SHOULD he or shouldn't he? As the debate about the presence of the father at the birth of a baby rages on, my husband happened to tune into a discussion on the issue on the radio (Woman's Hour, his favourite after The Archers).

"Surely men have a right to be present at the birth considering they are present at the conception," he piped up rather crossly.

He was there when both my daughters came into the world, although I must add through no choice of mine.

I would have been perfectly happy had he decided to hover about in the corridor biting his nails, but he wanted to be there and I didn't object.

I must admit, however, I didn't relish the idea of him watching the potentially gory spectacle.

It is not an image I felt would do much for my on-going attempts to look sexy and alluring.

Indeed, some women believe that for their other halves to witness such an ungainly act as giving birth, it damages their sex lives afterwards.

I don't think it did mine any harm - it was dire before, dire after.

As things turned out, my husband didn't see a thing.

I had a Caesarean both times and, because it's a surgical operation, the lower half of my body was obscured by a little curtain.

What I really would mind, and what I find mind-boggling, is not the presence of a husband or boyfriend in the labour ward, but the invitation some couples dole out to others within the family.

he presence of the father is positively calming compared with the gatherings at some births.

My sister visited a boyfriend in California and was asked to accompany him to watch his best friend's former wife have a baby.

Also draped across the bed at the home birth were her new husband, two former boyfriends and their girlfriends.

Someone videoed the occasion and afterwards they made stew from the placenta.

I believe that was the night my sister feigned a stomach upset.

Now call me prudish, but I wouldn't allow a video camera anywhere near my nether regions for love nor money. And speaking of money, with my luck, were I ever filmed giving birth, the episode would almost certainly end up being flogged to You've Been Framed.

More than likely, the little curtain would become wrapped around the forceps and the surgeon would end up being dragged down on top of me like a scene from a Carry On film.

However, I would prefer a camcorder to the presence of my mother, father, or - horror of horrors - the person some mums-to-be choose to have at their bedside, mother-in-law. That would bring on a seizure, never mind early labour.

She would no doubt be ready with a cutting remark: "That baby doesn't look anything like my son, and by the way, how was that hen weekend in Faliraki that you went on nine months ago?"

The doctor who sparked the debate, obstetrician Dr Michael Odent, the founder of the wacky-sounding Primal Health Research Centre in London, questions whether the father's presence might be "dangerous" and may prevent women missing out on natural childbirth by requesting that she have an epidural or Caesarean so that she would not have to endure too much pain.

He also says that men are inclined to celebrate the birth too soon, sometimes distracting the woman before the vital delivery of the placenta.

I'm for anything that relieves pain, so I'm voting fathers in.

If they promise to leave the camcorder at home.

Updated: 10:47 Monday, September 02, 2002