For some reason this subject always seems controversial... Ah, here we go Intrapartum death not associated with congenital malformations or extreme immaturity (defined in the home birth group as an infant weighing <1000 g) was three times as frequent in planned home births than it was nationwide (3.0; 1.9 to 4.8) Then there is the Washington study. NICE says that there isn't enough evidence - and I trust them to be better statisticians than myself. But they do say "The guidance states: 'There may be a lower risk of perinatal mortality when care is delivered in a consultant-led unit.'" I'm not too sure that Homebirth.org.uk are the most impartial readers of research. The RCM link is fine, but they consider safety as "However, this is not to define safety in its narrow interpretation as physical safety only but also to acknowledge and encompass issues surrounding emotional and psychological wellbeing. Birth for a woman is a rite of passage and a family life event, as well as being the start of a lifelong relationship with her baby" I'm afraid I'm old fashioned and consider safety to be the whole 'breathing at the end of it' rather than some flowery description of emotional wellbeing. And yes, I know I'm being all 'male medical' about it. I may be wrong about the risks being double (although the Australian study says triple), but home birth is more risky. Another way to look at it - midwifes do 3+ years of training, at the hospital there are doctors with 8+ years of training. In a home birth you might end up with an ambulance man who has 20+ weeks training, with one day training in maternal emergencies and delivering babies. Sure, those aren't planned home births, but even if planned I'd imagine that most midwives wouldn't like to deliver a shoulder dystocia away from a hospital (and the page on *that* in the homebirth.org website scares the crap out of me). So I'll tell you what - I'll edit the post to remove the *double* seeing as the evidence isn't specific - but I'm still going to say that it's more risky.