Why Do People Chose Unassisted Childbirth?

A Discussion About the Many Reasons People Have for Refusing Medical Care Unless It's Necessary

By Heather B., published Feb 04, 2007
Published Content: 195  Total Views: 315,782  Favorited By: 94 CPs
Rating: 4.1 of 5
Women chose a variety of different reasons to birth without a medical attendant. It can be a need for independance or a desire to have a private birth experience. Sometimes it's accidental or because a midwife is too expensive. Some women do it to be in control. Others want to be put in touch with their innervoice. Birthing unassisted can be religious and spiritual. Maybe a person simply feels birth is too ordinary--or to profound--to include medics. For whatever the reason, the movement is on the rise, and more women are discovering the freedom of birthing unhindered, with just their closest loved ones present.

There are women who birth unassisted purely by accident, which is the most dangerous form of childbirth. Women who chose to birth unassisted spend months planning and preparing so that they can handle anything that may come up. When an unassisted birth is accidental, usually the woman is not ready to take full responsibility and be in control of the situation. This can happen when labor is too quick. Either the mother didn't make it to the hospital or the midwife didn't arrive on time. In these cases, the risks are slightly higher. Birthing unassisted, however, is not as dangerous as it seems, as usually the outcome of even accidental births is good once medical attention is received.

Other women simply cannot afford a midwife and know that birthing at home is safer than at the hospital. In some states, midwives are not allowed to attend homebirths, and doctors often refuse as well. Some places don't even have any practicing midwives there, so there are some people who must birth unassisted because their only other option is hospital birth. Some women simply live too far away from a hospital or birthing center. Many women begin their journey to freebirthing because of this, but upon closer examination, discover that it was the right choice for them all along. Maybe it's destiny.

Takeaways
  • People chose unassisted childbirth for a number of reasons.
  • These women spend months preparing to be their own midwife and to be ready for anything.
  • Most animals in nature and some African tribes birth alone.
Did You Know?
Some women become freebirthers because they had an accidentally unassisted birth that opened their eyes and that they really enjoyed, so they continue to birth unassisted in the future--only now they plan to!
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 19
Next >>
 
It is, and the cost of midwives--while lower than hospital birth--is a lot to pay out of pocket. A lot of insurance companies don't cover it or will only cover CNMs, who don't typically attend homebirths making the coverage clause a bit pointless. It's either come up with $2000 to birth at home--or go it alone. And that is sad. Everyone should have the right to the birth support they want.

Posted on 02/22/2007 at 10:02:00 PM

 
UC is definately becoming more and more common as C-section rates sky rocket and "active management" of labor becomes more and more routine. I know several women who felt their only options were to either suffer indignities at the hands of their physicians or birth at home on their own. Sad when women feel so helpless in a supposedly "culturally advanced and tolerant" country.

Posted on 02/22/2007 at 10:02:00 AM

 
Angela, a lot of your comments cut off so I didn't get to read them all, but if I could, I'd give you a standing ovation for everything you just said. Heather - I think doctors mean well, but they just get caught up in everything, the politics, the power, the money--like politicians.

Posted on 02/09/2007 at 12:02:00 PM

 
Dear anon - I wonder about your comment regarding your sisters birth and the baby who's head got "stuck". Was your sister pushing in a squatting position? Or was she on her back in a hospital bed? Did you sister have an epidural? Did your sister have Pitocin? Squatting increases the size of the pelvis by up to 20% and I'd be willing to wager the doctor didn't suggest squatting before he suggested a surgery that increases his paycheck by $5000. The other three things, epidural, pitocin and reclined position on the bed all increase the difficulty of the labor, efficiency of the pushing stage and size of the pelvis. Therefore making it more likely to have difficulties and wind up "needing" a Cesarean.

Posted on 02/09/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
Incidentally, The Farm's midwives are run by the head midwife names Ina May Gaskin. If you are truly interested on the truth of the matter instead of just your personal anecdotal evidence check out one of her books and do some research on their statistics. :-) And honestly, why are your posting anonymously? I am not ashamed to link my words to my name becuase I have the numbers to back up what I am saying. Blessings, ANGELA

Posted on 02/09/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
Dear anon, your comment assumes that hospital births are the ideal situation for birthing but that is not so. The current ideal in terms of BEST outcomes are from a commune known as "The Farm" in Tennesee I believe where they have the best outcomes, haven't lost a single baby to shoulder distocia, have less than 5% transfer rate (moving the mothers to hospitals for delivery), less than 3% C-section rate and a FAR lower infant mortality rate than ANY hospital in the US. And on that subject, American hospitals rank 28th in infant mortality rates - the American model of birth IS NOT the safest or best model out there. 27 other countries loose fewer babies at birth than we do. Do not diefy hospitals, Anon, realize that mothers who choose options other than American Hospitals do so only after careful research, continious assesment during pregnancy, and much soul-searching and preparation. They are not irresponsible ninnies who go into it blindly. They are simply not willing to accept what i

Posted on 02/09/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
I very much enjoyed this article. I think what people who say "Oh I had trouble and would have died if I hadn't been in the hospital" don't understand is that often it is being in the hospital, and the interventions that come with it (IV's/Pitocin/Aritificial Rupture of Membranes/Electronic Fetal Monitoring/Supine position/etc) that actually CAUSE many of the complications that the baby or mother then needs "saving" from. Complications that would not have been complications if the mother had been in a more supportive and natural environment. I have personally chosen the what is in my opinion the best of both worlds. A fantastic midwife who has a great deal of experience (breech births, water births, multiples, etc) but a "hands-off" philosophy. She saved me from needed a C-section with my first birth by helping me reposition the baby so labor would progress and with my second birth she did nothing at all until delivery of the placenta and my MOM got to catch the baby!! Totally awes

Posted on 02/09/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
A lot of women believe that the complications at their births would have resulted in death had the doctors not 'saved' them. My mother believes if her son would have been born at home he would not have lived, because they had to work on him for 15 minutes to get him to breathe. The truth is that oxygen machines can be rented for an unassisted birth, infant CPR and neonatal resuscitation classes are available, and you can work on a baby for up to 30 minutes sometime before they will breathe. The majority of infants that are born not breathing can survive by stimulation, having CPR performed, or being given oxygen; very few need intubation, which is the ONE procedure that can only be performed in a hospital. Women can often predict what complications are likely to occur and plan their births around them.

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
You described shoulder dystocia in one of your comments, where the baby got stuck. There are ways to get a stuck baby out beyond performing a C-section. Instructing the mother to change positions, usually quite suddenly, can jar a baby free. There are also several maneuvers that can be attempted which can dislodge a baby from the birth canal, including cork-screwing the infant out. There are risk factors for this, such as Gestational Diabetes or being overweight which increases your chances of a large baby (macrosomia) or having a malformed (not small) pelvis. Women can usually predict if they are at risk and learn how to handle it on their own, and if that information is not available or they have had no luck with the maneuvers or positioning methods working in the past, then they can chose to birth in a hospital. Women who chose UC don't turn a blind eye to the possible risks; it is all about risk assessment and preparation.

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
Regardless, this is about WHY people chose it, not whether or not it is right, the best choice, or completely safe in every situation. I am attempting to provide insight into the reasoning, not glorify it as the ideal.

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that I don't feel birthing unassisted necessarily puts the child at risk. If a woman choses wrong to birth in the hospital, undergo a C-section, or let a doctor induce her labor prematurely, the baby could die as a result then, too. I'm not saying anyone should lie; I'm saying that it would be difficult to prove that a person planned to birth unassisted and that the death is a direct result of that decision, not to mention immoral to tell a woman what she MUST endure and who she MUST obey when it comes to giving birth. If a doctor can't order a woman to have a C-section he shouldn't be able to order her to birth in the hospital. It is the woman's choice where to deliver. Am I saying all women chose the best thing? No, but it is still up to them. Don't put words in my mouth please; you've done it with nearly every comment, and it's getting old. My other articles make my stance very clear.

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
How would they know they didn't just get to the hospital on time? Are you saying you think it's alright to risk the life of a child so the woman can have a choice? And if she chooses wrong, the baby dies as a result she should then lie about having a UC sos he doesn't get in trouble with the police? That's not right, not at all.

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
That being said women who chose UC, if you read the article, are FINE with having only themselves to blame. UC is about taking completely responsibility for your life, your child's life, and your birth. Women have the right to parent in the way they desire, and court rulings have already stated that NO ONE can be ordered to birth in a certain way. Women have the right to govern the domain that is their bodies, and it cannot be taken way. Children cannot be taken away simply because of the mother's birth choice. CPS can try all they want, but they fail when they try to go after a mother for birthing at home, unassisted, or refusing a C-section. Besides, enforcing a law against UC would be difficult, because how would they know if a woman just didn't get to the hospital on time?

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
Read my guide. Women don't just go "Oh, I think I'll birth at home without a midwife!" They spend the entire pregnancy training and learning how to handle complications, and when the moment comes, very few babies die that would have lived had a medical professional been present. I've read birth stories with good and bad outcomes, and most of the ones with bad outcomes would have been the same in the hospital most likely. It's about risk assessment, deciding what place is safest FOR YOU, learning what is likely to happen and deciding if YOU can handle it at home or if you should e in the hospital/have a midwife. No one is saying that UC is right for everyone, that homebirth is always safer. Read my other articles where I specifically address situations where the hospital is better, and you'll see it's clear I'm not claiming that.

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

 
You're entitled to that opinion, but you're wrong about the false sense of security. You have absolutely no statistics to back up your claims here, but there is plenty of evidence to support that homebirth is safe. Women are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their lives and that of their unborn babies, and more importantly, they have the right to chose what to do with their own bodies. It is not child endangerment, as it is commonly seen by society; birth is not nearly as dangerous for the average person as the ACOG wants you to believe. What RISKS exactly? The bacteria at home is familial and familiar, that the woman and thus her baby have immunities to it--but that the bacteria in the hospital is alien and foreign, coming from SICK people and unfamiliar persons, and much more likely to cause an illness?

Posted on 02/08/2007 at 5:02:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 19
Next >>
Most Commented On