital is selfish," because I understand that many women have very good reasons for delivering in the hospital, even if it's not the right choice for me personally.
As for statistics, you'll be hard-pressed to find solid stats on the safety (or lack thereof) of UC'ing. For example, planned UC'ers will get lumped in with unplanned UC'ers (i.e. women who end up delivering unassisted because they couldn't get to the hospital in time). Also, in states where midwives are not allowed to attend homebirths, planned assisted homebirths are often recorded as being unassisted births. You also have the same issues that you do with homebirth safety statistics, such as the fact that the UC community is self-selecting (so comparing UC stats to hospital birth stats is an apples-to-oranges comparison) and that there is no way to track planned UC's that end up transferring to the hospital. Finally, since the UC sample size is so small, a single bad outcome from a woman who had no business UC'ing would seriously skew the stats.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
I haven't read through all the responces, but like I'm sure almost all the pp, I think it is a horrid idea. Historically, women haven't given birth by themselves. They've been surrounded by other women who had given birth themselves and/or attended many other births.
There are too many things that can happen during labor. You wouldn't be able to research or even be aware of many of them. You're not going to know what is normal, and if something does happen where you do need immediate help, the likelihood of you being able to deal with it is probably fairly slim.
Prenatal care has shown to increase live births, prevent issues and catch other issues that may need immediate attention at birth. Honestly, not having any form of prenatal care is incredibly irresponsible, and almost boarders on child abuse.
Birth is natural, but remember that the maternal and infant death rate back before there was quality prenatal care and good doctors was much higher. While I'm hopeful for no unnecessary interventions, I will happily accept one if I or my baby need it.
I highly doubt that there are accurate statistics on such births.
Although wickipedia (sorry - that's as far as I'm going for this one) cites a study done by the University of Indiana (apparently there's a religious community that ends up having a lot of unassisted births):
The investigation found a perinatal mortality rate 2.7 times higher, and a maternal mortality rate 97 times higher than the state average. In this community, pregnant women receive no prenatal medical care and deliver at home without medical assistance. This community avoids not only prenatal medical care but all medical care.
Birth is potentially dangerous. Choices about birth are made to balance the safety needs of the mother with the safety needs of the baby.
Both ends of the spectrum (obeying every medical order instead of giving INFORMED consent as well as unassisted birth) are irresponsible.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2w73hq9.jpg
I am one of those posters...
...and I am also a woman who had a homebirth at 43 weeks- trust me, I KNOW what it is like to be judged. I also have a lot of friends who also had homebirths...and some who ended up with unintentional UCs.
I still think that 99.9 percent of UCs start with the ego.
I personally don't think having an opinion = rude. Everyone judges...the ones who say they don't are just fooling themselves. I would rather just be honest. I have no problem being proven wrong. If you have any statistic that show UC are just as safe as MW attended homebirths, bring it on. I would be happy to change my tune.
Research shows that homebirths attend by MW are just as safe as hospital births (for heathy pregnancies). So, when people judged me they did it out of ignorance- they thought that the hospital was the only safe option. My view on UCs are based on my research. I am not ignorant on this issue and stand by my opinion.
Have you visited the UC board on mothering.com? If not, check it out for a while. If you are able to come away from there pure of judgement, then I guess you are a better person than me.
Unless you know of some study that I missed, the research on midwife-attended homebirths is FAR from conclusive about homebirth safety. All the studies I've seen are subject to many of the exact same issues that I pointed out in my last post re: problems with statistics on UC... very small sample size, lumping of unplanned homebirths with planned homebirths, inaccurate recording of whether a homebirth is assisted in states where assisted homebirth is illegal, a self-selecting community, inaccurate tracking of outcomes for homebirths that end up transferring to the hospital, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love homebirth, I've had a homebirth, I do think that it's just as safe as hospital birth for women meeting certain criteria. But that is based more on my understanding of myself, my personal situation, and my midwife, NOT based on statistics conclusively showing that homebirth is safe.
That's why it's frustrating to see UC characterized as completely foolish, selfish, egotistical. Is it all of those things for some women? Without a doubt. The same can be said about homebirth for some women. That doesn't mean that ALL women who homebirth are foolish, selfish, egotistical.
As for the MDC UC community, no, I haven't spent much time there, but I've heard about it, and I get where you're coming from. But there are message boards where a significant number of hospital birthers are foolish, selfish, egotistical -- and still, no one would say that ALL hospital birthers are that way.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
I think it's irresponsible. There are lots of things that CAN go wrong (not that they will) and an experienced caregiver should be present to assist. My Bradley instructor actually did an unassisted home birth and the baby died due to shoulder dystocia because no one was there to help. Really makes me so sad for her and that poor LO that had to die... for what? An ego trip (as a PP mentioned)... I can't think of anything else. It is just not worth it.
If my ONLY options were an intervention-happy OB and no one, I would choose the OB.
Matthew Kevin
7/31/83-7/20/11
Met 1/8/00
Engaged 4/21/06
Married 9/29/07
Two beautiful legacies: Noah Matthew (2 yrs) and Chloe Marcella (8 mos)
Day Three
But for UC moms, what are they able to base the safety on? They aren't talking to a medical professional about it (or if they are, I'd imagine 99.9% of the professionals are telling them it's not a good idea). You have no way of knowing if you are truly a safe candidate for unassisted birth - the complications that can come up most often won't have any warning during your pg, and even if they did, if you don't have some educated prenatal care, your chances of seeing the signs are pretty slim unless you're a professional yourself. Even if you are able to diagnose your own problem during childbirth, you're not necessarily able to take care of these issues yourself (shoulder dystocia, prolapsed cord, etc) just by the simple fact of it being difficult to physically manipulate the baby easily and accurately.
I am hard pressed to see what type of woman is a good candidate for unassisted birth. And yes, that is mostly my logic speaking, but I'd venture that all the statistics that I have seen, as flawed as they may be, support that.
There are no RCT studies on home birth, for obvious reasons. But there are some home birth studies that address some of the valid concerns you point out here. As for sample size, I think it's worth noting that many studies looking at obstetrical practice are done with similarly small sample sizes and the other kinds of issues, yet the medical community has no issue with considering many of those studies to be valid and if a woman delivers in the hospital she is expected to accept those medical practices without question. To me this suggests that anti-home birth bias is at play in how much the medical community has accepted the findings of home birth studies.
So while I don't think home birth has been proven to be safe conclusively, I don't think 90% of medical practices in this country have been proven conclusively either.
The reason I still think UC adds needless risk is because if you have a home birth with a qualified doctor or midwife, then you have someone there who has clinical training in handling complications of pregnancy and birth. You have someone with experience looking for the warning signs in labor, analyzing fetal heart tones, with third stage delivery, with resuscitating newborns, with addressing postpartum bleeding, evaluating perineal damage etc. Just as important, you are presumably getting prenatal care from someone who knows how to monitor you effectively for PIH, placental issues, growth issues, etc.
If you UP/UC, you don't have those things. So that is why I feel differently about out of hospital birth and UC. Some may find that hyprocritical but I think there is a big difference between a home birth with an experience practitioner and one where you are alone with your husband and a midwifery textbook.