Private Midwifery in Sydney Rotating Header Image

July, 2010:

Midwives attack new ‘veto’

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

Link

MIDWIVES are aggrieved about new rules that might curb their access to Medicare rebates and prescribing rights …

Last year Ms Roxon announced that from November this year midwives would for the first time be able to use the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare rebates for their clients.

At the time, Ms Roxon said the historic move would boost a midwife’s ability to work independently and increase options for pregnant women …

But in a long-awaited change to the legislation … midwives will now have to work collaboratively with a doctor, who must endorse their practice before their clients can access financial benefits.

The requirement for collaboration was always planned to be in place, but the detail of collaboration requires that a midwife has a written agreement with an obstetrician to access medicare benefits. This is problematic: more than one obstetrician must sign an agreement because no obstetrician provides 24/7 cover, so there’d need to be at least 2 obstetricians signing the agreement. What happens if one obstetrician leaves the local area? Is sick? Goes on leave? In these situations, the collaborative agreement is very vulnerable. Not only the agreement, but the midwife’s ability to provide ongoing care to her private clients.

After eight months of debate between doctors and midwives, government records show that Ms Roxon signed a determination on the matter two weeks ago, when Parliament was out of session.

Doctors’ groups who say home birth is unsafe are believed to have lobbied the government for the changes.

Yesterday, midwives and home-birth advocates accused Ms Roxon of trying to hide what will be an unpopular decision with midwives and mothers.

Australian College of Midwives president Hannah Dahlen said the change would effectively give doctors the ability to veto their access to Medicare and the PBS.

While midwives working inside hospitals would not be disadvantaged, she said private midwives would find it difficult to find a doctor to endorse them, especially if the doctor did not support home birth.

In fact, doctors have refused to sign agreements with any midwife who attends homebirths. Is this collaboration or control?

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Collaborative Arrangements Will Provide Better Care For Patients, Autralia

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

Link

The AMA welcomes the Government’s introduction of new regulations that require midwives … to collaborate with medical practitioners in order to provide Medicare-funded services to patients or prescribe them medications under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

AMA President, Dr Andrew Pesce, said today that the new arrangements would provide a safer higher standard of care for patients.

… “There is now a requirement for midwives … to establish collaborative arrangements with a medical practitioner in order for the service to attract a Medicare patient rebate or PBS benefit.

And that’s the problem: midwives are required to establish collaborative agreements, but obstetricians do not have to collaborate with the midwife. And there are fears that if the midwife does not work according to the obstetrician’s protocols, the agreement will be revoked. this does nothing to establish midwifery as a profession in its on right.

… “Evidence shows that patients enjoy better health outcomes when they receive coordinated, continuous, and comprehensive care that is delivered by appropriately trained health professionals,” Dr Pesce said.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Midwife scheme endorsed

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

Link

THE NORTHERN beaches health service will proceed with plans for a midwife-only maternity scheme at Mona Vale Hospital …

The new scheme will see the majority of northern beaches births take place at Manly Hospital, where a combined obstetric maternity service will operate, with about 200 births a year scheduled for Mona Vale, where midwives will now manage them all.

… the new “midwifery group practice model” was unanimously endorsed …

But Mona Vale obstetrician Dr Chester Kent said the hospital had no representatives on the council and that none of its maternity staff supported the decision.

“It seems there is nobody being included in the decision-making process who really represents the interest of local women,” he said.

Another hospital worker, who did not want to be named, said they were only told about the changes at a meeting on Tuesday and that neither Manly or Mona Vale staff supported the decision, which they found “very distressing”.

Pittwater State Liberal MP Rob Stokes said operating a midwifery group practice model at Mona Vale was not a bad idea, but it should not be used as a replacement for obstetric services.

… “It’s not good enough to put a delivering mother into an ambulance and take them down to Manly, or the North Shore.”

Northern Sydney Central Coast Health chief executive Matthew Daly, who was present at Monday night’s clinical council meeting, said improved health outcomes for mothers and babies had influenced its decision to endorse a “united obstetric service” at Manly.

It’s wonderful to see midwifery-led services expand. We have midwifery-led services in private midwifery practice, Ryde Hospital, Belmont and Wyong, to name a few. They’re a great way to maintain midwifery services and are proving very popular with women and families.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

New guidelines say vaginal birth OK after c-section

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

Link

Even if they aren’t staffed to handle emergency cesarean sections, hospitals should respect a woman’s informed choice to have a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), new guidelines say.

VBAC is known to increase the risk that the scar left in the womb from a previous cesarean will tear during labor, leading to massive bleeding that can threaten the baby’s life. That has led to previous guidelines urging caution for women who have had cesarean sections.

But recent research shows so-called uterine rupture occurs in less than one percent of women who opt for vaginal birth, and that between 60 and 80 percent of VBACs are completed successfully.

While the new guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) still say a full surgical team should be present in case an emergency cesarean is required, they now put a bigger emphasis on the woman’s decision.

“Respect for patient autonomy supports that patients should be allowed to accept increased levels of risk; however, patients should be clearly informed of such potential increase in risk and management alternatives,” they say.

“For most women with a previous cesarean delivery, a trial of labor is a safe and appropriate option,” …

… Even women who’ve had two prior cesareans might be good candidates for vaginal birth …

… Today, about nine in 10 pregnant women … end up with a repeat cesarean if they’ve already had one. By comparison about a third of all women who give birth have cesareans.

“… the cesarean rates are going up too fast,” … “There is no good evidence that newborns are better off now than they were 20 years ago.”…

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

IVF Kids May Have Higher Cancer Risk

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

Link

Children conceived using in vitro fertilization (IVF) appear to have a moderately elevated risk of cancer — although the absolute risk remains low …

Among the 26,692 children studied who were conceived by IVF between 1982 and 2005, after adjusting for year of birth, the estimated odds ratio for cancer risk was 1.42 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.87, P=0.01) compared with children who were not conceived via IVF …

… however, IVF itself may not be responsible …

The reason for the increased risk could be a higher rate of preterm birth and neonatal asphyxia among these children or because of unidentified characteristics of the women who undergo the procedure …

… While mothers who used IVF to conceive had a variety of characteristics that differed from other women, including older age and increased rates of multiple pregnancies, none of these were significantly linked with the elevated cancer risk seen in their children.

… several characteristics of the children did appear to play a role.

After adjustment for year of birth, significantly increased risk for cancer in the entire population was associated with preterm birth before week 37 (odds ratio 1.16), for birth weight of 4,500 g (9.9 lbs) or more (OR 1.21), for large-for-gestational-age birth (OR 1.34), and for low Apgar score (OR 1.33).

The only one of the factors more common among IVF children than among others in the general population was a low Apgar score …

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

C-sections: getting the balance right

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

Link

THE FIRST successful Caesarean section (CS) recorded in Ireland was performed in 1738 by Mary Donally, a midwife, on a farmer’s wife who had been in labour for 12 days. She resutured the uterus and skin, and dressed the wound with the white of an egg. Within four weeks … the woman had recovered and was able to walk a mile. The survival of the mother after Caesarean section, however, was unusual. In 1884, a review of 134 operations reported a maternal mortality of 56 per cent …

… between 1932 and 1946, … only 2,273 (1.4 per cent) Caesareans were performed and 61 (3 per cent) of these were associated with maternal death.

By the end of the 20th century Caesarean births had become much safer for the mother. In 1985, the World Health Organisation concluded: “There is no justification for any region to have CS rates higher than 10-15 per cent”. Yet, in the generation since remarkable differences in global, regional, national and hospital CS rates have evolved. In underdeveloped countries, particularly African, CS rates remain around 2-3 per cent, in part because there is often no obstetrician available to do the operation.

Maternal mortality rates in these countries remain stubbornly high due to the lack of resources. In a report from 119 countries between 1991 and 2003, only 3.4 per cent of high-income countries had a CS rate of less than 10 per cent compared with 76.3 per cent of low-income countries. The maternal mortality rate per 100,000 live births was 630 deaths in the low-income countries compared with 54 in the high- income countries.

The risk of maternal death per million births has been estimated at 17-20 for a vaginal delivery, 59 for an elective CS and 182 for an emergency CS. Mortality risks of CS are low, but they are dependant on the healthcare setting and are higher in resource-poor countries.

Rising CS rates increase foetal risks. Elective Caesarean births increase the risk of transient tachypnoea of the newborn and respiratory disease syndrome …

In developed countries, however, Caesarean birth has become so safe that rates have soared as women and their obstetricians strive to avoid the perceived risks and traumas of vaginal birth …

Similar increases have been reported in other developed countries and there is no evidence that CS rates have reached a plateau.

In many developing countries, Caesarean section rates are too low, resulting in preventable adverse outcomes for mothers and their babies. In developed countries, there are growing concerns that CS rates are too high, particularly in circumstances where there is little medical justification for the operation.

A Caesarean delivery in the current pregnancy also has long-term implications … it increases the need for either emergency or elective Caesareans for future babies. It increases the future risk of catastrophic obstetric complications such as uterine rupture or peripartum hysterectomy …

Another concern about the rising CS rates is the impact on healthcare budgets with resources becoming more limited in the face of the economic recession … costs for Caesarean delivery were twice those for spontaneous vaginal delivery … for each 1 per cent reduction in the CS rate in England, the health services would save £8.8 million annually. Avoiding a first Caesarean delivery will also reduce economic costs in the longer term by decreasing repeat Caesareans.

The main reasons for the rise in CS rates in developed countries are the safety of the procedure and the perceived risks of labour. It has been fuelled by the carpe diem mentality of modern life where women and their doctors focus on the short-term outcomes of the current pregnancy without considering the long-term consequences for a woman’s health. This short-termism is more likely in circumstances where a woman is planning to have a small family.

Policymakers … have suggested target CS rates, for example … a CS rate of 20 per cent. However, such targets, including the WHO target, may be unrealistic. The optimum CS depends on local healthcare resources and service quality, and not on national or international recommendations. There is also a danger that, in attempting to meet hospital targets a Caesarean is not done in individual cases when it should have been done. This may have serious adverse consequences clinically and subsequent high financial costs medically and legally.

Optimising CS rates … needs to start with improvements in data collection and analysis to identify why Caesarean sections are done, and whether the results in some hospitals are outside an acceptable norm …

Any financial analysis also needs to consider the medico-legal costs of poor quality care. The CS rates cannot be considered in isolation, not just from the quality of clinical practices but also from the resources and organisation that underpin service delivery …

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Collaborative Agreements

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

The Government’s $120 million national Maternity Reform Package is currently being implemented. There is still much work to do. From 1 November 2010, women will be able to claim Medicare benefits from care that is provided by eligible midwives. Women will need to ensure that their midwife is eligible, prior to engaging her services, if she wishes to claim medicare benefits.

It is still not known how much women will be able to claim through medicare and these details will not be known until closer to November 1, 2010.

Midwives have been lobbying hard around the one key sticking point of these reforms: how midwives and obstetricians will work together in defined collaborative agreements. The Maternity Services Review recommended that medicare be extended to midwives who work in collaborative agreements with obstetricians, however the definition of collaboration has only just been revealed.

The definition of a collaborative arrangement provides for four options, each requiring signed agreement from the obstetrician. No collaborative agreement = no medicare benefits for the woman.

One option is a contract of employment whereby the midwife is employed by the obstetrician. Personally, I would have suggested that this go the other way around: considering that most women have healthy pregnancies and do not require the services of an obstetrician, the midwife ought to employ the obstetrician on a sessional basis for her private clients when obstetric services are required.

Option two requires that the obstetrician refers a woman to a midwife for midwifery care. I truly cannot see this option working in the private health system. What incentive is there for the obstetrician to refer his/her patients to a midwife?

Option three requires a signed collaborative agreement between the midwife and obstetrician. But there’s a catch: no obstetrician is on call for 24/7/365. Hence, at least two obstetricians will need to sign this agreement for it to be in force 24/7/365. What should happen when one partner wishes to pull out, goes on leave, has a holiday and so on? This suddenly leaves the midwife – and all of her private clients – without an agreement, without medicare and without care.

Option four requires oodles of paperwork on the midwife’s part. I don’t mean to be negative but it would work out to be: spend one hour with the woman and one hour chasing the paperwork. Yes, there’s a *lot* of paperwork. And every time a piece of paper is forwarded to the obstetrician, the obstetrician must acknowledge receipt of this. There are at least seven points in the pregnancy where a midwife will need to photocopy and fax / post; or scan and email documents to the obstetrician and then document that the obstetrician has acknowledged receipt of these documents. A nightmare for all!!

So where are we going with all of this and what is the big picture? The big picture as I see it, is that sometime towards the end of the year, eligible midwives will have visiting / admitting rights at hospitals. Their clients will be able to claim medicare benefits for their services for the very first time, bringing down the cost of private midwifery care significantly. Women will be able to book with their private midwife of their choice, and also be admitted to hospital for birth under the care of their chosen private midwife, presumably as a private patient. If obstetric care is needed, the midwife would have ready access to a named obstetrician who could assist the woman, enhancing continuity of care to the woman. This system would provide true continuity of midwifery and obstetric care to women.

However, we have a long way to go. The collaborative agreements, as they stand, require an obstetrician’s sign off before the midwife can provide medicare-rebatable services to women. Some obstetricians, it seems, are very supportive of an employment model whereby the midwife is an employee of the obstetrician, however for the midwife who has her own successful and thriving business, this option will not be satisfactory. Much work needs to be done to explore models of care, facilitate visiting rights for midwives and protect the right of the midwife to practice as an autonomous practitioner, a specialist in natural birth.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

What is a Medicare-Eligible Midwife?

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

In order to claim Medicare benefits from care with your midwife, you will need to ensure that your midwife is Medicare Eligible. A Medicare-Eligible Midwife meets certain advanced requirements:

  • Current general registration as a midwife in Australia with no restrictions on practice;
  • Midwifery experience that constitutes the equivalent of 3 years full time post initial registration as a midwife;
  • Current competence to provide pregnancy, labour, birth and postnatal care to women and babies;
  • Successful completion of an approved professional practice review program for midwives working across the continuum of midwifery care;
  • 40 hours per year of continuing professional development relating to the continuum of midwifery care (20 hours in addition to standard requirements);
  • Formal undertaking to complete an accredited and approved program of study to develop midwives’ knowledge and skills in prescribing within 18 months.
  • Essential Birth Consulting provides a high standard of care to women and babies and is committed to becoming a Medicare Eligible Midwife. Clients of Medicare-eligible midwives are able to claim Medicare benefits for midwifery services and are able to have their midwife order and interpret tests, prescribe, supply and administer medications and access visiting rights to hospitals.

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Gold Coast birth centre: Closed at short notice; now open

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    MUM power has forced the re-opening of the Gold Coast Hospital’s Birth Centre which closed without notice on Thursday, leaving mothers-to-be out in the cold.

    The deaths of three newborn babies is believed to be behind the closure — but yesterday about 300 women took to the street to protest against it.

    Their action triggered crisis talks and last night Queensland Health backflipped, announcing the centre would re-open for the weekend and discussions on its future would resume on Monday.

    The two natural birthing suites in the centre, which is separate to the hospital’s labour ward, were closed without notice at 5pm on Thursday.

    Griffith University’s Bachelor of Midwifery convenor Dr Kerry Peart said one woman was in labour when an obstetrician came in and said the suite was closed and the woman and her midwife had to move.

    … some specialist obstetricians had raised concerns about the safety of the birth centre …

    “The birth centre is not closing and we are committed to the birth centre model … we made a decision based on clinical safety to modify that model of care while we made absolutely certain that women and babies of the Gold Coast were safe,” he said.

    … following meetings with clinicians, midwives and mothers-to-be yesterday the centre would continue to operate under the agreed model of care until at least Monday evening.

    Australian College of Midwives president Jenny Gamble … said there had been three birth centre-related cases in recent months when babies had died … outside the centre and while under further medical care.

    A midwife at the hospital … said none of the midwives’ practices had been reviewed or investigated and they wanted an explanation as to what the safety concerns were.

    “… these complications happen in any of the normal suites anyway.” …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    When and how should I start planning for a home birth?

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    I am 13 weeks and have thought about home birth with a midwife. When should I start the process, and how should I go about it?

    This is a commonly-asked question. Many women will ask me when they ought to “book in”: as soon as they find out they’re pregnant? At 12 weeks? Just before they’re due to give birth? They are also interested to know what’s involved in booking a midwife for a homebirth.

    I encourage women to make contact with me as soon as they know they’re pregnant so that preparations can begin. The relationship between the woman and midwife is central to the care that is provided, and for this relationship to build, time is needed. That’s not to say a great relationship can’t be established in a couple of weeks, but generally relationships develop of time. Hence pregnancy lasts for 9 months.

    Many women will commence their pregnancy care with one care provider and then want to change to private midwifery care or homebirth later on in the piece. This is usually not a problem and will simply require the transfer of your records and test and ultrasound reports. The only issue with transferring late in pregnancy is that I may have already committed to other clients and may therefore be unavailable to new clients. Hence it’s best to make contact as soon as you decide to engage a midwife.

    Once I am contacted by a woman, we will speak on the phone and arrange either a free first meeting or an initial consultation. An initial consultation is always attended prior to booking, so many women will skip straight to the initial consultation. Once this has been attended and you have decided you would like to proceed with a booking, a booking fee is taken which secures my services. From then on, we schedule a booking visit where we go through – in detail – your health, medical and surgical history, you’ll be provided with an information pack and a list of books that may be borrowed, we commence all the paperwork for pregnancy and birth care and information will be provided that is specific to your situation. Ongoing care is then scheduled.

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Who controls childbirth: women or doctors?

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    That I am pregnant again is an act of either incredible optimism or mind-blowing amnesia. As the sonogram technician squirts jelly over my abdomen for my 20-week checkup, I think it’s the latter. Watching this baby, who the tech tells me is a boy, I am not caught up in visions of his future; I’m caught up in visions of mine. All of a sudden, I know with a certainty I haven’t allowed myself to confront before: Somehow, I am going to have to deliver this baby.
    Obviously, you say. But my first birth was traumatic, and although my son and I emerged fine, I lost a year seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and all the depression, fear and anger it brings. I imitated mothers who seemed normal to me, cooing and tickling my son. In truth, I was a zombie, obsessing about how I had ever let what happened happen.

    What happened is this: In my 39th week, I am induced because of high blood pressure. At the hospital, I am given Pitocin, a synthetic form of the labor-inducing hormone oxytocin, and Cervidil, a vaginal insert used to dilate the cervix. Within two hours, my contractions are one minute apart. I had lasted as long as I could without an epidural because I had read that they sometimes slow dilation. That’s the last thing I need: I’m at a pathetic 2 centimeters. My doctor comes up with a solution for the pain: a syringe full of a narcotic called Stadol.

    “I have a history of anxiety,” I tell the nurse who has brought in the syringe, as I always warn any medical professional who wants to give me drugs. “Is this drug OK for me?” “It sure is,” she says.

    It is not. Within 10 seconds, I begin hallucinating. For five hours, I hallucinate that I’m on a swing that’s soaring too high, that houses are flying at my face. My husband has fallen asleep on the cot next to me, and I’m convinced that if awakened, he will turn into a monster — literally. I’m aware this notion is irrational, that these images are hallucinations. But they are terrifying. I buzz the nurse. “Sometimes that happens,” she says …

    By noon the next day, 24 hours after I had arrived, I am only 3 centimeters dilated. The new nurse, a nice lady, tells me the induction isn’t working. “Your blood pressure isn’t even high anymore,” she says. “Tell the doctor you want to go home.”

    When my OB comes in, I say, “I’d like to stop this induction, if that’s possible. I’m worn out. I hallucinated all night … I just don’t think this is working out.”

    “OK,” he says. “Let me examine you. If you’re still not dilating, we’ll talk about going home.”

    My previous dilation exams had been quick and painless, if not entirely pleasant. This one takes a long time. Suddenly, it hurts. “What are you doing?” I scream. “Why does it hurt?”

    No answer.

    “He’s not examining me,” I scream at my husband. “He’s doing something!” My husband grips my hand, frozen, unsure.

    I scream to the nurse, the nice one who had suggested I go home. “What is he doing?” She doesn’t answer me, either. I writhe under the doctor’s grasp. The pain is excruciating.

    The first sound I hear is the doctor’s directive to the nurse, in a low voice: “Get me the hook.”

    I know the hook is for breaking my water, to speed my delivery by force. I scream, “Get off of me!” He looks up at me, as if annoyed that the specimen is talking. I imagine him thinking of the cadavers he worked on in medical school, how they didn’t scream, how they let him do whatever he wanted.

    “You’re not going anywhere,” he says. He breaks my water and leaves. The nurse never looks me in the eye again.

    Eleven more futile hours of labor later, I am exhausted and terrified when the doctor comes in and claps his hands together. “Time for a C-section,” he says. I consider not signing the consent form, ripping off these tubes and monitors, and running. But the epidural I’d finally gotten won’t allow me to stand up.

    It’s nearly midnight when I hear a cry. My first emotion is surprise; I had almost forgotten I was there to have a baby.

    I was desperate to find someone who could tell me what had happened to me was normal. To say, “You hallucinated? Oh, me, too.” Or “My doctor broke my water when I wasn’t looking. Isn’t that the worst?” Nothing …

    Now, I’d never loved my doctor … I’d found him patronizing — “Normal!” he’d shout at me, when I asked a question — I thought his assuredness might be a good antidote to my anxiousness. It seemed to work, until it didn’t.

    … I also didn’t have a birth plan … Sure, I had a plan for the birth: Have a baby using whatever breathing method I’d learned in the hospital’s birth-preparedness class, maybe get an epidural. But I didn’t have the piece of paper that so many of my friends have brought to the hospital with them … in my opinion, the very act of creating such a contract was to ignore what labor is: something unpredictable that you are in no way qualified to dictate.

    … people who hear my story ask … Did I consider a home birth? A midwife instead of an obstetrician? … The answer is no. I am not holistically minded. My philosophy was simple: Everyone I know has been born. It can’t be that complicated.

    The women who ask me about my preparations for my first son’s birth — who imply with these questions that I could have prevented what happened to me if I’d been more diligent — are part of an informal movement of women who are trying to “take back” their birth — take it back from the hospital, the insurers and anyone else who thinks he can call the shots.

    But hospitals aren’t so interested in giving women back their birth … stipulations dealing with labor and delivery (“I want only one medical professional in the room at a time”) garner barely a glance. University OB/GYN in Provo, Utah, even has a sign that reads, “…we will not participate in: a ‘Birth Contract’, a Doulah [sic] Assisted, or a Bradley Method delivery. For those patients who are interested in such methods, please notify the nurse so we may arrange transfer of your care.”

    … This question of whether I could have prevented my trauma has lingered in my mind since that day; now that I am pregnant again, it has become deafening. I have a chance to do it all over. Would I benefit from thinking more holistically? Should I bother taking back my birth?

    During my pregnancies, friends gave me two books; their spines are still barely cracked. The first is called “Ina May’s Guide to Childbirth.” … The other book is “Your Best Birth” by Ricki Lake and Abby Epstein; it’s an offshoot of their 2008 documentary, “The Business of Being Born.” Their urgent message is that women who want to deliver vaginally can do so if no one intervenes. Instead, doctors and hospitals are doing all they can to “help” the laboring woman along … and failing. Inductions like mine, epidurals given early in labor, continuous fetal-heart monitoring — all of them have been associated with a higher risk for cesarean section. The result is an epidemic — 32 percent of U.S. births were C-sections at last count, the highest rate in our history. Individual surgeries may be medically necessary, but as a matter of public health, the best outcomes for mothers and babies come with a rate of no more than 15 percent, according to the World Health Organization.

    Sam … was five months pregnant when watching “The Business of Being Born” convinced her that hospitals could be dangerous and a home birth would be more meaningful. She and her husband found a midwife … and spent the rest of the pregnancy preparing.

    After 24 hours of labor, Sam’s contractions were two or three minutes apart, yet when her midwife examined her, she was only 3 centimeters dilated. The midwife gently told her that she was nowhere close to delivering, despite her contractions, exhaustion and pain. Sam asked to be taken to the hospital.

    The change of scenery did her good. “At that point, I had been in labor for 40 hours,” she says. “I entered the relaxed zone. The epidural took the edge off … It was a sacred space.”

    After her son’s delivery, Sam passed out, having lost 50 percent of her blood volume in a postpartum hemorrhage. Needless to say, she was relieved that she was in a place where blood transfusions were readily available … she believes she will want midwife care at a hospital next time.

    … Bialik’s first birth didn’t go the way she wanted. After three days of labor at home, she stalled at 9 centimeters, one short of the goal. Her midwife suggested they go to the hospital, where after a natural childbirth, Bialik’s son spent four days in the neonatal intensive-care unit. “My son was born with a low temperature and low blood sugar, which isn’t unusual in light of the fact that I had gestational diabetes,” she explains. “I understand doctors need to err on the side of caution, but there was nothing wrong with my child. All of our plans for bed sharing, nursing on demand, bathing him — gone.”

    The experience was scarring. “I felt a sense of failure that I had to call my parents from the hospital,” Bialik continues. “Yes, I know vaginal birth in the hospital is the next best thing to a home birth.” …

    I point out that natural childbirth in the hospital — her “failure” — was my best-case scenario. But I also understand when she says, “Everyone is allowed her own sense of loss.” She realized her vision when her second son was born at home.

    The second time around
    I don’t consider myself a candidate for a home birth. The risk of uterine rupture from an attempt at vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) makes it unthinkable … I’m also not really interested in a home birth … But I’m also not interested in another C-section …

    So I’d like to attempt a VBAC, but I know that it doesn’t always succeed. I have a new doctor — the 10th I interviewed following my son’s birth — at a new hospital, and he has agreed to help me try. But my primary goal is more modest: not to be retraumatized. Even now, my heart pounds at the sight of hospital receiving blankets, the antiseptic smell of the maternity ward.

    The common thread in Bialik’s and Sam’s stories that impressed me was how supported and safe they felt with their midwife …

    In an e-mail Bialik sends after our meeting, she goes back to my idea that some women weren’t meant to have babies the holistic way. “There are those among us who believe that if the baby can’t survive a home labor, it is OK for it to pass peacefully,” she writes. “I do not subscribe to this, but I know that some feel that … if a baby cannot make it through birth, it is not favored evolutionarily.”

    I think about my appendectomy, back in 2003. Had I not made it to the hospital in time, I would be dead. What would it be like to refuse medical intervention? I’d call my family, say my good-byes. “I’m sorry,” I’d say. “But I’m not evolutionarily favored. It’s time for me to go.”

    This attitude, that everything was better back when there were no doctors, seems strange to me. C-sections, although certainly done too often, can save lives. Orthodox Jews still say the same prayer after childbirth that those who have been in near-death experiences say — and with good reason. A birth that leaves mother and child healthy may be commonplace, but it’s also a miracle every time.

    As the weeks pass and my belly grows, I can’t stop thinking about Sam. Her pregnancy was a sacred time, and she had truly looked forward to labor. Is that what I should try for — a meaningful birth, as well as an untraumatic one? At what point had people like Sam and me learned to feel entitled to a meaningful birth?

    “I think that birth should be a beautiful experience,” says obstetrician Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D. She’s the vice chair of women’s health care quality and performance improvement at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in L.A. “It should be exactly the way you want it, and doctors should intervene only to preserve the health or life of you or your baby.”

    Naturally, one would assume that Dr. Gregory advocates birth plans. When I ask her this, she laughs. “We always say, ‘If you show up with a birth plan, just get the C-section room ready,’” she says. “You get everything on that list that you don’t want. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Dr. Gregory led an unpublished study that compared women who took traditional hospital birth classes with those who employed Bradley-like training and a birth plan. The birth-plan group trended toward a higher C-section rate and more interventions. “There’s a certain personality type that tends to be more anxious. Maybe the anxiety hormones themselves put them at risk,” Dr. Gregory theorizes. “It seems that being open and honest and choosing the right doctor is probably a better option than writing everything down. Walking in with this list appears to set up an antagonistic relationship.” …

    … In the past three weeks, I’ve had the same dream. I’m in a field (I believe at Ina May Gaskin’s Farm), and women in braids are dancing around me as my baby is born, painlessly, joyously. As I reach down, I notice my C-section scar is gone.

    I wake up upset. Am I truly under the impression, subconscious though it may be, that taking back this birth will undo the damage of the last one?

    “I don’t understand this phrase ‘take back your birth,’” nurse-midwife Pam England, creator of “Birthing From Within,” … tells me. “Who took it? What would a woman tell herself it meant about her if she failed to meet the criteria she made up for ‘taking back’ her birth? I am concerned that this phrase, meant to generate action and a feeling of empowerment, may actually be generated by or feeding the victim part of her.”

    England is right: Having a childbirth that I deem successful this time will not change what I haven’t overcome from the first. I try to find a way to make what my doctor and nurses did to me OK, but my mind rebels. I feel loss — no, theft — of an opportunity for me to have a baby the way so many other women do: a carefree pregnancy, a labor that could still go any way.

    Maybe I’m not so different from the women I spoke with, after all. Bialik had a successful natural childbirth but felt like a failure because it was in the hospital. Women who had a C-section also used words like failure. Perhaps part of the problem is that our generation of women is so ambitious, so driven, that we don’t know how to do anything without quantifying it as a success or failure.

    According to Dr. Gregory, women are now requesting a C-section for their first birth, even without indication. “A lot of people are uncomfortable with the unknown,” she says. Plenty of people are wary of C-sections by choice, from holistic moms to obstetricians. But isn’t this, too, taking back your birth? Refusing to be out of control seems to me the epitome of taking it back. You don’t have to have an unattended birth in the woods to be considered a real woman.

    Deciding that you can’t control the uncontrollable — and committing to that decision when you are, in fact, out of control — is also taking back your birth. It’s what your grandmothers did. It’s what their grandmothers did.

    With this, I realize that I have already taken back my birth, but not as part of any movement. I have stopped judging women who take extra precautions as defensive and started to understand that everyone has to find her way.

    I don’t know how this story ends. I’m still not convinced my body was made to deliver vaginally. But here’s what I do know: I will insist on kindness. I will insist on care. And I hope I will be open to being treated kindly. It’s harder than it seems.

    I have another hope, too. I hope there will be a moment when … I will look down at my baby — whether he is handed to me on my belly or from behind a curtain as my body is sewn shut — and I will remember what I’ve known from the beginning, when I looked down at that plus sign and we were alone together for the first time. Before these questions wrapped around my neck, choking me for answers. I will know that I am his mother and he is my son. And maybe, in that moment, I will be ready to say that the only success and failure is the outcome of the birth, that we are healthy …

    I’m concerned that birth is defined in terms of success and failure, and that after this author’s journey, she has determined that health is the only important factor. In this day and age, it is entirely possible to have a safe VBAC – a safe birth experience as well as a satisfying one. The vast majority of women who choose VBAC will be successful provided that they choose the right care provider.

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Study Measures Gestational Diabetes Risk

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    Pregnant women who develop gestational diabetes during their first pregnancy are at increased risk for developing this condition in their second or third pregnancies …

    … gestational diabetes … affects about 4% of all pregnancies, according to the American Diabetes Association.

    In the new study of 65,132 pregnant women, those who had gestational diabetes during their first pregnancy had a 13.2-fold increased risk of developing gestational diabetes in their second pregnancy.

    Those who had gestational diabetes in their first pregnancy but not their second had a 6.3-fold increased risk for developing this condition during their third pregnancy, and those women who had gestational diabetes in their first and second pregnancies had close to a 26-fold increased risk for developing gestational diabetes in their third pregnancy, the study showed …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Dannii showed home birth safe

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    The obstetricians are determined to use Dannii’s birth as “proof” that homebirth is inherently risky. Just as their assertion is untrue, so is the assertion of the title of this article that states that “Dannii showed home birth safe”.

    What Dannii’s birth highlighted is several issues:
    - The safety of birth with a midwife
    - The importance of good back-up plans
    - The need for mental and emotional preparation (as best a possible) for all eventualities (often lacking in hospital birth)
    - The need for acceptance in the medical community of midwifery and homebirth. These are options that increasing numbers of women are choosing.

    Link

    A YACKANDANDAH mother says the fact Dannii Minogue abandoned her home birth to have her baby at hospital signifies the safety of the practice rather than its dangers.

    … obstetrician Pieter Mourik said … the … drama … should bring home the dangers of home births.

    I’m not clear how a timely transfer brings home the danger of homebirth. If we’re realistic, a percentage of homebirth plans will change to hospital at some stage of the pregnancy, labour or shortly after the birth. This is called accessing the most appropriate level of care to meet the woman’s needs. Hospital birth is an unnecessary intervention in a healthy woman’s pregnancy. Homebirth delivers safer outcomes and greater satisfaction and breastfeeding rates. The Government ought to be finding ways of promoting it as a public health issue. There are no other healthy life processes that we routinely go to hospital for. We go to hospital or a doctor if we have a problem with a healthy life process (digestion, elimination, menstruation etc) but not in the absense of pathology.

    … Donna Jones, who had her second child at home, said it showed home birth participants and their midwives were prepared for the risk.

    “The fact that she has transferred to hospital to me suggests that she had a really great midwife who said ‘you know what, it’s time to go and get some help’,” Mrs Jones said.

    “To me a home birth transferred to a hospital is not a failure or a disaster.

    “It’s just that obviously for whatever reason, it couldn’t happen at home, so the midwife has said let’s go to the hospital we’ve already booked into and get the medical help you require.”

    Mrs Jones said the attraction for her to home births was to avoid the adrenalin that affected the natural process.

    “The hormonal process is affected by adrenalin which is caused by fear and at hospitals you have doctors and midwives you mightn’t know, it’s a strange environment, you have bright lights — they’re all the sorts of things that leads to everything going wrong in deliveries,” she said.

    “I see that as a greater risk than having a home birth.

    “At home, you’ve got a midwife who you have been preparing with for months.

    “I was confident in my body’s ability to give birth if I was left alone to get along with it.”

    … “There needs to be more choices for people when it comes to birthing,” …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Home births a lonelier option due to midwife insurance risk

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    HOME birth midwives have been left out of the federal government’s maternity care changes in an omission experts believe will lead to an increase in the potentially dangerous practice of unassisted childbirth.

    The changes … require midwives to have indemnity insurance to practise … but private midwives are not covered for home deliveries.

    Home birth is subject to a two-year exemption period from the … insurance requirements and maternity advocates are calling on the federal government to close the gap or risk a rise in free birthing …

    ”Unless we can reach a solution, there will be a whole lot of midwives who will cease to practise,” Australian College of Midwives vice-president Hannah Dahlen said.

    ”It means women will be left with two options: they can give birth in a hospital or give birth alone, unsupported. We know the free birth movement is growing in Australia … where women’s birth choices have become increasingly limited. Free birth is growing in countries where home birth has become marginalised.”

    Australian College of Midwives executive officer Barbara Vernon said free birthing was dangerous and often the last resort for women who could not find a midwife to attend a planned home birth.

    ”Giving birth unassisted is not recommended, and it’s not a safe choice for a woman to make.”

    It is a sign that existing maternity services are failing to meet a woman’s needs if they are choosing an unassisted birth.

    ”Women who choose an unassisted birth have often had a negative experience the first time around and find they can’t access a midwife in their area for a planned home birth.

    ”We need to ensure that we don’t traumatise our first-time mothers and turn them into refugees from maternity services.”

    The number of home births is increasing in NSW.

    Last year 599 babies were born at home, up almost 25 per cent since 1996 … babies born at home represented 0.6 per cent of all births in NSW last year.

    Homebirth Australia secretary Justine Caines said home birth would probably be more popular if it was an easier option. There are few publicly funded home birth services available. Most women pay for a private midwife, who is not covered by Medicare …

    … A study last year from the Netherlands … showed that for low-risk women, a home birth was no more dangerous than a hospital delivery …

    … Tilly Michell, 28, a Leichhardt artist who delivered her first baby in her bathroom on Wednesday morning, described the planned home birth as a fantastic experience.

    Demand for homebirth is growing. More and more women are discovering homebirth to provide the nurturing, one-to-one care from a known midwife that is so important to women in pregnancy and birth. The majority of women – when asked what sort of birth they want to have – will reply that they want a natural birth. With the internet so freely availably, the speed of information transfer is so rapid that women are fast realising that homebirth is the best way of maximising the possibility of natural birth with the midwife of their choice.

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Impossible midwives: private midwifery care

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    I am a midwife who wants to continue to provide private midwifery care. The systems and protection mechanisms that came into effect on July 1 are letting down midwives and women …

    The experienced midwife has watched the deteriorating standards of care in hospitals. Consumers and midwives asked the politicians and the various health authorities for change, but what have we ended up with? A confusing set of rules that reduce women’s birthing choices and rights to privacy.

    I have read the two professional indemnity insurance policies available for private midwives … I now have to scratch a plan of care that by virtue is demonstrating the “collaboration of care”, or signing over a woman’s right to privacy to a doctor or a hospital.

    As for collaboration, the definition of this term cannot be agreed by legislators, health professionals or bureaucrats. I will pay a minimum of $5000 for the four to five private clients a year. Since July 1, if I do not have profession indemnity I will not be meeting the professional standards of the new national Nurses Midwives Registration Board, and I could be disciplined, de-registered or fined.

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Home birth should be considered a safe option for pregnant women

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    This article was written in response to the publicity about the latest – and largest – homebirth study that revealed, by flawed measures, an increased mortality rate for home-born babies.

    Link

    Your article, in reporting the findings of a recent study that found home birth “carries three times the risk that her baby will die”, may have unwittingly contributed to future mothers’ unwarranted fears …

    Articles like this are worrying to read, particularly for pregnant women who may have been thinking they would like to have a home birth.

    For a healthy woman with a straightforward, low-risk pregnancy, home birth is a safe option. The NCT’s own detailed review of home birth concludes that there is no evidence that, for women with a low risk of complications, the likelihood of a baby dying during or shortly after labour is any higher if they plan for a home birth than if they plan for a hospital birth.

    The safety of home birth is a contested issue. You stated that the review “considered a total of 342,056 planned home births and 207,551 planned hospital births”. However, careful reading of the actual numbers reveals that the controversial evidence on “a near tripling of the neonatal mortality rate among infants” was based on just 15,633 planned home births, a number more than 20 times smaller. So it may have been a “big study in an influential medical journal”, as you reported, but the outcome all the attention was based on was from a small sub-sample. These smaller numbers alone make the study’s findings less reliable. But this study has a lot more limitations.

    Women choose home births for varying reasons: they may want to be in their own space, getting comfort from their own familiar surroundings; they may want calm and privacy for their birth or access to a birth pool, or to minimise the risk of medical intervention. Some may have had a bad experience in hospital with a previous birth.

    It is positive that you spoke to the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians, who confirmed … that “mothers should not be alarmed about home birth as long as there is a transfer mechanism” in case of difficulty.

    Luckily, the opportunity for home births is increasing in the UK, albeit slowly. In 2006, 39% of women said this had been discussed as an option at the start of their pregnancy, compared with 18% in 1995.

    The home birth rate for the UK as a whole currently stands at 2.7% – but in Wales, where the government set a target for home birth, some counties have a rate of 8% or 9%.

    Home birth should be considered a mainstream option … and offered as a regular choice for pregnant women … alongside birth centre care and care in a hospital maternity unit …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    No compromise in sight on maternity care

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    I was interested to read about the results of a study I recently particiupated in:

    Link

    Doctors and midwives are poles apart and “unwilling to compromise” when it comes to collaboration in maternity care, new research suggests.

    The survey of 460 midwives, GP obstetricians and obstetricians found that over half of doctors thought they should have the final say in maternity care but only 4% of midwives agreed.

    In contrast, over 90% of midwives thought they should be the final decision maker, but only 30% of doctors agreed with this, according to the survey …

    “The results showed while there was a widespread [agreement] with the definition of collaboration, there were significant differences in the way this definition translated into practice,” …

    Both groups indicated that they thought the current system did not support collaboration between doctors and midwives. Nearly all doctors respected midwives, but this was not reciprocal, with only 75% of midwives saying they respected doctors.

    Meanwhile, the NHMRC has been forced to act as an intermediary between the RANZCOG and the College of Midwives in an ongoing dispute over referral guidelines …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Midwives gain greater autonomy

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    When Sigrid Chapman gave birth last month … she turned to a midwife instead of an obstetrician to handle the delivery, a choice being made by more women.

    Although nurse-midwives attend to a small portion of births in the United States, demand for their services has increased almost every year …

    Now, midwives in New York State see the potential for additional growth. They won a major battle last week to work more independently after the Legislature repealed a requirement for written agreements with doctors to deliver babies.

    The change … could increase the availability of midwives to women … who opted for midwifery because of its focus on natural childbirth.

    “My obstetrician wanted to do a repeat Caesarean section, and the midwife was less skeptical and more encouraging about doing what I wanted,” said Chapman.

    Midwives work with obstetricians … But … the professions practice with different philosophies.

    Midwives specialize in assisting through low-risk pregnancies and helping women who want natural births with minimal technological intervention. Obstetricians tend more toward active management of deliveries to anticipate and prevent potential problems.

    The written agreements spelled out the working arrangement between doctors and the 1,300 licensed midwives in the state.

    Midwives contended the agreements were unnecessary because midwives have a professional and ethical obligation to consult with obstetricians with or without a written practice agreement, particularly when a pregnant woman encounters problems and needs the expertise of a physician.

    Midwives argued that physicians … refused to sign agreements, preventing them from delivering babies. They noted that elimination of the agreements doesn’t change the scope of their practice — what it is they are allowed to do professionally as midwives.

    We recently had the same situation in Australia, with insurance requiring a signed collaborative agreement with an obstetrician. The only catch was that obstetricians refused to sign such agreements. We are now required to submit a care plan for every woman in our care.

    “The bill makes it easier to practice, and for patients, it removes a barrier to access us,” said Laura Sheparis, president of the New York State Association of Licensed Midwives.

    … The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made the legislation a patient safety issue, arguing that the agreements ensure an OB-GYN will be contacted immediately if a midwife is faced with a high-risk birth. After passage of the bill in the Legislature, the organization stated that patient safety will continue to exist in midwife-attended births in hospitals but not for home births.

    “The agreements are a safety net in case something goes wrong at the end of labor,” said Donna Montalto, executive director of the college’s New York State section. “If there’s no doctor supervision, midwives shouldn’t be doing obstetrics.”

    It must be said that midwives do not practice obstetrics. Only obstetricians do that. Midwives practice midwifery which is a separate and distinct profession to obstetrics. And nursing. And physiotherapy. And dietetics. Midwifery is a profession in its own right.

    Dr. Mark Weissman, a Buffalo OB-GYN, said he supports midwifery and believes most midwives will continue to collaborate with physicians, but he worries that the relationship will be unregulated with the elimination of the agreements.

    “The delivery of a baby should be a shared responsibility. Without the agreement, midwives will be able to perform home births and create their own birth centers,” said Weissman, chairman of the college’s Buffalo-area section.

    Shock horror! Midwives running birth centres! What is the world coming to?!?!

    For midwives, the written agreements come across as an unneeded obstacle to providing services that they see as increasingly relevant to pregnant women, especially in efforts to help avoid Caesarean sections. “We have a pretty good track record of achieving natural births,” …

    … the report lends support to midwifery. She cited its conclusion that choosing a midwife will likely decrease the chance of an unnecessary Caesarean since the likelihood that one will be needed is generally less with midwives than with obstetricians.

    With obstetricians more inclined to perform a Caesarean, some women worry about losing control of their delivery.
    Chapman, a neonatal nurse … received a Caesarean for her first birth in 2008, but she found it difficult to recover from what turned out to be a physically and emotionally wrenching process for her.

    “It was very hard on my body,” she said. “When I got pregnant again, I wanted the delivery on my terms. I wanted to do it on my own and feel like a real woman.”

    Her second baby was larger than average, like her first, and the obstetrician worried that a normal birth could cause a uterine rupture, particularly with the previous Caesarean.

    “When I asked her about doing a vaginal birth, she looked at me as though I was crazy,” said Chapman.
    She sought out a midwife anyway … and liked that her desire for a vaginal birth was treated with encouragement rather than skepticism.

    The baby was born naturally … Mom was thrilled with the way it went. ” … the midwives made me believe I could do it instead of leaving me with the feeling that I would have to fight for it.”

    The situation can be likened to GPs referring their patients to specialists when the need arises. Do GPs have practice agreements with cardiologists, rehab specialists, endocrinologists, paediatricians, neurologists, haematologists, oncologists, gynaecologists, psychiatrists etc? Or do they simply consult and refer according to best practice, as required by their professional body?

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Doctors need to inform patients of risks without fueling fears

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    I graduated from medical school 10 years ago, and since then I have had precious few opportunities to be a patient myself. At 36 years old I have been blessed with good health, and fortunately that has not changed just yet.

    So when I recently learned that my wife is pregnant … I did not anticipate that accompanying her to obstetrical appointments would change my understanding of the doctor-patient relationship in a profound way.

    The pregnancy has been healthy … We have been diligent–my wife faithfully takes her prenatal vitamins, exercises and watches what she eats, and we established a relationship with an excellent obstetrician right away to monitor the pregnancy.

    However, due to the fact that my wife celebrated her 35th birthday last week … we were encouraged by our well-meaning obstetrician to see a perinatologist as well.

    Perinatologists are also known as maternal-fetal medicine specialists, and are sometimes more aptly referred to as “high-risk obstetricians.”

    These specialists care for pregnant patients with complicated pregnancies–gestational diabetes, unborn children with congenital defects, and other chronic health problems that women may have prior to pregnancy or may develop during pregnancy.

    “But wait ” I can hear the average reader’s double-take: I thought your wife and the pregnancy were healthy? Why see a high-risk doctor? It turns out that it’s all about how to evaluate risk.

    FEAR FACTOR
    The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has long held the position that once a woman passes the magical age of 35, she should be considered of “advanced maternal age” …

    Most of this arbitrary distinction comes from the risk of having a child with Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21 … [and] other rare chromosomal and congenital defects …

    Our first appointment with the perinatologist could have been renamed “Fear Factor–Pregnancy Edition.” We first met with genetic counselors. These well-meaning master’s-degree-level health professionals have the job of counseling parents about their risk of having a child with some genetic defect.

    During this session, I was wearing many hats–doctor, columnist–but most importantly, concerned husband and expecting father.

    While the counselors presented chart after chart detailing the myriad genetic defects our child could (might, maybe, perhaps) have, my wife’s smile morphed into a furrowed brow filled with tension and concern. We were offered genetic testing–something I will get back to later.

    Upon leaving the appointment, I found my role was to help my wife–a teacher–understand how to think about the risk that had just been communicated to us.

    We have a 1-in-400 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome. Another way to communicate this risk is to say that for every 400 women who are 35 years old and who become pregnant, 399 of them will have a baby without Down syndrome. Sounds a little different, right?

    Statisticians have computed that each of us in America has a 1-in-83 chance of dying in a car accident over the course of a lifetime. Yet we drive every day, and we are not in constant fear of a fatal crash (though a little fear would be nice for those who text-message while driving, no?).

    Inherently, we have a great deal of difficulty in understanding risk. Emotions often trump rational analysis, leading to overestimation of risk–which directly leads to unnecessary biopsies, procedures, tests and medications.

    COMMUNICATING RISK
    It is the role of the physician to do his or her best to communicate risk to a patient. But studies over the years have demonstrated that doctors are not very good at communicating risk, and patients hear different take-home messages even when presented with the same words.

    Out of a desire to advise patients of potential risks, physicians often scare patients instead …
    Since I am an internist, I have a different set of common conditions about which to counsel patients, and I find the need to constantly improve how I communicate risk. Should my 80-year-old patient with a mildly elevated PSA get a prostate biopsy? Should a 35-year-old with chest pain have a cardiac stress test? Should a 40-year-old woman have a mammogram to screen for breast cancer?

    I have a newly strengthened appreciation of the need to properly, carefully communicate risk to my patients–and to talk about that risk in the context of the patient’s individual value system. Each patient may have a different comfort level when it comes to taking on risk and uncertainty in his or her life.

    UNNECESSARY DISCUSSION
    In retrospect, we should never have agreed to see the perinatologist.
    At the very beginning of the pregnancy, my wife and I thought deeply about our values and decided that we would never consider an elective abortion if our child were found to have any condition, including Down syndrome.

    With that upfront decision, there would be no purpose in genetic screening tests, as they would not affect our choice to have our baby. That’s why we declined the offer of genetic testing …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Review of homebirth study

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    A new study by U.S. researchers questions the safety of giving birth at home, suggesting that more babies die during home births than during hospital deliveries. But Canadian researchers, whose data were extracted and used in the study, say that conclusion is deeply flawed.

    The meta-analysis of 15 studies … found that giving birth at home tripled the risk of neonatal death.

    [But] … that conclusion is “sensationalist” and based on data that are in some cases decades old, on very small samples and in some cases incomplete.

    In many cases … women included in the studies may not have planned to give birth at home. They may not have been attended by a properly trained midwife. And much of the data used were retrospectively, gathered using birth records, which may not include enough information.

    Dr. Janssen’s most recent research … found no difference in outcomes between planned hospital births and planned home births. Similar results were found in an Ontario study.

    The question of whether there’s a higher risk of a baby dying during a planned home birth with a regulated midwife has been answered in Canada … “The question has not been answered in the United States.”

    In the new meta-analysis, researchers looked at a total of 342,056 home births and 207,551 hospital births in Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain, Australia, Switzerland and Sweden.

    While home births were associated with fewer complications for mothers … their babies didn’t fare as well … the mortality rate appeared higher.

    Canadian researchers say only the Canadian and Dutch data were as rigorous as they should be …

    In Canada and the Netherlands, there are strict requirements for homebirth, right down to what equipment the midwife carries to a birth, the education standards of the midwife, the linking in with hospital services as a back-up, the assessment of suitability for homebirth and the acceptance of the autonomous and respected role of the midwife by the medical community.

    a href=”http://www.essentialbirthconsulting.com.au/about-melissa-maimann.html”>Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Homebirth under scrutiny

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link and another link from the SMH

    Women who plan home births recover more rapidly from childbirth, but there is a higher risk of their child dying, an international study suggests.

    US analysis of more than 500,000 births in North America and Europe found death rates for babies in planned home births were double that of those in planned hospital births.

    But the risk was still low, at 0.2%.

    UK doctors said the evidence needed to be taken into account, but a midwives’ body questioned its relevance.
    The research … examined studies on the relative safety of planned home and hospital births from around the world.
    Researchers looked at data from nearly 350,000 planned home births and more than 200,000 planned hospital deliveries.
    … it looked at where the woman had planned to give birth, rather than the actual birthplace.

    The researchers argued that the safety of home births may have previously been overplayed by the fact that when there are complications and a woman is rushed to hospital, any adverse outcome is recorded as a hospital birth.

    They described their findings of a three-fold increase in mortality rates among those planning home birth as “striking”, because it is often those with the lowest risk of complications who do not need to deliver in hospital.

    When deaths occurred among the home birth group, they were overwhelmingly attributed to respiratory problems during birth and failed attempts at rescusitation.

    Overall these problems have been decreasing in recent decades, which is thought to be down to greater medical intervention, including more liberal use of ultrasound, electronic fetal heart monitoring, the induction of labour and Caesarean delivery.

    The numbers of homebirths are still very low, even in the UK, making meaningful and concrete conclusions about the results difficult

    … the lack of medical intervention may explain why the mothers who planned a home birth tended to end up with fewer tears or lacerations, fewer cases of postpartum haemorrhage and fewer infections.

    … “Women choosing home birth, particularly low-risk individuals who had given birth previously, are in large part successful in achieving their goal of delivering with less morbidity and medical intervention than experienced during hospital-based childbirth,” …

    “Of significant concern, these apparent benefits are associated with a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate overall and a near tripling among infants born without congenital defects.”

    In the UK, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the fact that planned home births resulted in fewer interventions for the mother was something which specialists were already aware of.

    “The finding that the consequences for the baby are more severe needs to be carefully considered by women, policy makers and care providers,” said its president, Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran.

    “Certainly, the move towards offering women a choice in their place of birth in the UK needs to be weighed against such evidence.”

    But, he added, with a robust selection system which ensured high-risk pregnancies were excluded from homebirths and by making sure all midwives providing the services had good resuscitation skills, risks to the baby could be reduced.

    “With the above systems in place and provided women receive one-to-one midwifery care, planned home births for low-risk women are a viable option,” said Prof Arulkumaran.

    “However, birth can be unpredictable and these women should also have quick access to obstetric care if and when an emergency occurs.”

    Mervi Jokinen of the Royal College of Midwives, said the study was interesing, but questioned the validity of its findings for the UK.

    “Comparison of the results is difficult because the study’s authors are working with data collected differently in many countries.

    “Here we have services delivered by midwives who are skilled and experienced at home births and resuscitating newborns.
    “This is perhaps in contrast to many of the other countries this research covers.”

    … “NCT’s own detailed review of home birth concluded that, although the quality of comparative evidence on safety of home birth is poor, there is no evidence that for women with a low risk of complications the likelihood of a baby dying during or shortly after labour is any higher if they plan for a home birth compared with planning a hospital birth.”

    It’s always important to compare like with like when doing research. Although this study was large, an even larger study from the Netherlands would be a more appropriate study from which to draw conclusions about homebirth. This is a better study because it compared homebirths within the same country and used the same criteria for homebirth. The study referred to in this article does not detail whether all the midwives adhered to the same criteria for homebirth suitability, or the training and ongoing education of the midwives. Were all the midwives university-educated? There are several types of midwives in the US and each type of midwife has a different level of training. Countries such as the UK, The Netherlands and Australia have standard requirements for registration as a midwife; this is not the case in other countries.

    There was a comment that the study contained small numbers for homebirth. Whenever small numbers are measured in a small sample size, the rate of an adverse outcome occurring (such as baby deaths) will always be unreliable. Hence, the Netherlands study would be a more reliable study from which to draw conclusions. We can’t draw any significant conclusions from the increase in death rates, however the conclusions: educational updates on neonatal resuscitation, proximity to hospital and readiness to transfer when indicated and good selection processes for homebirth, are essential for safety in any country. On reading the full study, it would also appear that about 25% of the births occurred without a midwife’s presence.

    The SMH article pointed to additional risks for first time mums, stating that firsttime Mums faced a 1 in 3 chance of transfer, whereas the rate of transfer was 1 in 10 for second time Mums. I don’t believe that this is a reason for first-time Mums to avoid planning a homebirth. A successful homebirth sets a woman up for being low risk for her subsequent births, and because rates of intervention are lower for homebirth – particularly caesarean – this is an important deciding factor for choosing homebirth. Also, women who plan homebirths usually feel extremely satisfied with their pregnancy and birth experience. However, given the higher transfer rate for first time Mums, it is important that midwives present an accurate picture when promoting homebirth so that women understand that there is a 1 in 3 chance of moving to hospital. Even in this situation, women should expect that their chosen midwife will remain by their side.

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    Focus on waterbirth

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    NSW’s runaway caesarean birth rate is set to be reined in by one-third under an ambitious five-year plan to normalise the process of giving birth and reduce unnecessary intervention in public hospitals.

    The proportion of surgical births should be reduced to 20 per cent by 2015, from 30 per cent now, and first-time mothers would be attended by the same midwife throughout labour.

    The option of labouring in water, although not necessarily water birth, would be offered universally under the mandatory policy.

    It’s a wonderful idea to introduce policies around use of water in labour, but not necessarily waterbirth. Most units don’t permit labouring in water, either due to lack of baths / pools or because the policies do not support it. Waterbirth challenges some doctors and even some midwives; promoting the use of water in labour is a fantastic starting point and from that, let’s hope waterbirth becomes more of a standard option in delivery suites. This move also complements the re-intruduction of private midwives back into hospital delivery suites with visiting rights.

    The policy, the first of its type in Australia, is modelled on a 2005 British one credited with starting to reverse that country’s escalating caesarean rate.

    The Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbutt, said the directive was ”designed to support women to have a birth that is as free as possible from invasive medical intervention, while also recognising that labour occurs across a wide spectrum … The safety of mother and child are, of course, paramount.”

    The president of the Australian College of Midwives, Hannah Dahlen, said: ”For the last 15 to 20 years [birth interventions] have just gone up and up and up. At some point we have to start coming down again. The policy says, ‘Let’s stop, let’s regroup and try to get a balance.’ ”

    She emphasised it would remain ”the safest option for some women to have a caesarean section, and women should not feel lesser because they had to have an intervention”.

    Only about 13 per cent of women now achieved a vaginal birth after a caesarean, while up to 80 per cent could do so if properly supported. The NSW targets specify a 30 per cent rate by 2012 and 50 per cent by 2015.

    ”It all depends on how women are supported and how the facility as a whole supports it,” said Associate Professor Dahlen, a member of the committee that drew up the plan.

    It always interests mt that VBAC rates vary so much. 80-90% with private midwives and as low as 1% with private obstetricians. Yes, it’s defintely about the level of support that a woman receives.

    Ted Weaver, the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, applauded the NSW policy to have a single midwife attend first-time mothers, but said this would require a shake-up of workplace rules.

    Dr Weaver said the appropriate caesarean rate was about 25 per cent of all births, because the current generation of women represented ”an older population, a fatter population, and a lot of first-time mothers”, Factors which raised their risk.

    Michael Chapman, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George Hospital, said the policy would require more senior doctors, who had the expertise to continue with a vaginal birth when manageable complications arose …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

    World Health Organisation drops its caesarean rate figure

    Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email Melissa Maimann or call 0400 418 448.

    Link

    The World Health Organization … had previously advised that no more than 10 to 15% of babies be delivered by section …But now the WHO states that “there is no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage” and stresses that “what matters most is that all women who need Caesarean sections receive them”.

    Yet in the NHS, doctors, hospitals and midwives have been under pressure to persuade women to give birth naturally. So should there be less pressure on women to avoid surgical intervention?

    … Janet Fyle, from the Royal College of Midwives, said she believed the WHO’s original target was right, although nobody had kept to it.

    “If a woman has a normal birth her outcomes and her chances of recovery are much better than someone who has gone through a major operation like a Caesarean.”

    The surgical procedure means that both mothers and babies face slight risks, although often these risks are outweighed by the problems of proceeding with a natural birth.

    Experts point to an increased risk of respiratory problems for the baby, higher risk of bleeding for the mother and a longer stay in hospital to recover as reasons why natural births are the preferred option.

    … Professor James Walker, consultant obstetrician at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds and spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, says targets are not helpful for Caesareans.

    “If you set a target then people focus on that target. What we should be doing is giving optimal care to the mother. That way we minimise the reasons for a section.

    “Having a Caesarean section is a reasonable option, but it’s about the appropriate treatment for the appropriate people,” he said.

    Health professionals are regularly heard to say that giving birth is an unpredictable business. The key issue for many is having the right professionals around who understand pregnancy and birth so that women can be helped through their labour experience.

    ‘Normal birth’

    In situations where a woman experiences complications in labour, says Maggie Blott, consultant obstetrician at University College Hospital in London, a Caesarean should be carried out for the right reasons.

    “My job is not to perform Caesareans, it’s to prevent them happening.

    “To help this process decision-making must be correct at a senior level and consultants should be available on labour wards all the time to advise,” she said.

    The RCM’s Janet Fyle said: “There are many reasons to deliver babies by planned or emergency Caesarean, but we should be doing all we can to support women to have a normal birth, where possible.”

    Having a good mix of staff on the labour wards, including senior midwives and consultants, is seen as key to keeping Caesarean rates down …

    Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448