Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freebirthers dismiss fear and bring babies home (via med-free birth at home).
Reuters ^ | 6 June 07 | Reuters Kate Kelland

Posted on 06/06/2007 11:39:42 AM PDT by gobucks

LONDON (Reuters) - They insist they're no superwomen, they have no special powers, and are certainly not pain or adrenaline junkies.

But 'freebirthers' choose to go through what some call the most painful and potentially frightening experience of a woman's life with no drugs, no midwife and no medical help.

Delivering their own babies at home, often alone, they dismiss what they say is "fearmongering" by doctors and midwives and confidently catch their offspring as they leave the womb.

"Birthing uses the same hormones as lovemaking -- so why would you want anyone poking and prodding you, observing you and putting you under a spotlight?," said Veronika Robinson, an Australian based in Britain who sees growing interest in freebirth among readers of international magazine, "The Mother".

Her comment is echoed by many in online discussion groups about freebirth, where women insist having a baby is as intimate an experience as having sex.

"We were the only people there when she was conceived, and it felt absolutely 100 percent right that we were the only people there when she was born," writes Laura Fields from the United States.

Robinson says medical establishments in Britain and across other westernized nations have for years been "taking something that's natural and making it into a disease", and now, with freebirthing, "women are taking their power back".

Free- or unassisted birth means having a baby with no medical or professional help. In Britain, as in North America, where its popularity is growing, it is legal as long as delivery is not "assisted" by an unqualified partner, friend or husband.

To some, like new mum Janet Sears, the idea of giving birth alone, with no-one around to help if things go wrong, is little short of madness: "It's my idea of hell," she told Reuters.

INTERVENTION AND FEAR

But one of its most prominent supporters, Laura Shanley, an author on childbirth, is now mother to four children -- all of whom were born at home without the help of doctors or midwives.

Shanley, who lives in Colorado in the United States, says that in essence birth is only problematic because of three main factors -- poverty, intervention and fear.

As long as clean water and reasonable living standards are available -- as they are to many women in the west -- then the task is to eliminate the other two factors and a natural birth will be as safe as it can be.

"As I began to understand how fear affects the body, and that birth is not inherently dangerous provided we don't trigger the fight-flight response and shut down labor, then to me it was natural to want to just trust myself," she told Reuters.

"It didn't make sense to me that something that ensures the continuation of the race would be a dangerous and scary event."

Diana Drescher, a Dutch freebirthing enthusiast who lives in Britain and wants a fourth baby with her German partner, agrees.

"We've been giving birth for thousands of years and we're still in this world. If it was that dangerous we wouldn't be here," she told Reuters. Coming from the Netherlands, where there is a more relaxed attitude to birth, Diana finds British medical authorities far too quick to intervene and is determined to have her next baby here with no professional presence.

She says she will also avoid being in her partner's native Germany where she says freebirth is virtually impossible without fear of the authorities finding out and intervening.

"I do know some people who have had unassisted births in Germany, but they will not talk about it. It's a very close community that does it and they have to be very careful."

"THE MOST DANGEROUS THING"

Britain's Department of Health frowns on the practice of freebirthing and says every woman should have a midwife.

"The safety of mothers and their babies is our top priority," a spokesman told Reuters. "Midwives are the experts in normal pregnancy and birth and have the skills to refer to and coordinate between specialist services. Every woman needs the care of a midwife in labor and birth and those women with more complex pregnancies may need a doctor too."

And some doctors, as well as some friends and relatives of those who chose to go it alone when they go into labor, are fiercely critical of what they see as a selfish, reckless, even irresponsible approach to childbirth.

"Dr Crippen", a British National Health Service doctor who writes an award-winning blog on the Internet, has reacted angrily to growing interest in freebirth, saying babies born this way should have a right to legal recourse later in life.

He says "giving birth is the most dangerous thing that most woman will do during their life", and argues:

"Does a mother not owe a duty of care to her baby? Should a mother not take reasonable care to protect the baby when she gives birth? And if she does not take reasonable care -- and the standard should be objective not subjective -- why should a baby who has sustained avoidable brain damage due to the mother's negligence not take action against his mother?"

If a baby were to die during a freebirth, Dr Crippen argues the mother should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Mary Siever, a mother of three who lives in Alberta, Canada, said she has experienced the wrath of those around her when they learned she had a baby on her own.

"There are people who are horrified when they find out that an unassisted birth has taken place," she told Reuters.

"I can't claim to know why they feel this way, but my belief is that the majority of them -- doctors and health authorities -- truly do not think women are intellectually capable of making their own decisions when it comes to birth."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bradleymethod; freebirth; naturalchildbirth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
More good stuff on a good thing in Europe ... for once:

Going it alone

Why would anyone choose to give birth without a doctor, midwife or even her partner in attendance? Viv Groskop reports on the growing trend for freebirth

Wednesday May 9, 2007 The Guardian

In the USA, this movement is made of UCers ...unassited childbirthers

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2075395,00.html

1 posted on 06/06/2007 11:39:46 AM PDT by gobucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Hey,if that’s what they want,good luck to them. The government should stay out of it.


2 posted on 06/06/2007 11:43:07 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

And of course nothing could possibly go wrong and endanger the baby’s life, right?


3 posted on 06/06/2007 11:44:03 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Not me. Give me drugs. Lots of them.


4 posted on 06/06/2007 11:45:00 AM PDT by Hoodlum91 (I support global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
There was a time when everyone was a "freebirther" - and plenty of moms and kids died of medical complications.

It's not so kool'n'krunchy being a "freebirther" when the umbilical cord is wrapped around the baby's neck.

5 posted on 06/06/2007 11:47:19 AM PDT by wideawake ("Pearl Harbor is all America's fault, right, Mommy?" - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
More good stuff on a good thing in Europe ... for once:

What's good about it?

The potential of the death of the mother?

The newborn?

Or both?

If that's what they want to do, fine but I pray if anything happens, it isn't the innocent baby who suffers the consequences.
6 posted on 06/06/2007 11:48:09 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

gee, what did women ever do for the last 6000 years of recorded history?


7 posted on 06/06/2007 11:48:24 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Well, the article doesn’t mention the provisions made for complications, but its reasonable to assume the car is fully gassed up on the birth day...

We came close to freebirthing ourselves, but were arm twisted by a scared female relative. So, the environment wasnt’ home, but the birth had no needles, no medications, and was an unreal event for us. (the doctor and nurses were very stunned too - unmedicated births in that hospital averaged only 3 or 4 a year).


8 posted on 06/06/2007 11:49:21 AM PDT by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
Oh, of course not.

Sure, infant and maternal mortality was much higher in the pre-obstetrics days, but that's mainly because there wasn't enough access to banana bread, patchouli and Phish albums in those olden times.

9 posted on 06/06/2007 11:49:24 AM PDT by wideawake ("Pearl Harbor is all America's fault, right, Mommy?" - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
We've been giving birth for thousands of years and we're still in this world.

Yeah, and what were the infant and maternal mortality rates back in the caves where women did it alone? I can understand wanting to get out of hospitals where the mother is treated as a sick person, and into a comfortable home with a midwife (as was tradition before the hospitals took over the business). But this is just dumb.

10 posted on 06/06/2007 11:50:57 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

“gee, what did women ever do for the last 6000 years of recorded history?”

Well until modern medicine came along, giving access to doctor-provided on-demand abortion, it may be reasonable to say that per capita, more kids lived, than died. So is the answer to your question “what women did was be a mom more often”?


11 posted on 06/06/2007 11:55:00 AM PDT by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

There was another FReeper who recently posted an article in which she is quoted about her experiences freebirthing. It was very interesting.

I will definitely be going the route of less medical intervention with my next one, but freebirthing is just a bit too far for me.


12 posted on 06/06/2007 11:55:13 AM PDT by elc (Guns kill people the same way the spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
We've been giving birth for thousands of years and we're still in this world.

Yeah, back in the Colonial period, women had a 1 in 8 chance of dying in childbirth. I have a number of friends who have experienced either complications in childbirth or complications with their newborns. Luckily, there was staff on hand to intervene immediately. If a woman wants to do this, more power to them! I personally would rather be in a sterile, hospital environment than take the risk.

13 posted on 06/06/2007 11:59:34 AM PDT by New Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
gee, what did women ever do for the last 6000 years of recorded history?

They frequently died while giving birth, or from complications of childbirth.

The still do, in third world countries.

14 posted on 06/06/2007 11:59:38 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Two of my brothers would probably not have survived birth if my mother hadn’t been at a hospital. Another was so breech, he’d never have come out...

That said, doctors forced my mother to have ceasarian sections, perforated her uterus, and missed the severity of her placenta previa, so it’s not like I think they’re gods but when I give birth I want access to emergency surgeries or life-saving measures.


15 posted on 06/06/2007 12:02:49 PM PDT by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

My wife went all natural, too. The doctor who delivered the baby told the nurse, “Pay attention - this is the closest thing you will ever see to a home birth.”

We used the Bradley Method, which was great. Once we were educated about the entire process, the need for medication disappeared. Plus, without an IV hanging from my wife’s arm, she was able to move around and get comfortable as necessary. She found that the shower was best for reducing the discomfort of contractions. That and the counter-pressure techniques I was using.

The problem with the birthing industry today is that they want to force the issue. They are too eager to induce labor before the mother’s body is ready, and ALL too eager to jump right to a Caesarian just to speed along the process.

Here’s the funny dichotomy when it comes to babies: go tell your doctor you took morphine for recreational purposes while pregnant. Watch how fast they scold you - if they don’t just call social services on you. But, as soon as you go into labor, they want to pump you full of drugs. Drugs that typically *extend* labor. Drugs that will surely pass to the baby over the course of that labor. (The nurses in the maternity ward can tell the difference between epidural babies and non-epidural babies - just ask.)


16 posted on 06/06/2007 12:03:57 PM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Why would anyone choose to give birth without a doctor, midwife or even her partner in attendance?

Really. If something went wrong, who would you sue?

17 posted on 06/06/2007 12:04:03 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS

And no one to sue.


18 posted on 06/06/2007 12:06:03 PM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Two minds functioning as one.


19 posted on 06/06/2007 12:07:17 PM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Well until modern medicine came along, giving access to doctor-provided on-demand abortion, it may be reasonable to say that per capita, more kids lived, than died. So is the answer to your question “what women did was be a mom more often”?

Ridiculous argument.

Modern obstetrics existed from 1920-1970, which coincided with the greatest decline in infant mortality in history.

Modern obstetrics does not equal abortion.

20 posted on 06/06/2007 12:12:33 PM PDT by wideawake ("Pearl Harbor is all America's fault, right, Mommy?" - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson