Unassisted Childbirth: Dispelling Myths About Freebirth

It is Only Frightening to Those Who Don't Understand It

People mistakenly believe many things about freebirth. Some of the myths are understandable, and some are completely ridiculous. Freebirth is also called purebirth and unassisted birth. It usually occurs at home but shouldn't be confused with midwife-attended homebirth, which is what is
 usually meant by the term 'homebirth.' Many people don't understand the amount of preparation that goes into planning a freebirth, nor do people seem to realize that planning an unassisted birth doesn't mean you can't decide to go to the hospital at some point. Put aside what you think you know about freebirth for just a moment, and let me fill you in on the facts.

Freebirthers birth completely alone without including friends, family, partners, or other children. Only the mother is present. An unassisted birth is one that occurs without the presence of a medical professional, such as a doctor or midwife. Most unassisted births do include persons other than the mother, such as close friends, other family members, or their husbands. An unassisted birth that occurs when the mother is completely alone is a solo or autonomous birth.

Freebirthers never receive any medical intervention whatsoever; they do not seek medical attention at all. Most unassisted birthers prepare themselves to handle any and all situations that could arise and to recognize emergencies that would require professional treatment. Most will go to the emergency room or at the very least call a midwife if necessary. We simply chose to include professionals only when truly necessary. An unassisted birth where the mother refuses to see a professional or interfere for any reason whatsoever is called a Zion birth.

Freebirthers fear, hate, or have no respect for medical professionals. We have the utmost respect for people who provide care to those in need. We just don't believe in asking for their help unless it's really needed. We want as natural an experience as possible, but we do also want to be safe. We feel that the high rate of intervention in the hospital is unsafe for the average patient. Because of the risks, we want to avoid unnecessary intervention.

Related information
 
Comments 1 - 10 of 35 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Hi Heather, I agree with the desire not to be violated. I had a male doctor walk in rudely without knocking during my birth at the hospital. Hospitals will lose patients if they don't respect them.

Posted on 01/26/2009 at 12:01:37 AM

So women should be allowed to have abortions but not to choose their birth location? That's ridiculous. It's not selfish to exercise your right to bodily integrity, to not want to be violated during birth. People have WAY more reasons than that for birthing at home or freebirthing. It's not even about being violated or mistreated but about the complications and risks that come with those unnecessary, invasive interventions which you clearly know nothing about. Epidurals, for example, can slow your labor, causing you to need pit and an amniotomy, which increase your risk of fetal distress and thus your risk for C-section, which comes with higher death rates, risk of breathing problems for the baby, bleeding for the mother, etc. My son was checked at 5 days for diseases, and most diseases won't turn up before then anyways because they need to have a certain number of feeds first. And I had an epidural with my oldest son who was born in a hospital, and I screamed just as loud at his birth

Posted on 10/23/2008 at 7:10:40 AM

Oh and forgot to add that you say its only frightening because I dont understand it. But I actually really researched it after i saw the show freebirthing on DH, and I am now even more iritated by it than i was just after watching the show! And really believe that these people should be getting checked for chemical imbalances!

Posted on 10/22/2008 at 11:10:45 PM

I really think this whole freebirthing issue is totally outrageous! I personally think that anyone who would even consider this type of ignorance should really get to a mental physician ASAP! It is literally one of the most insane ideas that I have ever heard in my life. And anyone who would do such a thing obviously has absolutelly NO regard for the health or well being of the child! To me it sounds a little selfish to want to have it at home because these crazy women feel violated by DOCTORS(you know the people with all the years of training),to me that should not be an issue but only the babys well being! I would rather my child live and all diseases checked for before I attempt to take this tiny life home! And they talk of pain free birth, well that why they have epedurals! This should be outlawed !

Posted on 10/22/2008 at 11:10:04 PM

Those are all contraindications to homebirth in general. Twins are usually delivered successfully at home as well as babies that are near-term, but I agree with you on all of those points. I don't believe I would recommend UBAC either, but I would support a woman in her choice--always.

Posted on 06/03/2008 at 5:06:32 PM

I would also not be recommending UBAC. Reason being that the most common sign of uterine rupture is a non-reassuring heart rate in the baby, so continuous fetal monitoring is recommended (if not, you should be checking the heart rate every 15 minutes). As I understand it, if your uterus ruptures, they don't have much time to get the baby out. Also, anyone planning a TOL (trial of labour-it's not called a VBAC until you've actually given birth) should ask her care provider how her incision was done. Any vertical component to the incision means you MUST have a repeat c/s because the risk of rupture is too high. Also, if there's meconium in the waters the baby should really be born in a hospital. Meconium means that the baby has had a lack of oxygen at some point. While this does NOT necessitate a c/s, it DOES mean that you need continuous fetal monitoring and people there in case the baby inhales meconium and has breathing problems.

Posted on 06/02/2008 at 8:06:04 PM

Personally, I would not recommend a freebirth, but I could see it being safe if you were prepared and your pregnancy was low-risk. There are, however, situations where you should not be doing freebirth: 1) Preterm baby. 2) Multiple gestations (higher risk of complications, also higher incidence of premature babies). 3) I would not recommend it if you've had 5 or more babies prior because your risk of bleeding is higher due to a lack of uterine tone. Homebirth might still be an option, though. 4) Mother has a history of hemorrhaging-increases risk with the next baby. 5) Mother has pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes. 6) Mother has a history of a coagulation disorder, increasing her chances of bleeding. 7) Mother has signs of placenta previa or vasa previa (placenta or blood vessels covering the cervix) or placental abruption (placenta detaches too soon)-these commonly necessitate c/s's.

Posted on 06/02/2008 at 8:06:09 PM

Way to bust those myths! Thanks for the excellently informative article! I agree with you 100%! MZ

Posted on 10/29/2007 at 10:10:00 AM

Great job at updating the info Heather. :-)

Posted on 10/17/2007 at 8:10:00 AM

Also, for the record, the fatalities in the larger group would actually classify as stillbirths. With the data being updated to include 312 births and 3 stillbirths, that makes the rate 9.6/1000 for UBACers and 6.4/1000 for everyone else. As a percentage that's %0.64 Compare that with the rate of stillbirth in the US, which is 10/1000, a percentage of 1%. The rate for the average-risk woman's child, 6.4/1000, is about the same as the US infant mortality rate overall.

Posted on 07/14/2007 at 11:07:00 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 35 Next >>