I can answer for homebirth and say the hiring of an IM is a guarantee you will at least be accompanied throughout your labour (usually by two midwives and assuming you call them in time to come lol).

I am appalled that women in hospital do not necessarily have anyone there for them (and I know two women whose husbands almost missed the birth coz they were trying to find a dr or midwife). People have an idea that hospital is a place you will be looked after but I think I received much better care at home. I live in a big city though and felt safe knowing I could go to hospital if needed and my midwife would be there for me at all times.

The cost of a midwife is expensive to some, but we paid using the baby bonus. It was also less than many private obs who do not offer after care in the home (daily then weekly visits until 6 weeks) plus a midwife offers breastfeeding advice.

I kind of think the choice is actually stay home and take full responsibility for your own and babies health or go to hospital and hope your emotional wellbeing is catered for as well as the 'healthy mum, healthy baby' outcome is. At the moment we kind of think homebirth style of births (no intervention, drug free etc) can happen in hospitals or even birth centres, but that seems like it is unlikely. It sets up unrealistic expectations. It also does not take into account the reasons why some women need intervention. I really think the majority should birth at home, so hospitals can use resources helping those in need.

Birth is not an emergency every time. Why do we always asssume the worst?