I had my first baby at home, no regrets - it really set me up with a positive "obstetric history."

Here's my birth story.

Of the 863 planned homebirths (not counting many more which weren't reported) in 2009, 25% were first time mothers. The normal physiological birth rate (non-instrumental vaginal) was 99.5% - so that means a very high normal birth rate for those 216 first time mothers.

I have supported many first time mothers choosing homebirth in Melbourne over the last few years, and for the most part these were lovely straight-forward births. There were two that took a while because the baby was posterior or asynclitic - but being a home really worked in the favour of these mothers - they had the time and the support to wait till their babies could move to a better position and both gave birth at home - without even tearing. Both these labours unfolded over 60 hours - I very much doubt they would have ended with a mother pushing her baby out herself with no tears, had these two mothers been in hospital. A third mother also had an asynclitic bub, and we actually transferred that time, and the labour ended with an epidural, synto and a ventouse extraction, and a tear requiring suturing. However this mother strongly felt that had she started in hospital rather than at home, her labour could well have ended with surgery. This mother went on to have a home water birth with her second baby. So those are three first time labours that were challenging - but ended with positive outcomes that probably could not have been achieved had they been in the hospital system. All the rest of the first time mothers I have been with had straightforward home births. So my perception is homebirth is great when you have a normal easy first time labour - but if you are going to have a curve ball or an extra challenge such as a posterior position or an asynclitic position, it's even better to be at home where you will not be "timed out".