Private Midwifery in Sydney Rotating Header Image

fetal monitoring

The Unkindest Cut: Countdown to a C-Section

Link

… “Usually I start off by telling people my C-section started even before I got to the hospital …

… Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns had the highest rate of cesarean section deliveries in San Diego County in 2009. The California average was 29.8 per 100 births; at Sharp Mary Birch, the rate was 37.7.

… At 40 weeks … Cooper-Schultz’s water broke, though she was not in labor. In a birthing class … they told her, we have to get the baby out within 24 hours. So she and her husband went to the hospital right away.

“They pretty much wanted to put me on Pitocin the minute I walked in the door because I wasn’t having regular contractions,” …

… women believe their C-section deliveries at Mary Birch were the result of convenience for the doctors, fear of litigation, and/or lack of staff training in nonmedicated childbirth options.

… It is common for hospitals to use Pitocin if a woman has not gone into active labor within 24 hours after her water has broken to avoid the risk of infection. But the staff at Mary Birch wanted to give Cooper-Schultz Pitocin within the first two hours.

Cooper-Schultz refused the Pitocin at first. She wanted to get things going naturally … At the 12-hour mark, her cervix had dilated to four centimeters. She says she now understands that this “is a good natural labor progression for a first-time mom.”

But it wasn’t fast enough for the staff at Mary Birch. Cooper-Schultz … allowed them to give her the Pitocin that she says they’d been pushing since she’d arrived.

… “They weren’t honest with me. They didn’t say, ‘If you get the Pitocin, you’re probably going to need an epidural.’”

… Cooper-Schultz withstood the pain of Pitocin contractions for eight hours before she finally gave in and got an epidural … The epidural worked on only her left half.

At one point, the doctor came in to check on her and alerted the nurses that she was going home to take her kids to school. Sometime later, she returned with wet hair, checked Cooper-Schultz, found her at nine centimeters, and told her to try pushing.

“I pushed, and [the baby’s] heart rate went down … she said she’s worried about it. She said, ‘He’s not in distress, but he’s a little bit stressed.’”

The doctor told Cooper-Schultz it would go one of three ways. In the first scenario, Cooper-Schultz would push for 20 or so minutes and the baby would come out. In the second, she could push for 20 or so minutes, the baby would not come out, and they’d have to do an emergency cesarean section. Or, the doctor said, they could do a cesarean section right now.

Cooper-Schultz chose the cesarean. …
∗ ∗ ∗

Helen … welcomes me into her North Park apartment shortly after the dinner hour on a Tuesday evening in mid-September. She tells me she’s an unlikely candidate for natural childbirth.

“I’m like Woody Allen,” she says. “I am a New Yorker who likes living in the city, who likes creature comforts. And for somebody like me to be embracing [natural childbirth] is humongous.”

… Dover’s story is similar to Cooper-Schultz’s in that it begins with a desire to give birth naturally … and ends in what she considers an unnecessary C-section. One difference is that when Dover started out, she did know she might have to fight for what she wanted … She stayed home and labored for 10 to 12 hours before she went to the hospital, avoiding “the clock” for as long as she could.

When she arrived, armed with her research and her hopes for a natural birth, she found that the environment at Mary Birch had a greater impact on her than she’d imagined it would.

… The progression she’d experienced at home, from two centimeters to four, slowed drastically when she arrived at the hospital. A doctor told her that it might help if he broke her water. So she allowed it. But nothing happened …

… Dover lists her regrets: Not waiting and laboring longer at home. Allowing the Pitocin at 12 hours. Giving in to the epidural after 8 more hours. But the regrets go as far back as her pregnancy, when she chose to stay with Sharp.

“I should’ve just switched … “In order for me to switch to Scripps and go to one of the birth rooms at Scripps, which has a much better record, would have meant changing everything: changing my primary care physician, changing my OBG. I would’ve had to totally change my insurance policy. And at the time, I already had a pediatrician picked out for her and everything. We’d interviewed, and just the idea of doing all of that was overwhelming. I thought I didn’t have the strength to do it.”

… “[The doctor] said, ‘You need a C-section,’” she says. “I said, ‘I don’t understand why I need a C-section. Everything seems to be fine. Her heart rate’s not dropping.’ And he said, ‘Well, she’s stuck.’”

“… I was totally against using the suction, but anything besides the total hands-off. He said, ‘I don’t want to hurt your baby, and you don’t want to hurt your baby.’ I started crying. And I just finally said, ‘Fine. Cut me open.’” …

∗ ∗ ∗

The obstetrician a woman chooses plays as large a role in her birth experience as the place she chooses to deliver her baby. Some doctors have a reputation for being more inclined to help with a natural birth, and others for being less inclined …

Thompson cites the “bait and switch,” where a doctor claims to support a woman’s birth choices up until the final weeks, when it’s too late to change doctors. Messer says she’s seen doctors who’ve initially said they’d support the hypnobirthing process but later changed their minds.

“All of a sudden it’s, ‘That’s not going to work. No, you can’t be on your hands and knees. That’s not safe, and this isn’t,’” Messer says. “And that’s at 40 weeks. So now, where can I switch?”

… Christine Stewart, a petite redhead and mother of twin girls born at Mary Birch in September 2009, says she experienced something similar with her doctor.

… “… we took a Bradley Method childbirth class,” Stewart says, “which is a 12-week class, pretty in-depth, and we decided we wanted to do natural, unmedicated labor.”

When she first mentioned this to her doctor, Stewart says the doctor told her to “keep an open mind” and not to “fixate on any particular way of labor and delivery.” At the time, Stewart thought the doctor didn’t want her to be disappointed if natural birth didn’t work out, but now she speculates that the doctor was always leaning toward a C-section.

At 36 weeks, the doctor suggested they induce her at 38 weeks. Stewart refused.

“From what I can tell,” she says, “it’s just common that it’s more manageable to have twins at 38 weeks because of size. Sometimes they’re concerned about size. But [my girls] were normal-sized.”

The doctor suggested 39 weeks, then 40. Finally, Stewart agreed to induce at 41 weeks if she hadn’t gone into labor by then. But it was unnecessary. At 40 weeks, three days short of her original due date, Stewart went into labor.

Stewart chose Mary Birch because it had everything she was looking for. Originally, she’d wanted to deliver at Best Start Birth Center in Hillcrest, but they don’t accept women who are pregnant with twins. Mary Birch, she says, seemed like the next best thing.

“It had the facilities, doctors on hand, and all these different classes — prenatal yoga — and since I was diagnosed high-risk because I had the twins and since I was over 35,” she says, “I just thought their whole entire focus is for women and newborns, so I’ll probably get the best care because they’ve got all the resources for that.”

Stewart had heard about other women going into the hospital prematurely and getting “strapped down” immediately. But in her natural childbirth class she’d learned that mobility helps with labor. So she and her husband didn’t go in right away.

Once they did arrive at the hospital, Stewart was four centimeters dilated. She gave the nursing staff her birth plan, which stated that she did not want any mention of pain medication.

“Thankfully, they did not offer medication. They were respectful of that … I was slowly dilating in a normal time frame. They were telling me that was normal …

… Christine Stewart believes that the main reason she ended up having a C-section was that her nurses had no training in natural childbirth.

“Ultimately, the outcome was because there was no one in the labor room who had the experience to help get the babies in position to be delivered,” she says.

By the time the doctor arrived, Stewart was fully dilated. She knew her babies were healthy, that they were both head down, in a good position, face forward. Her blood pressure was not elevated, she had no fever, and she’d been in labor for less than 24 hours. Everything was normal except that the babies were wedged in, each trying to get out first.

… At 2:00 a.m., the doctor came in and said, “It’s time to meet your girls.”

… I kind of resigned myself, like, ‘If this is what we have to do, this is what we have to do.’ I felt like crying because it just went against everything I had hoped for, everything I had planned and practiced for.”

“I think the hospital has some standard protocols, and I think that if you don’t follow their standard protocols, they just don’t know what to do with you,” she says. “And a C-section is manageable. They know exactly how to do it, and I think at 2:30 in the morning it’s, ‘We can manage this, and then we can all go home.’”

∗ ∗ ∗

Last March, when her first son was two and a half years old, Elizabeth Cooper-Schultz had her second child in the back bedroom of her UTC apartment, in the company of her husband, her midwife, two apprentice midwives, and a doula.

Today, Helen Dover is pregnant again. When I ask if she plans to give birth at Mary Birch, she and Henry simultaneously answer, “No.”

“What I’ve learned is that at Mary Birch, everybody’s going to try to get you to do the birth that they want you to do,” Dover explains.

For their next baby, the Dovers will stay with Sharp in order to take advantage of the tests, which would cost them thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. They will also register at Mary Birch so that they are prepared in the event of an emergency. But they have hired a midwife to help them birth at home.

“We’re going just to get what doctors are good for,” Henry says, “and then to use the midwives for what they’re good for.”….

Visit my website to learn more about my services.

Mom-to-be says her hopes were destroyed by midwife

Visit my website to explore home birth, hospital birth and Medicare-funded private midwifery care.

Link

A … mother says things went tragically wrong when she used a midwife …

… after her baby died, she was surprised to learn, there are different kinds of midwives …

… Muhsin lost her daughter Alia before she even gave birth …

… when she was 7 months pregnant, she felt like her OB/GYN office was a bit impersonal, so she did some research online …

“I walk in this place, very serene, very organized. They have a wall full of babies’ pictures,” …

Muhsin says the midwife who handled her care was also the director … [the midwife's] resume on her website seemed impressive.

“She sold me a very good story, and I believed her,” said Muhsin.

… her original obstetrician had diagnosed her with gestational diabetes. But Muhsin says [the midwife] convinced her that she didn’t really have the condition, which can jeopardize the life of a baby if it’s not properly treated.

Muhsin and her husband got worried when she went nearly 4 weeks past her due date. Muhsin says the midwife kept reassuring her that everything was fine – but it wasn’t.

“I just feel really sick and I told her, I don’t feel contractions anymore, nothing. She told me, it’s okay, you stay home,” …

… “She said, okay, now you have to go to the hospital, because I don’t know what’s going on. We went in; they asked my husband, what is her due date? And they start running.”
Hospital records indicate both mother and baby had a severe infection …

“The baby had no heartbeat,” …

… Direct Entry [Midwives] … are not required to have any formal training – in fact they can be self-taught.

“They’re operating on their own without any oversight by the legislature, without any oversight … ”

… the baby could have been saved if the midwife had transferred Muhsin’s care to a doctor before she went nearly 4 weeks past her due date.

… “Gestational diabetes can be very risky to the baby,” …

… “There’s a great increased risk from 39 weeks onward of in utero fetal distress, and even fetal demise,” …

… [The midwife] denies that she waited nearly 4 weeks after Muhsin’s due date to advise her to go to the hospital. She also says that she’s still working as a midwife …

“We want to be licensed because we want to make sure there’s a standard of care. That consumers are protected,” said Kate Mazzara.

Kate Mazzara is a Certified Professional Midwife … she’s trying to get Lansing to pass a law to license midwives … a licensing board would then be able to hear complaints, and take action against midwives if problems arise.

“I want to make sure that these moms and babies are birthing in a safe way, and the midwifery model of care has been shown to be an extremely safe option for families, but there should be that safety mechanism to which midwives can be held accountable,” …

… the sad stories are rare … home births are a beautiful, natural experience … the number of home births has jumped 20% in recent years …

Part of this article deals with the fact that in the US, there are different types of midwives, from certified nurse midwives who have degrees, work collaboratively with obstetricians, and have visiting rights, through to certified professional midwives and finally direct entry midwives. In Australia, we have registered midwives who are all accountable to the same high standard of care. As well as registered midwives, we also have eligible midwives who have satisfied an additional registration standard that entitles them to access a medicare provider number, and in the future, visiting rights. The next article deals with another aspect: that of choosing a midwife:

How to Choose a Good Home Birth Midwife

If you’re looking into home birth, probably the most important thing is finding a good midwife. Your midwife will be the one who cares for you, watches over you, and makes any decisions if something unexpected or difficult happens in your pregnancy. It is imperative to get a midwife who is well-trained and experienced and whom you trust and feel comfortable with.

How do you know if you’ve found a good midwife?

Feel free to ask anything else that makes you feel comfortable. In my experience, midwives are usually very cautious and ready to refer patients to the hospital or an OB at the first sign that something isn’t right. The should be very conscious of the limits of their training, so that if any situation crops up that they feel uncomfortable about handling, they are prepared to rule you out as a home birth candidate. This doesn’t happen too often, but it’s very important to know that if you are one of the “riskier” cases, your midwife will tell you so and refer you. Any midwife who says that she never transfers or refers women because “all women can do this!” should be avoided!

Go with your instincts, too. If you feel comfortable with the midwife and she’s answered your questions sufficiently, then choose her. If not, keep looking …

Choosing The Best Midwife and Why is choosing a care provider one of the most important pregnancy decisions you will make? are also helpful posts. Ultimately, registered health practitioners are responsible for practicing their profession safely. But as a consumer of a service, it is up to you to make sure that the person you have engaged for your care, is legally and professionally able to care for you (ie, registered). Don’t be afraid to check the AHPRA register of practitioners if you would like to check the registration status of your health practitioner.

“Do it yourself” births prompt alarm

MEDICARE NOW AVAILABLE FOR MIDWIFERY CARE THROUGH THIS SERVICE!
Visit my website to explore home birth, hospital birth and Medicare-funded private midwifery care.

Link

A growing number of women are choosing to give birth without the assistance of doctors or midwives, provoked by dissatisfaction with modern obstetric care, fear of unnecessary medical intervention and a desire to reclaim birth as a private, natural act.

It’s a choice the professionals say is fraught with peril. They fear the fledgling “freebirth” movement may undo gains in mother-infant mortality. The women, however, believe unassisted childbirth is emotionally and physically the safest option for themselves and their babies.

Some 33%, or 8708 out of 26 667 homebirths in the United States in 2007 were not attended by a physician or midwife … Two-thirds of those deliveries attended by someone other than a physician or midwife … were reported as “planned” …

Canada lacks similar statistics, but a cursory search online turns up a surfeit of websites, forums … dedicated to freebirth …

It’s a difficult trend to track with any certainty … because advocates of unassisted childbirth aim to avoid interaction with the medical system wherever possible.

While some women forgo prenatal care entirely, others orchestrate a “planned oops” or “accidental” unassisted birth to avoid confrontation with health care providers and the law.

Many are already mothers, wary after a bad experience with a doctor or midwife.

“My first son’s hospital birth left something to be desired … the doctor I had was terrible. When I became pregnant a second time, I sought out a midwife and while one of the women in the practice was great, the other really talked down to my husband and I … ” … “I was probably seven months pregnant when I decided I didn’t want [that midwife] at my birth. I didn’t want it to be a guessing game.”

Others fear being coerced into medical procedures they’re not comfortable with.

“There are some people who can go into the birthing room and put their foot down, but I know when I go into a doctor’s office for an appointment, I get overwhelmed, let alone in a case where they’re saying your baby might die,” … “I think it’s easier to trust yourself if there’s not another voice there. Having that other set of interests involved makes me uncomfortable.”

Doctors and midwives bring their own timelines and expectations about how a delivery should proceed, and will err on the side of intervening in birth to protect themselves against litigation … “I can see the position they’re in, because if you don’t deliver a perfect baby there’s a chance you’ll get sued, and there’s this idea that if you’ve transferred someone to the hospital or done a C-section then you’ve done everything you could.”

… primary C-section rates ranged from a high of 23% of deliveries in Newfoundland and Labrador to a low of 14% in Manitoba.

With up to 15% of all births involving potentially fatal complications, however, “the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of giving birth with a skilled attendant present,” …

Proponents of unassisted childbirth say it’s all a matter of perspective. They prefer to view birth as a “spiritual, sexual experience, not an inherently dangerous medical event,” says Shanley. “I trust the same intelligence that knows how to grow the baby from an egg and a sperm into a human being also knows how to complete the process.”

Unnecessary intervention in birth is more often the cause of complications than a remedy, she adds. “People counting, measuring and managing birth into this controlled, manipulated act, it’s no wonder women’s bodies shutdown — the way anybody’s would if someone kept interrupting them while they were trying to have sex, go to the bathroom or go to sleep.”

Intervention should be the last resort, not a given … ” … one of the nurses asked why we didn’t go to the hospital and my husband looked her in the eye and said: ‘Because it wasn’t an emergency.’”

The couple prepared for complications by reading books for first responders on how to deliver babies in emergency situations.

Others look for such information online.

“I had to assess what my personal risks were,” says Rundle. “I’m a healthy young woman, so when people say that 15% of the time there’s a complication, are they talking about women who have different medical histories than I have?”

Some women, like Shanley, prefer to put complete faith in their bodies and refer to complications as “variations of normal.”

“There are going to be babies who die during an unassisted birth who may not have if there had been intervention, but there are also going to be babies who die because of interventions,” she explains. “There’s no way to ensure a successful birth every time. Sometimes a baby dies and that’s just the way it is.”

It’s not a stance Shanley takes lightly, having lost a child to a congenital heart defect following an unassisted delivery, and been told by a coroner that the baby would have died even if she had gone to the hospital.

It’s a difficult stance to counter, says Canadian Association of Midwives president Anne Wilson. “You can’t say to a mum that 60% of all unassisted births result in complications where the baby dies because that kind of statistic doesn’t exist. A lot of complications in childbirth are predictable and occur over time, but a few happen without warning, such as severe hemorrhage. And if a woman doesn’t have prenatal care, doesn’t report the birth to the hospital, there’s no way to know.”

… “Unassisted childbirth is unsafe — period,” … “The people advocating this as a mainstream option for women are tragically uninformed.”

Midwives, however, are more “fuzzy” on the issue, says Wilson. The association has yet to take an official stance for fear of alienating women wary of intervention. “If someone came to us who was considering an unassisted birth we would want to keep that person engaged, build a relationship of trust and if they ended up going ahead with it, at least you’re someone they can call if they get half way through a delivery and change their mind.”

Failing that, “some prenatal care is better than none,” she adds.

The debate raises ethical questions of “autonomy versus beneficence” for midwives, Wilson says. “By the nature of what we do, we tend to look after people who don’t want interventions. It would come down to individual choice in terms of how comfortable you are as a practitioner taking that person into your care.”

For Shanley, however, unassisted childbirth is more a question of reproductive rights. “It’s your body, your birth and your baby, so you should have the right to give birth however you want.”

Your body, your choice

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

Link

The transforming experience of childbirth is increasingly blotted by medical interventions. Are women making informed decisions?

LIKE most first-time mothers, Faye Wong … was incredibly excited when she got pregnant. She read baby books and magazines voraciously, signed up for ante-natal class … to prepare for baby’s arrival.

When she was 38 weeks pregnant, her obstetrician said the baby’s head had engaged and his size was quite big. The doctor suggested inducing her labour.

In the labour room, her “nightmare” began. The pain from the drug-induced contractions was a rude jolt to her system. Then she was jabbed and prodded with painkillers, IV tubes and the works.

“I was shocked, confused, and in absolute terror,” recalls Wong, 35. Finally, the induction failed and she had to be wheeled in for emergency caesarean. Thankfully, she delivered a healthy baby boy weighing 3.9kg. When she got home, she struggled with breastfeeding and suffered a severe bout of post-natal blues.

“I felt ‘cheated’ … ” Wong admits. Her son is now seven. “I was a newbie to the birthing process and was meek as a lamb led to the slaughter,” she adds. “If I’d known then what I know now, I probably would have been better prepared, stood my ground and not undergone early inducement.”
Though doctors play a role in giving women the necessary information about labour options, women and their partners need to take their share of responsibility too in making informed choices and decisions.

Wong’s experience isn’t unique.

“We see a fair amount of women who are unhappy about the outcome of their deliveries,” says Jennifer Hor of Jenlia Maternal Services. The UK-trained midwife has been running ante-natal classes and post-natal home visits for 17 years. “Some felt they had a C-section even though they didn’t want it. Or, some felt they didn’t get enough information from their doctors.”

So, are women less assertive when it comes to childbirth? Are they getting or finding the information necessary to make informed choices and decisions? And have we forgotten that childbirth, an age-old practice, is meant to be natural?

Birth trends

… the medicalisation of childbirth means what used to be a straightforward, natural process is now treated as a high-tech medical procedure.

Caesarean rates are on the rise in both developed and developing countries …

… “Women say they want to take ownership of their bodies, yet we have healthy, low-risk women who said they had a C-section for their first births because they listened to their doctors,” says Farouk, who also sub-specialises in reproductive medicine. And because of the risks from the first surgery, these women are requesting for repeat C-sections. “Ironically, women are pushing the trends that way.

“We are also seeing the use of more technology to manage pregnant mothers, for example using CTG (cardiotocography) … and ultrasound scans,” says Farouk. “It’s not all bad, but if you monitor too much, you might pick up something and wonder if you don’t take action, there might be consequences, hence the interventions.”

… Doctors come with their beliefs and agendas, based on experiences. Some underplay certain risks and amplify others. For instance, placental calcification … is not a major issue for some obstetricians if the woman is near term and foetal growth is normal. But for a different doctor, a few specks on the ultrasound scan is reason enough for labour induction.

“There can be grey areas in medical investigations. I tend to be more conservative with placental calcification and continue to monitor foetal health and growth parameters,” …

Also, fear of litigation is scaring obstetricians into defensive and often interventionist practices.

“An obstetrician is more likely to be subjected to litigation because a caesarean section was not performed or was perceived to have been performed too late …”

Medical interventions

Clearly, it’s not always true that C-sections or epidural blocks are being foisted on reluctant women. The fact is, some women don’t question their doctors, or they themselves are asking for interventions.

Labour induction, elective caesarean, epidural jabs, and routine episiotomy are some of the common medical interventions during childbirth.

Induction of labour … is usually done when the mother’s or baby’s health is at risk …

“For such cases, studies have shown that caesarean section rate has been unchanged or lower among the induced group as compared with expectant management of pregnancy … ”

“But induction of labour at 37 to 41 weeks on non-medical grounds is linked with an increased risk of caesarean section for … a woman who has never given birth and an increased risk of instrumental delivery,” …

No doubt, medical interventions can be a lifesaver for mothers and babies …

However, once the natural process of labour and birth has been disturbed, if there is no actual emergency, there is risk that the side effects of the treatment will trigger more intervention necessary to fix the problem. This sequence of events is called the “cascade of interventions”.

“Pitocin (Syntocinon), a synthetic form of the hormone oxytocin used to induce or speed up labour, often results in a rapid increase in the intensity and strength of the woman’s contractions. As a result, she may opt to use pain medications such as pethidine … or epidural anaesthetic. Babies sometimes don’t react favourably to the sudden increase in the intensity of the contractions, which may result in irregularities of the heartbeat. Thus in turn may necessitate delivery by caesarean,” …

“Many women who use epidural do not experience the urges to bear down which help them to birth their babies. Often, in this situation, the doctor will use forceps or vacuum to deliver the baby, which means he needs to do an episiotomy … Many women experience long-term perineal pain following episiotomy.”

A failed induction (when labour doesn’t started after the first cycle of treatment) can either require a rescheduled induction or emergency C-section.

“Women should received accurate information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of induced labour and understand the possible side effects and interventions, ” …

The big ‘C’

Most women also come with the preconceived idea that C-sections are safer than vaginal delivery …

… “In fact, C-section, which is classed as a major surgical procedure, carries with it the risk of complications and shouldn’t be viewed as an alternative option to normal birth.”

… “Babies delivered by elective caesarean section at 37 to 39 weeks’ of pregnancy are at two to four times more likely to suffer from respiratory morbidity compared with babies delivered by vaginal delivery,” … WHO global maternal survey also finds that women who choose elective caesarean with no medical indication are at increased risk of maternal death and serious complications.

… Studies have linked depression and distress after birth, which affect up to one in five women, to forceps and caesarean births …

Disturbed birth

“You must be mad to give birth without an epidural!” A common reaction these days if you speak with women who have undergone labour. But as the WHO states, “epidural analgesia is one of the most striking examples of the medicalisation of normal birth, transforming a physiological event into a medical procedure.”

… in her book,Gentle birth, gentle mothering, internationally acclaimed birth expert Dr Sarah J. Buckley explains how epidurals or painkilling drugs and synthetic hormones (used during induction) interfere with some of the major hormones of labour and birth. The five major hormones: oxytocin (hormones of love); beta-endorphin (pleasure and transcendence); the catecholamines or CAs, epinephrine and norepinephrine (excitement); and prolactin (tender mothering) form a “cocktail of hormones that nature prescribes to aid birthing mothers of all mammalian species”.

During an undisturbed labour, these hormones rise in crescendo and peak around the time of birth or soon after for mother and baby, and subside over the following hours and days. “An optimal hormonal orchestration provides ease, pleasure, and safety during this time for mother and baby.” Interference with this process, by injecting drugs or synthetic hormones, will “disrupt the hormonal orchestration, making birth more difficult and painful, and potentially less safe”.

For example, epidurals lower the mother’s production of oxytocin or stop its normal rise during labour. Oxytocin causes a woman’s uterus to contract in labour. It peaks at birth and catalyses for the final powerful contractions of labour, and helps mother and baby to fall in love at first meeting.

Under stressful conditions, our body releases epinephrine and norepinephrine (CAs). Towards the end of an undisturbed labour, the mother experiences an adrenaline rush – the natural surge in these hormones gives her the energy to push her baby out, makes her excited and fully alert at first meeting with her baby.

But when a woman feels fearful or unsafe, her labour is inhibited by high CA levels. Epidurals reduce the release of the CAs, which may be helpful if the high levels are restricting her labour. However, a reduction in the final CA surge may make it difficult for the woman to push her baby out, thus increasing the risk of instrumental delivery (forceps and vacuum).

Epidural’s side effects include nausea, slowing of labour and drop in blood pressure, slowing of contractions, and headache.

35-year-old Laila Aziz of Kuala Lumpur was wheelchair-bound for four months after an epidural jab injured her nerves when she delivered her third child.

“I wish my O&G and the anaesthetist had explained in details the pros and cons of using an epidural,” says Laila, who suffered severe post-natal blues after childbirth. “I would at least reconsider whether to use the option at that time.”

… Childbirth educator and lactation consultant Christine Choong has been advocating natural childbirth for the past two decades.

“My main passion is how birthing practices affect breastfeeding. What happens when you’re in labour can have a long-term effect on your breastfeeding,” …

Research has shown that when you put a baby on his mother’s chest (skin-to-skin contact) immediately after he was born, the baby will crawl instinctively towards her breast.

“Quite often the baby won’t do that if you had used drugs during labour … because he will be drowsy the first two to three days,” … “If women use epidural, very often their babies are delivered by suction or forceps which can cause discomfort on baby’s head (a shock to the system) and baby initially will not be happy feeding on one side or the other.”

Whether a labour induction is done on medical grounds or not, the baby is – by definition – relatively immature and likely to have impaired ability to effectively coordinate sucking, swallowing, and breathing at breast …

“In a C-section delivery, very rarely the mother is given the baby straight away,” Christine adds. “Early stimulation or suckling is important to establish breastfeeding. Also a higher percentage of caesarean babies end up with respiratory problems, which results in separation of mom and baby.”

But we need to look at the whole picture – the impact on baby, feeding, and mother-baby relationship.

“It isn’t just feeding but also nurturing,” says Christine, a mother of three.

“When babies are nurtured and their needs are met, in the long term, they will become people who are secure, confident, and know how to form relationships with people.”

Take control

What do you do if your care provider says you or your baby is at risk and an intervention is necessary?

“Using evidence-based information, your doctor should explain the reason for any suggested interventions. He should also explain the benefits and risks of such procedures,” advises Choong. If you’re not sure or not too convinced by your doctor’s explanation, get a second opinion.”

“Empowerment with the correct knowledge and information is useful so women can ask the correct questions,” Chow adds. “And their fear of childbirth should be addressed by getting support and learning about the labour process and pain relief options.”

Ultimately, a woman’s satisfaction with her birth experience is related more to her involvement in decision-making than to the outcome, as Buckley emphasises. Though doctors play a role in giving women the necessary information, women and their partners need to take their share of responsibility too in making informed choices and decisions.

When Wong had her second child, she was more mentally and emotionally prepared.

“Although I ended up having another C-section (due to hypertension), I didn’t feel disappointed and helpless,” Wong says. “I felt as if I was a real mom this time around.”

As Buckley sums it up best, “birth is the beginning of life; the beginning of mothering and of fathering. We all deserve a good beginning.”

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

I was pregnant for 10 months

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

Link

Jack, my third child, arrived last month, 20 days late. My first two babies were 15 days late. But a day shy of week 43? That is virtually record-breaking – and, some would say, slightly mad …

Historically, tales of weirdly overdue babies are not unprecedented. The actor Jackie Chan claims his mother carried him for 12 months before he was born by caesarean section, weighing 12lb. There is also a story of a woman in a prisoner of war camp who allegedly waited until the camp was liberated to give birth – at 12 months’ gestation.

… I held out as long as I could, but in the end Jack was induced. I wish it could have been otherwise. The day before he was born, the hospital consultant had made it clear that she didn’t agree with me remaining pregnant for a day longer. Despite the fact that there were no signs that there was anything wrong, there was a risk of stillbirth, she said. “How does that apply to this pregnancy in particular?” I asked, as all my tests were clear. “You’re very overdue,” came the answer. I could have waited another day or two maybe. But I wasn’t happy acting against the hospital’s wishes.

The induced labour was not a terrible experience – Jack was born with no complications in 50 minutes – but it was not ideal. I had wanted him to come out when he wanted to. Not when a doctor ordered him to. It turned out that he was large, but not abnormally so (8lb 12oz; his sister was larger at 9lb). And he had no signs of being post-dates: no wrinkly skin, and the amniotic fluid was clear …

So why is 40 weeks seen as the norm when only 5% of babies arrive on their due date – and when it is 41 weeks in France? Could we be inducing babies who don’t need to be induced – exposing both them and their mothers to unnecessary risk?

The US midwifery guru Ina May Gaskin thinks so. She believes that every baby will come in its own time, and she is currently campaigning for 43 weeks – rather than 42 – as the definition of “late”. The dates in themselves, says Gaskin, do not indicate the need for induction. There are clear signs if there is something wrong and the baby needs to come out: reduced foetal movement, for example, a deceleration in growth, or reduced amniotic fluid – all of which could be picked up by the mother or a midwife.

In recent years the ultrasound dating scan at 12 weeks has been seen as the best measure of due date in the UK. Statistics suggest it is marginally more accurate than the traditional LMP … date …

The trouble is that very few women fit the “average” – hence the huge variation in the dates when babies are born. Seventy per cent arrive after their due date. And yet it has become a fixed point by which we measure everything in pregnancy. Meanwhile, induction rates in England are rising …

Hannah Latham … was 18 days overdue when she gave birth to Noah, now six weeks old. “I do wish they could give you a ‘due window’ of three weeks instead of a due date,” she says. “It becomes very stressful. You have all these people hassling you, saying, ‘Isn’t he here yet?’ Because, of course, you tell everybody your due date. Which in future I wouldn’t do.” Latham consented to an induction in the end because an ultrasound scan showed that the amniotic fluid was starting to run low.

“Until then there was no good reason to induce. But they pressure you from when you are a week overdue. They say to you, ‘Are you aware that you are putting your baby at risk?’ I said, according to what statistics? They said, ‘We don’t know.’”

This is the problem with overdue babies: there is very little evidence because so few women allow their pregnancies to go past 42 weeks. As US midwife Gail Hart points out, the most-cited statistic about post-dates babies (that their risk of stillbirth “doubles after 42 weeks”) comes from a 1958 study – a time when mortality rates were 10 times what they are now. Also, as Hart argues, induction is hardly risk-free: it carries higher rates of caesarean section, uterine rupture, foetal distress and maternal haemorrhage.

These risks were what put me off induction. Home birth was also a factor, as it is for many: if you agree to induction, it has to happen in hospital. This usually means you end up being monitored, wired up to a machine to measure the baby’s heart rate, and you will have to deliver flat on your back. Having given birth twice, I know that I cope best if I am free to rampage around the room. Because my midwife knew me very well … she helped me to stand and move around, while still being monitored …

… Joanne King’s second baby was born at 43 weeks plus three days. She writes: “I explained [to the consultant] that I thought the risk of being induced versus carrying on with the pregnancy – when the baby and I were well – was not one worth taking. She agreed with me.”

… The latest baby Jokinen delivered was 44 weeks gestation. “As a midwife you know if a baby is truly post-mature by the state of the skin. It’s drier and flakier. They look like someone who has been in the water too long.” But according to one American study [cited by Gail Hart in Midwifery Today], more than 90% of supposedly “late” babies born at 43 weeks in fact show no signs of post-maturity.

Gaskin argues that in the US there is a new medical complication, “iatrogenic” (“doctor-caused”) prematurity – “inductions where babies turn out to be premature and then spend a week or more in the neonatal intensive care unit”. She says in four decades of experience and thousands of pregnancies, she has seen only one woman who needed to be induced. “We’ve had experience with many Amish families in which 43-week pregnancies seem to be the norm.”

To most hospitals, Gaskin adds, a lack of symptoms – and the patient’s history – is irrelevant: “This habit of making absolute rules that are applied to cases that used to be open to individual treatment has contributed to the dumbing down of maternity care.”

This is true in the UK too. I couldn’t understand why my doctor was not interested in all the heart monitoring (every two days after 42 weeks) – and all perfect – or in the ultrasound scan. Nor was there any interest in my birth history (two late babies and fast births, which I thought made me a poor candidate for induction). All that mattered were the statistics – from 1958 …

Many aspects of birth care are not studied because we have clinical practice guidelines / best practice guidelines in place (which may be based on good research, not-so-good research, expert opinion, or “it’s just what we do here”). The effect of these clinical practice guidelines is to establish a standard of care that can reasonably be expected. That being the case, it would then be unethical to randomise the care of women to an experimental arm of a study trial that might cause harm. Hence, we do lack research around management of post term pregnancies (those that continue beyond 42 weeks). It may be the case, as is pointed out in a RANZCOG publication that some women do not benefit from induction at any gestation, such as women who have previously had a baby and whose pregnancy is free of complications.

Another aspect that is not studied, and which might not be ethical to study, is that of continuous fetal monitoring in labour for women with risk-associated labours. It is standard practice, according to NICE guidelines, hospital policies, RANZCOG Guidelines and so on, to continuously monitor labours which fall into certain categories (over 42 weeks, less than 37 weeks, induction, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes on insulin, VBAC, prolonged rupture of the membranes, pre-eclampsia, augmentation of labour, “prolonged” labour, breech, twins or meconium-staining of the amniotic fluid). The alternative to this, as offered in the NSW Health policy, is for intermittent CTGs in labour: having the CTG on for a certain period of time and then removing it for a period of time before re-applying it. Now that CTGs have become the accepted standard of care of women who are labouring with identified risk factors, it would be considered unethical to randomise women to either continous monitoring, or the other alternative which would be intermittent auscultation (where the midwife listens in with a water-proof doppler) every 10-15 mins. My personal opinion is that one-to-one midwifery care in labour (that is, a dedicated midwife who does not leave the labouring woman) combined with regular (10 – 15 minutely) doppler auscultation is as effective and safe as a CTG. If any concern was raised with this doppler monitoring, a CTG would be applied. Of course, my idea is not evidence-based as there is no evidence for this standard of care, and nor will there ever be a study on this as the accepted standard has already been set.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Why has the USA’s cesarean section rate climbed so high?

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

Link

A government-sponsored study of 230,000 births between 2002 and 2007 found that the C-section delivery rate was 30.5%.

• Among women who ended up with an unplanned C-section, failure for labour to progress was cited in nearly half the cases.
• Fetal distress or non-reassuring fetal testing was listed as a reason for more than a quarter of unplanned C-sections.
• Nearly half of all planned C-sections were scheduled because the woman had had a previous C-section.

Regarding failure to progress, the accepted rate of progress is deemed to be 1cm/hour. First baby or fifth baby, this is the rate that your labour is expected to progress at. This is despite that fact that first time labours do take longer than second and subsequent labours. There is research to support 0.5cm/hour as an acceptable rate of progress but this is largely ignored. I wonder what the caesarean rate for FTP would be if 0.5cm/hour was used instead of 1cm/hour?

So what happens to the woman whose labour doesn’t progress at 1cm/hour? Well, in the first instance, her waters are broken. This is done with the aim of speeding the labour. Generally, a vaginal examination will be performed 2 hours afterwards and if the woman has not progressed another 2cm in this time, a syntocinon infusion is commenced. This is part of a package, however, and the package includes continuous monitoring. Continuous monitoring is needed because the syntocinon drip causes unnaturally stronger, longer and more frequent contractions that can stress the baby.

Which leads to the next cause of caesareans, according to the article: fetal distress or non-reassuring fetal status. This accounts for around 25% unplanned caesareans.

And finally, about 50% planned caesareans occur as a result of a previous caesarean.

Are you joining the dots yet? That initial diagnosis of “failure to progress” often leads to augmenting the labour. If the augmentation is not successful – or if the baby becomes distressed in the process – the woman is taken down the corridor for a caesarean. Having had that first caesarean, there’s a good chance all her subsequent babies will be born in this way.

What can be done to avid this? There are a few keys:
- continuity of midwifery care from pregnancy right through to 6 weeks after your baby is born
- planning to birth at home
- Ensuring that you have good support in labour from a loved one.

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

FAQs

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

Exorbitant prices with Sydney obstetricians, alternatives?

There’s a great alternative: private midwifery care. While private midwives may not be cheaper than private obstetricians, the service is experienced by women to be more personalised, thorough, caring and supportive. Consultations are one to two hours in duration, so there’s plenty of time you to get to know your midwife and to talk through all fears and anxieties. All questions are answered thoroughly and there’s time for things like birth planning, childbirth education as well as the clinical things. Of course, if any problems are detected, midwives refer to obstetricians who can provide obstetric care.

How much will it cost me to access a private midwife as my care giver

The fees vary and in Sydney you’d be looking at anywhere between $4000 and $6000.

Refusing to be induced at hospital

All women have the option to accept or decline interventions. The hospital will want to ensure that you understand why they want to induce you, the risks of not inducing, and that you’re accepting responsibility for your decision. You’re perfectly within your rights to refuse interventions and to birth at your chosen birth place with support.

How to have a baby naturally in a hospital

In short, take a private midwife with you! the most important decision you will make in your pregnancy will be choice of care provider. Typically, midwives have lower rates of intervention than do obstetricians. Private midwives have even lower rates of intervention than do hospital-employed midwives. Safety is never compromised.

Home birth fetal auscultation

Yes, this is common-place in homebirths. Your midwife will have with her a doppler which may be used in the water if you are planning a waterbirth. It is common place for midwives to check your baby’s heart rate every 30 minutes in labour and more often if they feel that there is a problem. If your midwife suspects that your baby is distressed, she’ll arrange for you to be transferred to hospital where she will remain with you every step, providing advice, reassurance and support.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Homebirth: What to expect

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

There is no standard of events for women who give birth at home. Homebirth care is always individualised to the needs of the woman and family.

The following information can help you to understand what may happen in labour, to give you a sense of your options and lessen any surprises. When you birth at home, you can expect to:

- Wear whatever you like in labour
- Have vaginal examinations when / if you want them. Your midwife may suggest an examination if she feels it is needed, which is not very often as we know that babies are born whether vaginal examinations are performed or not and many women prefer to avoid them wherever possible.
- To have your temperature, blood pressure and pulse taken when it is necessary to do so – sometimes this is not done at all
- Have your baby’s heart beat listened to with a hand-held doppler that allows you to remain in the bath or shower.
- If additional fluids are needed, you can expect your midwife to offer you lots of drinks – this will also help to keep up your energy levels. In fact, your midwife will probably offer food and fluids regularly throughout your labour anyway.
- We don’t use ID bands at home. Not for Mum, not for baby. No chance of anyone getting lost, everyone knows who’s who, and no mother is handed the wrong baby!
- Your waters are very unlikely to be broken at home.
- You can expect to give birth in the position that’s most comfortable to you at the time. For many women, this is kneeling (so you can catch your own baby) or all fours (and your partner can catch the baby).
- Waterbirth is a common birth method at home.
- While “pain relief” is not offered, your midwife will make suggestions to assist your level of comfort such as position changes, hot packs, bath, shower, massage and so on.
- You will find that your body will push instinctively when the time’s right.
- Many women will not tear and episiotomy is very rare at home.
- Placentas usually come of their own accord, in their own time provided that the blood loss is not excessive.
- Your baby’s cord will be cut after the placenta is born, and some women prefer to leave it intact and have a lotus birth.
- There is no separation of mother and baby.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Hospital birth: What to expect

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

There is a fairly normal standard of events for women who give birth in a hospital setting, whether public or private.

The following information can help you to understand what may happen in labour, to give you a sense of your options and lessen any surprises. When you go to hospital in labour, you can expect to:

- be asked to remove your clothes and wear a hospital gown.
- To have a vaginal examination when you are admitted and at least every 4 hours thereafter.
- To have your temperature, blood pressure and pulse taken regularly throughout labour
- In some hospitals, continuous monitoring is used for 20-30 minutes when you arrive. In many cases, it is left on for the whole labour.
- Many women will have a cannula in their arm. Some women will have antibiotics put through this cannula; others will have IV fluids.
- You can expect food to be limited in labour. Some hospitals have a policy of ice chips only when in labour.
- You will have one or two ID bands placed around your wrist.
- If you’re giving birth in a private hospital, it’s fairly standard to have your waters broken in labour by the staff.
- You can expect to give birth lying on your back in bed with the back rest elevated somewhat. In some hospitals, stirrups are used.
- In many hospitals, pain relief is routinely offered.
- You will most likely be told when and how to push.
- Many women will be given an episiotomy.
- You will routinely be given an injection to speed the delivery of the placenta.
- Your baby’s cord will be cut before it has stopped pulsating.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Test leads to needless C-sections

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

Link

My patient needed to be delivered. She had just developed eclampsia … She had suffered a seizure and dangerously high blood pressure …

… we gave medication to start labor, and the nurses placed a fetal heart monitor.

… the ultrasound monitor would play a crucial role in the hours to come. It prints a read-out strip of the baby’s heart rate, and the pattern would guide us in determining whether the delivery would be natural or through cesarean section.

… the baby’s heart-rate strip showed worrisome changes soon after labor began, and I knew it would get worse as labor progressed. We would fight through the night to have a natural delivery. But ultimately that single heart-rate test, which is surprisingly unreliable, would be a key factor in whether my patient would get a C-section or not.

… bad fetal heart strips are an important cause of high cesarean section rates …

… For the worst readings, we believed every second counted and rushed the surgery: If the baby wasn’t delivered one minute from the first incision into the skin, we had moved too slowly.

The complication we feared most was … the baby not getting enough oxygen during labor [which] could result in a serious permanent injury, such as cerebral palsy, or even death.

No test is perfect. But almost every time we whisked a mother back to the operating room, and I cut through skin, fat, fascia, and finally the muscle of the uterus, expecting a blue, floppy baby, the child I delivered emerged pink, healthy, and a little bit angry.

Were we saving lives and averting disaster? Or were we performing unnecessary surgery?

Fetal heart-rate monitoring is a screening test. Good tests get several things right: they are cheap, detect a possible problem when there is still time to act, and minimize unnecessary follow-up tests.

… fetal heart monitoring is an appallingly poor test. The test misses the majority of babies with cerebral palsy, the condition researchers hoped it would prevent. It causes increased rates of a painful and invasive surgery: cesarean section …

The odds of my patient’s baby suffering from dangerous lack of oxygen were slim … only 1 of 500 babies with a bad strip had cerebral palsy … it remained unclear if the condition had developed before labor, in which case cesarean couldn’t prevent it.

… fetal heart monitoring failed to reduce perinatal mortality … and increased cesarean section rates and forceps deliveries, compared with listening to a baby’s heart rate intermittently.

As a medical student, I loved watching emergency cesarean sections. The baby’s heart rate went down, doors swung open, residents rushed the patient down to the OR, and a frantic minute or two of surgery later, a screaming baby was out … I never questioned the need for the surgery.

Now, cesarean sections for bad tracings are one of the least satisfying parts of my job.

… “A test leading to an unnecessary major abdominal operation in more than 99.5 percent of cases should be regarded by the medical community as absurd at best,” … “Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring has probably done more harm than good.”

Why do doctors cling to continuous fetal heart monitoring? An obstetrician will most likely point to the fear of being sued, but the complete answer is more complex. Our medical culture prizes technology and tests, even if they don’t work and can cause harm.

… I struggled with my patient’s bad fetal heart strip. I wanted her to avoid a cesarean section. She had type 1 diabetes, and I expected her sugars to swing wildly after surgery, and her recovery to be slow.

… Finally, at 3 a.m., I felt compelled to recommend cesarean … My patient’s child greeted the world pink and well-oxygenated.

The test was wrong again.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

The Mother Friendly Childbirth Initiative

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

Link

… maternal mortality is on the rise in the U.S … two of the four preventable pregnancy-related deaths were associated with cesarean section-the failure of hospital staff to pay attention to worsening vital signs after women have the operation, and the staff’s inability to respond appropriately to hemorrhage resulting from a cesarean. The two others are uncontrolled high blood pressure and undiagnosed fluid build-up in the lungs of women with pre-eclampsia … by following the principles of the evidence-based Ten Steps of The Mother Friendly Childbirth Initiative (MFCI) and giving low-risk women access to midwifery care mothers’ lives could be saved.

… The Initiative is an effective wellness model of maternity care that offers safe choices to overused and costly high-tech birth interventions that often lead to avoidable cesareans …

… compared to maternity care provided by physicians to low-risk women, women cared for by professional midwives have a lower incidence of hypertension and pre-eclampsia, fewer hospital admissions for complications during pregnancy, fewer cesareans and more VBACs … the risks of maternal mortality are increased with repeat cesarean section compared to vaginal birth after a prior cesarean …

The Mother Friendly Childbirth Initiative:

1. Offers all birthing mothers:
• Unrestricted access to the birth companions of her choice, including fathers, partners, children, ¬family members, and friends;
• Unrestricted access to continuous emotional and physical support from a skilled woman—for ¬example, a doula,* or labor-support professional;
• Access to professional midwifery care.

2. Provides accurate descriptive and statistical information to the public about its practices and procedures for birth care, including measures of interventions and outcomes.

3. Provides culturally competent care—that is, care that is sensitive and responsive to the specific beliefs, ¬values, and customs of the mother’s ethnicity and ¬religion.

4. Provides the birthing woman with the freedom to walk, move about, and assume the positions of her choice during labor and birth (unless restriction is specifically required to correct a complication), and discourages the use of the lithotomy (flat on back with legs elevated) position.

5. Has clearly defined policies and procedures for:
• collaborating and consulting throughout the perinatal period with other maternity services, including communicating with the original caregiver when transfer from one birth site to another is necessary;
• linking the mother and baby to appropriate community resources, including prenatal and post-¬discharge follow-up and breastfeeding support.

6. Does not routinely employ practices and procedures that are unsupported by scientific evidence, ¬including but not limited to the following:
• shaving;
• enemas;
• IVs (intravenous drip);
• withholding nourishment or water;
• early rupture of membranes*;
• electronic fetal monitoring;
other interventions are limited as follows:
• Has an induction* rate of 10% or less;†
• Has an episiotomy* rate of 20% or less, with a goal of 5% or less;
• Has a total cesarean rate of 10% or less in community hospitals, and 15% or less in tertiary care (high-risk) hospitals;
• Has a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) rate of 60% or more with a goal of 75% or more.

7. Educates staff in non-drug methods of pain relief, and does not promote the use of analgesic or anesthetic drugs not specifically required to correct a complication.

8. Encourages all mothers and families, including those with sick or premature newborns or infants with congenital problems, to touch, hold, breastfeed, and care for their babies to the extent compatible with their conditions.

9. Discourages non-religious circumcision of the newborn.

10. Strives to achieve the WHO-UNICEF “Ten Steps of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative” to promote successful breastfeeding:
1. Have a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff;
2. Train all health care staff in skills necessary to implement this policy;
3. Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding;
4. Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within a half-hour of birth;
5. Show mothers how to breastfeed and how to maintain lactation even if they should be separated from their infants;
6. Give newborn infants no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated;
7. Practice rooming in: allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day;
8. Encourage breastfeeding on demand;
9. Give no artificial teat or pacifiers (also called dummies or soothers) to breastfeeding infants;
10. Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from hospitals or clinics.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Doctors use smart phones to keep tabs on childbirth

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

Link

This was quite a shocking article to read. Remote labour care being delivered by doctors so that they can attend to multiple patients simultaneously, all without ever seeing the patient. While it might have benefits in rural and remote areas, whereever possible, the doctor should attend the patient.

DAYTON — Isaiah Horton’s birth … helped usher in a new digital era in the delivery of babies at Miami Valley Hospital.

Fifty obstetricians who work in the hospital’s labor and delivery unit now can use smart-phone technology to keep tabs on expectant mothers and the vital signs of their unborn children. That’s expected to reduce human error and improve care.

More than half of adverse birth outcomes are related to communication errors among caregivers …

… doctors can securely monitor contractions and fetal heart activity from their smart phones. Previously, they relied on nurses to read data to them over the phone.

Is every patient continuously monitored?

Receiving real-time data by iPhone, “I don’t have to interpret what the nurse is saying,” said Dr. Andre Harris, the obstetrician who cared for Horton’s mother, Keely Horton of Dayton. Keely was the first patient Harris had monitored with the new technology.

… Harris doesn’t anticipate spending less time with his patients as a result of the new technology. “I don’t think we’re going to cut back on what we do on a normal basis,” he said. “I don’t think there’s going to be a drawback as far as the patient’s concerned.” …

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Couple sues Redcliffe hospital over stillborn baby

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

Link

PARENTS of a baby delivered stillborn … claim medical staff repeatedly ignored warning signs their unborn baby was distressed.

… Documents … allege a midwife ignored and turned down the volume of an echocardiogram alarm that sounded for more than three hours …

The documents also claim Mrs Body was diagnosed and treated for deep vein thrombosis and thrombophilia (blood clotting) …

She alleges the hospital ought to have known her medical history and the risks associated and failed to recognise a natural birth “could not be performed safely”.

The documents show Mrs Body was admitted to hospital at 8am on February 26, 2007, and was monitored at half-hour intervals between 9.30am and 3pm.

Her waters were broken by a doctor about 4pm and at 4.30pm an epidural was administered.

It is alleged that at 5.10pm an echocardiogram alarm attached to Mrs Body began making loud noises, but the volume was turned down by a midwife … four other times when the alarm sounded … it was turned down by the same midwife.

Monitors alarm quite often. They do not tell the midwife that the baby is distressed, they prompt the midwife to check the trace and ensure that it is ok. If the midwife determines that the baby is fine, the monitor sound is turned down.

The echocardiogram alarm continued to sound until 8.20pm but medical staff did not respond to it.

It wasn’t until 9.30pm, when Mr Body requested for Mrs Body to have an internal exam that one was performed, court documents claim.

It’s normal practice to leave 4 hours between examinations.

By 10.40pm, Mrs Body was told the baby’s heart rate was “low” and “we need to get her out now”.

This is not an uncommon scenario when a woman has had intervention in her birth. In this case, the woman had her waters broken, had an epidural and presumably also had a syntocinon infusion. All of these can stress babies. I also wonder what position she had been labouring in. It’s common for women with epidurals to labour on their backs and this does not help the baby to navigate the pelvis and be born, and it promotes fetal distress.

Paige Hannah Body was delivered by vacuum extraction about 11pm. She was not breathing and could not be revived … The State Government is yet to file a defence.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

FAQs

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

informed consent and childbirth

Every woman who is competent to consent, has the right to refuse any or all professional care. Informed consent must be obtained prior to any procedure being performed.

how to minimise labour intervention in a hospital?

The best way to minimise intervention in a hospital is to be as well informed as you can possible be about all things related to pregnancy, labour, birth, breastfeeding and babies. Read widely, attend independent childbirth education classes and consider employing a private midwife to be with you throughout your labour. She can help you to decide if the proposed interventions are necessary in your situation, she can support you emotionally, mentally and physically and she can aso help to ensure that your birth plan is respected without a fuss.

Do any independent midwives in Sydney offer prenatal care for women who are planning to freebirth?

Yes! This service enables women to access antenatal care from a midwife without the midwife attending the birth. Postnatal care is available if needed.

Do you think there are advantages to continuous monitoring for low-risk women

In a word, no. Intermittent auscultation is the method of choice. Continuous monitoring will increase the chance of a caesarean with no benefit to the mother or baby.

How much is a private midwife

Prices range from $3000 – $6000. Melissa Maimann offers for her clients to pay by the hour, making the service one of the cheapest.

What is a good caesarean rate?

The World Health Organisation recommends that no more than 15% births need to be caesareans. The WHO argues that when caesarean rates exceed 15%, the risks to the mother and baby increase on the whole. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a hospital with a caesarean rate of less than 15%, but birth centres and private midwives have caresarean rates of less than 10-15%.

What is the best hospital in sydney for delivering babies?

It all depends what sort of birth experience you’re after! If you’re wanting a natural birth, home birth will be the best option. If you want a natural birth in a hospital setting, the best options would be birth centre or private midwifery care for a planned hospital birth. If you’re wanting to have intervention in your birth, a hospital birth would be best. If you choose an obstetrician, you’re far more likely to have a caesarean, episiotomy, epidural, forceps or vacuum. Choosing your care provider is the single most important decision you will make in birthing.

Is there a birth centre at westmead hospital?

No, there isn’t. If you’re after a natural birth, the best choice would be a home birth.

C section or natural delivery midwife?

Midwves cannot perform caesareans. If a caesarean was needed, the midwife would call a doctor in to perform it. Most caesareans that are performed are unnecessary and increase the risks to the mother and baby. A natural birth is the safest way to birth, and midwives are qualified specialists in natural birth.

giving birth after birth trauma

Private midwifery care will be really important so that you can have the same midwife all the way through pregnancy, birth and postnatally. It’s also important to debrief your last experience and come to a place where you feel safe to birth again.

high risk midwife sydney

Midwives are not qualified to care for high risk pregnancies. We refer these women onto obstetricians. In most cases, one or two consultations is all that is needed with the obstetrician and the midwife continues the care of the woman.

how many births proceed naturally

What a great question! It all depends what care provider you choose and where you have your baby. You see, if you choose a private midwife and birth at home, you have about a 95% chance of having a vaginal birth. If you birth in a private hospital, you have about a 33% chace of having an unassisted vaginal birth. In some hospitals, the caesarean rate is more than the vaginal birth rate! Sad but true.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Fibroids May Raise Risk of Stillbirth

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

Link

Women who have uterine fibroids are at increased risk for stillbirth …

“… they occur in 5 percent to 20 percent of all women, but most women … don’t even know they have them,” …

… The incidence of stillbirth among those with fibroids was 1.6 percent, compared to 0.7 percent for women without fibroids.

” … women with a combination of fibroids and fetal growth restriction were at two-and-a-half times the risk of having a stillbirth, though the absolute risk remained rare,” … “This may lead to a future recommendation for serial growth scans to monitor fetal growth in women with fibroids.”

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Mother loses baby after being given ‘abortion’ drug to induce labour

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

Link

The death of Sofia Figus three days after she was born was caused by a lack of oxygen … Her mother Anne … was 12 days overdue when she was prescribed Misoprostol – a drug widely used in abortion clinics – to bring on contractions.

Mrs Willicombe and her husband … are now suing the … Hospital … for failing to monitor the baby …

Misoprostol is only licensed … for the treatment of stomach ulcers. Under official guidelines … it should not be used to induce labour unless as part of a clinical trial.

… the drug … is cheaper than other methods to induce birth …

Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, said she was “absolutely incredulous” that any hospital would give the drug to women …

She said: “This drug is not licensed for use in labour, and the NICE guidance is categorical on that point. In this country, misoprostol should only be used in labour if the baby is already dead, or after the birth, because otherwise the risks are simply too great.”

Mrs Willicombe was not informed the drug was only recommended for use in clinical trials – and nor was she told that she was taking part in any trial.

“I just remember them being very reassuring and saying this drug is fine,” …

… Mrs Willicombe … was not properly monitored and was treated in a room unsuitable for what should have then been classified a high-risk birth.

Within 10 minutes of being given the drug … her waters broke – almost certainly naturally because it was too soon for the Misoprostol to take effect. About four hours later, she was given a second dose leading to contractions which then became more frequent …

… The mother-to-be was moved from the maternity ward to the delivery suite but then placed in a room … without proper monitoring equipment … The midwife then ordered Mr Figus to hit the alarm button. A team of doctors raced in to deliver the baby, the first time Ms Willicombe realised her dream of a first child was turning into her worst nightmare.

“She just came out blue and lifeless,” recalled Ms Willicombe, “She was completely floppy. They held her up very briefly for us to see her and then took her away to resuscitate her … she … suffered severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen … we agreed to take her off the ventilator. Three days later she died.”

… a coroner in east London concluded Sofia had died of natural causes as a result of neglect.

Their lawyer … said: “It appears clear that Mrs Willicombe received substandard monitoring during her labour with Sofia. This substandard monitoring also needs to be put in to the context of the use of an unlicensed drug which is known to have the side effect of uterine hyperstimulation. It appears that Sofia’s death could have been avoided, had the monitoring been appropriate.”

… ” … it was not the drug which led to complications for her mother, but rather the failure of a midwife to provide proper supervision during labour … That midwife has … been dismissed …

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Listening to Baby’s Heart at Home May Be Misleading

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

Link

Expectant mothers may enjoy listening to their unborn babies’ heartbeats, but they shouldn’t rely on home fetal heart monitors to provide an accurate picture of fetal health …

The devices may provide false reassurance in some situations …

… Chakladar reported a case in which a … woman who was 38 weeks pregnant went to the emergency department because she couldn’t hear her baby’s heartbeat with her home fetal heart monitor.

A few days earlier, … she had noticed that the baby was moving far less than usual … she reassured herself that everything was OK by listening to the monitor. A couple of days later, when she listened again, she couldn’t detect anything …

… an ultrasound … found no fetal heart activity. They gave the diagnosis — intrauterine death … the stillbirth “may have been unavoidable,” but listening to the fetal heart monitor “certainly delayed presentation to the hospital.”

“Without training,” … sounds heard on the monitor “could easily be misinterpreted.” Likely, the mother had simply heard her own pulse or placental flow instead.

… the risks of having a mother delay seeking medical attention … tend to be overlooked … Medical professionals provide context that an untrained mother can’t …

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Deaths of Scottish Infants Drop Dramatically

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

Link

Delivery-related deaths of term infants decreased nearly 40% over two decades in Scotland, most likely because fewer babies died from lack of oxygen during childbirth …

The risk of delivery-related perinatal death decreased from 8.8 to 5.5 deaths per 10,000 births between 1988 and 2007 …

The decrease was mostly attributable to a significant drop in deaths ascribed to intrapartum anoxia, which fell … from 5.7 to 3.0 per 10,000 births

… “The pattern of the decline suggests that this was primarily due to a reduced number of severely anoxic infants, rather than improved neonatal resuscitation. The change was paralleled by increased rates of cesarean delivery, but there is no direct evidence supporting a causal association between the two trends,” …

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Sexual relationship duration and pre-eclampsia

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

Link

… a short sexual relationship duration is a significant risk factor for pre-eclampsia. A short duration was also assocaited with delivery of a small-for-gestational age (SGA) infant in … women with abnormal Doppler findings during pregnancy.

Some researchers have previously proposed that an inappropriate maternal immune response to fetal antigens derived from paternal DNA plays an important role in pre-eclampsia pathogenesis. It has been suggested that an abnormal response results in restricted trophoblast invasion of spiral arteries – a characteristic of pre-eclampsia and, to some degree, SGA pregnancies.

This led to the hypothesis that the risk of pre-eclampsia is reduced by repeated prior exposure to semen from the biological father or by a longer pre-pregnancy duration of sexual relationship. This has been supported by the findings of some published studies …

… The median length of sexual relationship with the biological father was 40 months in the pre-eclampsia group, 42 months in the SGA group, and 48 months in the control group.

… “a short duration of sexual relationship increases the risk of pre-eclampsia” and … this is consistent with the hypothesis that a short pre-pregnancy duration is often insufficient for the development of maternal tolerance to paternal antigens.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

The Unkindest Cut

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

Link

“I’m afraid of something happening to me that I don’t want,” I said. The other women nodded their heads. “Yeah,” said another, “when you’re out of it.”

We had been instructed to form a group separate from our partners to discuss our fears about the labor experience and our expectations of what we would get out of this Childbirth Education Class, now in its first session. But for some of us it was like therapy in a bomb shelter. The issue looming overhead was not the risk our own bodies might present to us, but the risks we knew were standard protocol in the hospitals we were suddenly being farmed out to.

… we learned in mid-May that no more births could take place … [at] the Birth Center … the Birth and Women’s Health Center had been part of the for-profit Associates in Women’s Health Care for the past four years. But midwifery, the care provided at the Birth Center, is not terribly profitable when placed alongside the cash cow of modern obstetrics …

… “One cannot help an involuntary process. The point is not to disturb it.” So renowned French physician Michel Odent articulated the philosophy that has been the cornerstone of birth assistance worldwide since human birth began.

… in the early 1800s the average woman in this country gave birth at home attended by a woman midwife … However, in the 1900s birth moved to the hospital, due in part to industrialized America’s starry-eyed wonder at technology and the male-dominated medical profession, and in part because physicians who’d formerly shunned poor women began to offer their services at free clinics for the purposes of experimentation and instruction …

… “Over the past 30 years, obstetric management has converted what should, in most cases, be a healthy, normal process into a high-tech event.” And while some would argue that we’re better safe than sorry in our caregivers’ preparedness for crisis … the vast majority of hospital births in this country find mother and baby at greater risk for complications due to unnecessary medical intervention …

… “The best way to avoid a c-section is to be informed,” … Despite informed consent laws and assurances from administrators that all procedures are the mother’s decision, few women go into labor confident that they know better than their doctors which procedures are useful and when …

… hierarchical protocols in hospitals sharply reduce the authority of midwives in favor of the medical model, making the obstetrician the authority.

Why not trust the obstetrician? Won’t she or he want what is best for the patients? The answer is complex and alarming: Not always … For example, a woman’s likelihood of having a cesarean depends very little on her or her baby’s physical condition. The factors that sway the statistics much more include where she is giving birth (a hospital, freestanding birth center, or at home), who is assisting (an obstetrician, family practitioner, or midwife), hospital culture and policies, and–the strongest determinant–her caregiver’s cesarean rate. These factors influence not only who has cesareans, but who receives most of the medical procedures and drugs currently in fashion. These include fetal heart monitoring (the machine that goes ping!), episiotomies, IV, labor induction, epidural anesthesia, forceps and vacuum delivery and a host of other technologies that studies show compromise the health of the patients with little or no benefit.

One more factor significantly increases the likelihood of unnecessary procedures: profit. Obstetricians often receive hundreds of dollars more for ceseareans than vaginal births, and hospitals can receive thousands of dollars more. An epidural jacks the bill up another grand. Fetal heart monitoring saves hospitals money by allowing one nurse to monitor several babies, as does the heartless practice of whisking the baby away to the nursery once born.

The philosophy of obstetrics management posits that childbirth is a pathological condition requiring the intervention of surgeons. Hospitals are our culture’s centers of crisis and disaster, and that is why the majority of births do not belong there.

… In the 1970s, women’s dissatisfaction with the medical model of childbirth gave rise to the concept of the freestanding birth center. Birth centers, usually located close to but separate from a hospital, provide more supportive, less technologically oriented maternity care for low-risk women by certified nurse-midwives. By 1989 there were 132 freestanding birth centers operating in the US, delivering about 20,000 babies each year … birth centers offered medical care comparable to hospitals for low-risk women, often at half the price …

I asked the eight women in Childbirth Education class if any were planning a home birth, and only one raised her hand … Home birth in Tucson, together with prenatal and postnatal visits by a midwife, costs around $2,000–a pittance compared to the astronomical costs of hospital birth, which can be over $10,000. Ironically, though most of us had been “lucky” enough to have insurance that covered the birth center, none of our plans cover home birth however inexpensive, so hospital birth has become our only affordable choice.

… Now the 49 women who were due to deliver at the birth center next month, and those like myself who were due not long after, are hauling our backaches around Tucson to check out our alternatives.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

The great Caesarean section debate

Interested in home birth, hospital birth or private midwifery care? Questions or comments? Email me at Essential Birth Consulting or call 0400 418 448.

Link

PARENTING: WHAT IS IT with Irish women and obstetricians? Most of us feel so much safer putting our pregnancy in their care. That makes absolute sense for the minority of expectant mothers who have complications. But why do the rest of us not see midwives as the experts on normal birth? It is abnormal births that are the business of consultants, …

… “Sometimes the idea of ‘my obstetrician’ is flaunted like a Prada bag. … I have never seen it in any other country to that degree, except in America,” says Krysia Lynch, press officer for the Association of Improvements in Maternity Services (AIMS) – Ireland.

“They feel if they get an obstetrician, somehow it is going to be safer. What a lot of women don’t realise is that what you’re doing with an obstetrician is you are getting continuity of care, that is the only thing that is different; when you are going for antenatal visits you are seeing the same person.

However, when women are in labour, they are cared for by midwives they have not met before, so there’s not true continuity of care.

“But when you have your baby it is the same midwives that will deliver your baby as are delivering the public patient in the next room and I think a lot of woman feel very taken aback by this,” Lynch suggests. (Although I would have thought that at that point in labour, you should be glad that you don’t need the services of your consultant.)

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the “medicalisation” of straightforward births increases the risk of complications, with one intervention leading to another, until an emergency Caesarean section is the best option. Some pregnant women, terrified of the pain and unpredictable nature of labour, see a planned Caesarean as the best choice from the start.

A planned caesarean can almost be guaranteed, whereas a planned vaginal birth is not a certainty. Women planning vaginal births are sometimes encouraged to also consider the possibility of a caesarean, whereas women planning caesareans are not encouraged to consider the possibility of a fast labour and natural birth. Women who plan caesareans generally want the certainty that a caesarean brings.

This ultimate intervention into the natural birth process has risen dramatically in the past 15 years.

Australia’s CS rate is most likely around 35% now. It was 31% in 2006 and CS rates increase every year. Our low VBAC rate suggests that most women who have a primary caesarean will have an elective repeat caesarean for their next birth. This is contrary to the best evidence around VBAC.

According to the World Health Organisation, Caesarean sections should account for no more than 15 per cent of all births. It found there were no additional health benefits associated with a higher rate.

… There is no doubt that a Caesarean section increases the risk to both mothers and babies, when compared with spontaneous vaginal birth, and it is also significantly more expensive for the health service.

… the reasons behind this increase are much more opaque …

… known risk factors, such as older maternal age at birth and the earlier gestational age of the child, only explained half of the increase in the rate among first-time mothers …

… “If we are saying the section rate is too high, we have to come up with logical reasons as to how we can decrease it.”

I have a few suggestions:
1. Increase the numbers of women who receive primary midwifery care. Encourage midwifery care for all low risk and healthy women.
2. Encourage home as the normal place for birth to occur for all healthy and low risk women.
3. Provide continuity of midwifery care for all high risk women (in conjunction with obstetric care).
4. Ensure that all women having their first babies, all VBAC women and all women who have previously been traumatised by their birth, have continuity of midwifery care.

… Our maternity services certainly have an excellent safety record … Ireland had the lowest rate in the world of women dying during or just after pregnancy – one out of 47,600 women, compared with one in 4,800 in the US …

… the factors at play in driving up the rate of Caesarean births seem to range from medical and health policy issues to cultural and social influences.

The huge variation in rates from hospital to hospital indicates the complexities of the situation …

… Caesarean rates range … from a low of 18 per cent … to 37 per cent …

… we have no national guidelines on Caesarean section … “If we did, and they were applied across the board, we would have possibly lower C-section rates.”

Secondly … “We have a high birth rate, too few midwives; we have quite inadequate circumstances for dealing in proper one-to-one care for women in labour.”

She sees a third major factor being the “inappropriate” use of routine foetal heartbeat monitoring, known as CTG. Research shows that continuous monitoring of the heartbeat leads to a substantial increase in the risk of a woman having a Caesarean section.

… “More C-sections will be performed for abnormal foetal heart rates, but they may not really be abnormal foetal heart rates.”

Fourthly, there is a perception that Caesarean section is a safe and trouble-free intervention – that is a view held not only by the public but also by the consultants, she argues. “Women are not informed of complications.”

… “sometimes come to classes with the notion that maybe they would go for an elective section … It has become sort of accepted that this would be an option. I think some women would be very glad if there was a reason an elective section had to be performed.”

She attributes much of that to fear: “They are not hearing that many good stories from their friends, their sisters and their cousins about birth – particularly birth in the current maternity services. It doesn’t really allow women to build up any degree of confidence.”

What Healy describes as “my precious baby syndrome” among older mothers is also a factor. “They have either waited a long time to have their first baby, or perhaps in some instances unfortunately it took a long time to conceive their first baby.

“People are acutely aware that they don’t have too many shots at this and they need to be taken better care of. In actual fact, Caesarean isn’t safer at all, but the general population thinks that it is.”

When she hears back from clients who have had an emergency Caesarean section, they typically talk about feeling very grateful that their baby was saved and that nothing terrible went wrong.

“That is great, except what I would often question is what went before it? Was there a cascade of intervention that is a well-known phenomenon in the medicalised birth?”

Research shows that continuity of care, typically provided in midwife-led units, and lack of time pressures, increases the chances of a normal birth.

Mothers are not caught in the following cycle: induction causing greater pain, leading to the need for epidurals, which slow down labour, that is speeded up with synthetic hormones, which result in faster and harder contractions, that may distress the baby and require a surgeon to come to the rescue.

… the way to cut the rate of Caesareans is to look at more low-tech solutions and to get more midwives in there.

“Conceiving your baby for most people is not a high-tech activity; birthing your baby also shouldn’t be,” she adds. “If we supported women, they would have a more enjoyable experience, which is a better start to motherhood.”

… the philosophy of any given maternity unit is also influential. “If you have a high section rate, you have a high instrumental delivery rate, you have a high intervention rate.”

The fear of litigation is there, he agrees, but not a significant factor …

… In Dublin’s three public maternity hospitals, the principal increase has been among women who have had previous Caesareans …

… “… Obstetric care doesn’t make sense, unless a woman has complications.”

She believes changes are imminent as policymakers focus on normal birth and the cost of intervention. Positive findings are coming through in research on the few midwifery-led schemes.

“In 10 years’ time I think we will be looking at a very different maternity system,” Donegan says. “But while consultants are seen to be the experts on maternity care, I think Mary Harney is going to have her work cut out for her.”

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Outcomes of planned home birth with a registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link

More research to prove the safety of low risk home birth. It’s interesting to note that VBACs are included in this home birth study as low risk. For the record, there were 2 uterine ruptures, both in the hospital-doctor-attended births. The rate of rupture was therefore 0.0154%. Much lower than the oft-quoted 0.7%. The midwives must be doing something right!

Giving birth at home with a midwife present is as safe as a hospital delivery accompanied by a doctor, suggests a new Canadian study …

Actually, they got that bit wrong. Midwife-attended home birth was not found to be as safe as doctor-attended hospital birth: it was found to be the safest. The safest way for a low risk woman to birth is at home with a midwife, then in hospital with a midwife, and the most dangerous way to birth, according to the study, was with an obstetrician in hospital.

The study … analysed nearly 2,900 planned home births in British Columbia that were attended by regulated midwives, more than 4,700 planned hospital births attended by the same midwives and more than 5,300 hospital births attended by physicians.

The research found that women who had a planned home birth had a lower risk of having to undergo obstetric interventions such as electronic fetal monitoring, epidural, assisted vaginal delivery and caesarean section, and adverse outcomes such as hemorrhage and infection.

The babies born at home were also less likely to suffer birth trauma, require resuscitation at birth and less likely to have meconium aspiration, where they inhale a mixture of their feces and amniotic fluid.

The perinatal death rate per 1,000 births was also low across all three groups.

But it was lowest amongst the midwife-attended home births.

“The decision to plan a birth attended by a registered midwife at home versus in hospital was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death,” the authors said. “Women who planned a home birth were at reduced risk of all obstetric interventions assessed and were at similar or reduced risk of adverse maternal outcomes compared with women who planned to give birth in hospital accompanied by a midwife or physician.”

The findings add to the ongoing debate about the safety of home births. According to the study, research from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and New Zealand has not found a link between planned home births and an increased risk of complications …

This research adds to the growing body of research that is no longer suggesting – but proving – that low risk home birth is safe. I think we can mount a strong case that the Australian Government is now putting women at risk by failing to indemnify midwives for home births after 2010.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Birth wars rage in your delivery room

For further information about birth or private midwifery, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link

YOU’RE in the dentist’s chair with a painful tooth, feeling fragile.

“That tooth has to come out,” says the dentist.

“I’ll give you an anaesthetic and extract it.”

You’re surprised – you had hoped the tooth would be all right – but you nod and say something like “Ungh-hnghm” through a mouthful of cotton wool and dentist fingers. After all, he’s the expert.

The dentist turns to prepare the needle, when a dental technician leans over and whispers in your ear: “You know you don’t have to do what he says.

“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. What about root canal? Or homoeopathic remedies? And anyway, you don’t need an anaesthetic.

“There’s a dentist next door who does acupuncture and hypnosis for pain relief. It’s much safer. Oh, and did you know fluoride is toxic?”

The dentist snaps at her to stop: “Ignore her – she’s pushing her own agenda.”

Tense, stressed and utterly confused, you lie back, open your mouth and look up at two medicos glaring at one another.

Who is in charge here? What’s the real truth? And why didn’t anyone tell you there was some sort of power struggle going on?

Of course, this doesn’t happen in dental surgeries. Open hostility between clinicians would be madness, serving only to baffle patients and undermine the whole purpose of creating healthy smiles.

But this is exactly what happens in maternity care, every day, in birth centres, hospitals and homes. Hostility, suspicion, mistrust, abuse and vitriol abound in relationships between obstetricians and midwives, clinicians, academics and activists.

Many readers already will have decided that this article is biased because I chose to use a dentistry metaphor – they’ll say a diseased tooth is utterly incomparable to the natural process of childbirth.

Or … they might say it’s unfair to choose a dentist and a technician to represent the opposing forces, because it implies one is more expert than the other – or that it’s wrong to mention homoeopathy or acupuncture because they have unfair implications of hippiedom.

Welcome to the birth wars. Everything that is published, posted or broadcast about the topic of pregnancy, birth and parenthood is contentious.

Some midwives and obstetricians are moderate and co-operative – but many are entirely opposed to the idea of working together, or sharing expertise …

There seems to be no middle ground. And that’s the problem, according to author Mary-Rose MacColl, a journalist … who spent years investigating maternity care. Her new book, “The Birth Wars” … is an exploration and denunciation of “the conflict putting Australian women and babies at risk”.

… MacColl uncovers a battleground that she believes Australians need to understand. It’s a fight between “organics” and “mechanics” for control and influence.

In MacColl’s parlance, the “organics” are mainly midwives who believe birth is a natural process that has become overly medicalised, with the consequence that many women are traumatised by cold, clinical births, unnecessary caesareans and excessive medication.

The “mechanics” include many obstetricians and hospital clinicians, who believe birth is a risky, delicate process that must be carefully monitored to ensure women and babies are safe.

Between the two sides, virtually nothing is agreed. Can a breech baby be delivered vaginally? Can a caesarean birth be followed by a vaginal birth? Should women be given synthetic hormones to help deliver placentas quickly after birth? Should home birth be encouraged, or even allowed?

… Beneath those practical questions are deeper, theoretical fights that rage with equal vehemence: what is an acceptable level of risk? What does “safety” mean? Is it essential that women have continuous care from a single, trusted practitioner?

Do we even have a right to expect that all births will result in live, healthy mothers and babies – or have we deluded ourselves about what to expect?

… The biggest problem … is not home births nor caesareans nor any of a hundred other contentious issues: the biggest problem is the destructive birth wars themselves.

“They need to talk to each other and they need to work out their differences, so that women get a coherent view about maternity care from the maternity care profession. I think that’s a reasonable thing for women to expect,” she says.
… if there is no consensus between practitioners, how are expectant parents supposed to make decisions?

… Lillienne’s story is told in The Birth Wars, but the short version is that her mother … was labouring in the midwife-run Birth Centre … After many … hours she was transferred to the hospital’s surgical Birth Suite. The baby’s heart rate dropped dramatically during labour, she was deprived of oxygen for some time and was eventually born by c-section.

Reviews found numerous problems: Debra’s high blood pressure was not interpreted as a warning sign at an early stage; confusion reigned over who was in charge; obstetricians were not welcome in the Birth Centre, where midwives were in charge.

… MacColl says there are many birth centres within hospitals, where doctors and midwives oversee completely separate domains ….

… the federal Government proposes to overhaul maternity by subsidising insurance costs for midwives, helping them to operate in private practice. Home births will not be covered.

… The proposal has sparked a furious debate, with home-birth advocates warning that women will have secret, underground home births without expert care.

… “While ever they’re fighting and it’s `organics versus mechanics’ we’ll have no change in the hospital system. We’ll keep establishing birth centres that draw lines in the linoleum and (say): `He’s on that side, I’m on this side and he better not cross the line.

… How crazy is it that you can be in one of the largest tertiary hospitals in Australia and have a situation where doctors are not allowed in? And, at the same time, how can you not recognise that a woman in labour is going to need a quiet, dark, calm environment like a birth centre, instead of a stark hospital room?”

MacColl has two goals. The first is to raise awareness that the birth wars exist, in the hope that parents can think carefully about their choices before the contractions begin …

I thought that was a fantastic article! I’m not sure that the solution is as simple as midwives and obstetricians sitting down and talking. For one thing, I don’t necessarily agree that obstetricians have an agenda that is too dissimilar to midwives’ agendas. I believe insurance is the key.

Currently, obstetricians have insurance and are far more likely than midwives, to be sued. Midwives essentially cannot be sued. For there to be a case, there needs to be solicitors and barristers on both sides. Private midwives are self-employed, and despite the view that women pay excessive amounts of money for their births, I can assure you we’re not wealthy. Essentially, midwives do not have money to fund lengthy court cases. But obstetricians do. And so do hospitals. Hospital-employed midwives are covered by vicarious liability. So if there’s going to be a court case, the woman or her baby are best suing the doctor or the hospital, rather than the private midwife.

No hospital or doctor wants to go through a court case. Even if they win, it’s emotionally and mentally taxing, it takes much time, and costs money. So there’s a strong incentive to avoid court cases and being sued. And the best way to do this is to practice defensively. Do a caesarean sooner rather than later. It’s easier to sue for a caesarean that was not performed in time – clearly, if something went “wrong”, a woman can argue that a caesarean should have been performed. Conversely, it’s very hard to prove that a caesarean was unnecessary. You can always find a reason why it was necessary.

So we have created – via our legal system – a situation where caesareans and any other interventions are encouraged. You cannot be sued for intervening. Only for failing to intervene.

So our caesarean rate is amongst the highest in the world. Over 31%.

We induce many women.

We continuously monitor many babies in labour.

We do not encourage waterbirth (how can you get a woman out in time if there’s an emergency??)

We encourage birth on the bed so that forceps or a vacuum can be easily applied if needed.

All births ought to take place in hospitals – or at worst, birth centres that are right next to the delivery suite and operating theatre. You just never know when they’re going to be needed.

Can you see what’s happening here? The fear of litigation prompts defensive practice, which leads to higher rates of intervention.

But I come back to my original statement: I don’t believe that mdiwives’ and obstetrician’s agendas are too dissimilar. Both want the best for women and their babies. I do not believe that obstetricians are out there to perform as many caesareans as possible, and to induce all other women and extract their babies with forceps. Nor do I beieve that every midwife wants to birth women in the water, with no monitoring of the baby, letting the labour go on for as long as it takes.

But insurance is the key. People have a need for safety. That includes midwives and obstetricians. Noone goes to work with the intention of traumatising a woman with surgery – particularly unnecessary surgery – but this needs to be balanced with the needs of the professional to practice their profession safely, however they define it.

If it were up to me, I would call for two things:

1. Greater transparency of pratitioner’s intervention rates, perhaps on a public register that is easily accessible, so that women are able to choose their health professionals with accurate information; and
2. Reform of our legal system, to a no-fault system such as the ACC Scheme in NZ.

Midiwves and obstetricians getting together and talking is a way away. It happens every day, but actually sorting out the differences will take time. There are many issues at the heart: competition, money, perceived superiority (from both sides!), the list goes on.

National guidelines on midwifery and obstetric care might help. Guidelines that state that within certain guidelines, women see a midwife. If they choose to see an obstetrician, they may fund this themself. And then, if a woman’s condition deviates from normality, as defined by guidelines, the midwife and woman consults with an obstetrician, or refers the woman’s care to an obstetrician. In this model, we see midwives caring for healthy pregnant and birthing women – doing what we do best, and obstetricians caring for women who need their services – doing what they do best. Such guidelines would optimise the care of pregnant women and eliminate the turf wars. These guidelines are in existence, and have been developed by the College of Midwives. Private midwives and employed midwives use them to guide the care they give to women.

The author of the article states, “obstetricians were not welcome in the Birth Centre, where midwives were in charge” – there is no issue with this. Midwives ought to be in charge of normal birth: it is our specialty. What is wrong is to fail to offer an obstetric consult to a woman when her condition deems it necessary. The GP provides most of the care to a family and refers members of the family to specialists when necessary: this is not perceived as a turf war. Why is midwifery and obstetrics any different?

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Warning Over Home Fetal Heart Rate Monitors

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link

Expectant mothers are being warned over the use personal monitors, such as Doppler devices, to listen to their baby’s heartbeat at home. There is concern that they may lead to delays in seeking assistance for reduced fetal movements.

Dr Thomas Aust and colleagues from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Arrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK describe the case of a 27 year old woman … . She presented to their labor ward 32 weeks into her first pregnancy with reduced fetal movements.

Two days earlier, she had first noted a reduction in her baby’s activity. But she had used her own Doppler device to listen to the heartbeat and reassured herself that everything was normal.

Additional monitoring by the antenatal care team raised the alarm. The baby was delivered by caesarean section later that evening …

The authors explain that a hand-held Doppler device assesses the presence of fetal heart pulsations only at that moment. It is used by midwives and obstetricians … In inexpert hands it is more probable that blood flow through the placenta or the mother’s main blood vessels will be heard.

… a fetal Doppler device could be hired for £10 (about 16.46 USD) a month or bought for £25 to 50 (about 41 to 82 USD) … The companies offering sales state that the device is not intended to replace recommended antenatal care. However, they also make claims such as “you will be able to locate and hear the heartbeat with excellent clarity” …

I have always been concerned about use of dopplers in this way. Midwives and obstetricians are trained to interpret the baby’s heart rate in relation to what is happening for the woman at the time. The best advice for parents is to call your midwife or doctor if you’re concerned about your baby – if you feel that something isn’t right, or if your baby is not moving as much as s/he usually moves.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Study Examines Reduction In Birth-Related Rate Of Death Of Infants Born At Term

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link

During about the last 20 years, the risk of delivery-related death at birth or shortly thereafter for term infants has decreased nearly 40 percent in Scotland, with the largest contributing factor being a decrease in the number of deaths caused by a lack of oxygen for the baby during the childbirth process …

Rates of obstetric intervention in labor, including cesarean delivery, have increased significantly in most developed countries. “It is, however, unclear if this has been paralleled by decreased rates of perinatal [pertaining to the period immediately before and after birth] and neonatal death associated with complications of labor at term,” …

… The study included … all single infant births in a cephalic presentation at term (n = 1,012,266), excluding those with perinatal death due to congenital anomaly or antepartum (before birth) stillbirth.

There were 719 delivery-related perinatal deaths (0.07 percent) during the study period, which included 219 intrapartum stillbirths [and] 500 neonatal deaths … Of these perinatal deaths, 432 (60.1 percent) were attributed to intrapartum anoxia … and 287 (39.9 percent) were attributed to other causes.

The absolute risk of delivery-related perinatal death in the population was 7.1 per 10,000 births. When modeled between 1988 and 2007, there was a decrease in the risk of delivery-related perinatal death from 8.8 to 5.5 per 10,000 births … When analyzed by the cause of death, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of death attributed to intrapartum anoxia from 5.7 to 3.0 per 10,000 births …

… “The pattern of the decline suggests that this was primarily due to a reduced number of severely anoxic infants rather than improved neonatal resuscitation. The change was paralleled by increased rates of cesarean delivery, but there is no direct evidence supporting a causal association between the 2 trends.”

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Specialists want doctors to reduce c-section rate

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link

I was shocked just by the title of this article!

Leaders of Canada’s pregnancy specialists are urging doctors not to induce labour unless there are compelling medical reasons.

The call is part of a campaign to “normalize” childbirth and efforts to reduce Canada’s soaring cesarean section rate. Some studies suggest inducing labour in a first-time mother significantly increases her risk of a C-section.

… Doctors say several factors are driving induction rates, including the number of older first-time mothers, medical legal concerns and convenience.

“[Women may say], ‘My husband is going somewhere, can’t you get my baby out Monday?’ ” …

For most expectant mothers, labour begins spontaneously, at about 40 weeks into the pregnancy.

Induction of labour occurs when medications such as prostaglandin and oxytocin are used when a woman is past her due date to ripen the cervix and get the uterus contracting.

“The message … is, be patient and do not consider inductions before the end of the 41st week,” said Lalonde. “If you wait that extra week to 10 days, you will find that most women … will go into spontaneous labour.”

He says “the number one risk” of induction is that it leads to earlier decisions about a C-section … Nearly 28% of babies were born surgically in Canada in 2007-08 … That’s up from 5% in 1969.

… Induction can lead to longer, more painful labour and continuous electronic monitoring of the baby’s heart rate, which itself increases the risk of C-sections, because it generates “a lot of information. In fact, too much information,” says Dr. William Ehman … “So you are trying to sort out the important things versus what’s not important.”

Research shows that, in healthy pregnancies, checking the baby’s heart rate after contractions by listening, or using a hand-held device, reduces the risk of interventions.

But a recently released Canadian survey of more than 6,000 women who have given birth in the last few years found most women (91%) experienced electronic fetal monitoring during labour …

Ehman worries that women, and their doctors, have lost confidence in the ability to give birth without technological interventions.

… “Nature prepares the uterus better than we can,” Ehman said. “There’s probably a whole host of things that triggers labour in the first place — and mainly it’s probably the baby. So when the baby is ready it facilitates labour by lots of mechanisms that we can’t do.

“We can add these chemicals and get the uterus contracting. But we just know that the numbers say that inductions, if they are done unnecessarily, are going to increase the risk of a C-section.”

A very positive article from a doctor. Unfortunately, it’s what midwives have been saying for many many years. Australia’s CS rate is 31% (well, that was in 2006… I dread to think what it might be now); the CS rate in canada was only 28%. I hope that the changes to the provision of maternity services that are proposed to take place at the end of 2010 will help to bring down our caesarean rate.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

The Truth about Hospital Birth: Why Hospital Is Not An Ideal Place for a Natural Birth

For further information on hospital birth or natural birth, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Hospital birth … which woman does not want to give birth in hospital in these days? Ask any pregnant woman where she is planning to give birth, and you will find that 96%+ of them will answer, “hospital”.

Less than 3% women will plan to give birth in a birth centre, and approximately 1.5% to 2% will succeed. 0.2% women Australia-wide will birth at home.

Hospital has been the first choice for women who are planning to give birth. Women choose to have their babies in hospitals because they are afraid not to. They are scared that if something goes wrong and they are not in hospital, that their baby will die, or that they will be harmed. They think that having a baby is like undergoing a major medical event so that they feel safe to be close to modern technology and a skilled obstetrician. The more the obstetrician costs, they better they must be. The more equipment and technology available in the hospital, the better it must be.

They are equally scared that if they don’t have a hospital birth, then they or their babies would die. In short, women no longer trust their body to give birth, despite the fact that it has been shown throughout centuries that women’s bodies are perfectly suited to give birth.

Some people argue this point, saying that mortality rates have come down dramatically since we moved birth to hospitals. And yes, mortality has come down and birth has moved to hospital. But it is not a cause-and-effect relationship. In fact, when birth moved to hospitals, MORE women and babies died. They died of infection because doctors would work on cadavers and then attend women in birth. They did not know about infection control.

The mortality rate came down after sanitation improved. Another important change was the development of a transport system that saw food being delivered to people year-round – fruit especially. Improved education and literacy also made a big impact. This all combined to improve the health of women and babies. Later, when contraception became more widely available, women were able to space their children, and this too meant healthier women and babies.

It is very rare, that a woman asks herself whether labour and childbirth are really life threatening and dangerous. This is because all women today are being bombarded practically from childhood to womanhood by the message that childbirth is dangerous. The fact that media portray that childbirth is full of complications and that most women will need medical help to give birth helps to reinforce this myth. How many TV shows depict birth as being easy, safe, painless and non-technical? Very few. And many women poo-haa those scenes saying, “oh, she must have been lucky”. Luck has nothing to do with it. Preparation, choice of care provider and place of birth, and determination have everything to do with it.

For most women, labour and childbirth are normal events.

Labor And Childbirth Are Normal Events
Women who are healthy and have low risk pregnancies should be able to give birth naturally if they are given correct information and preparation on how to do so. I am not of the belief that women need any pain relief in a normal labour. And without the use of pain relief, the vast majority of women will birth without complication.

Most Childbirth Complications Are Iatrogenic
Complications and/or horrible birth experiences that some of these supposedly low risk women experience are not caused by their body’s inability to give birth, but are often caused by medical interventions introduced one after another, during the hospital birth.

It looks something like:
- have an induction because you’re a couple of days past your due date
- this involves giving you gel so your cervix softens
- when your cervix is soft, your waters will be broken
- you will then need a drip to start labour
- because you have a drip (which can stress the baby), you will need continuous monitoring of your baby’s heart rate – that’s that monitor that they strap to your belly. Or, the staff may screw an electrode into your baby’s head and you will have 1 less belt on your tummy
- the drip will be increased until you are in good strong labour
- hopefully this process does not stress your baby. But most likely, it will stress you.
- unable to access the bath or shower or move into positions that help your body to birth your baby, you will need pain relief.
- you start on the gas
- the contractions are too strong for the gas
- you accept a dose of pethidine or morphine
- that wears off.
- you accept an epidural
- you will be examined regularly to assess progress
- you are now in bed, immobilised.
- your baby cannot move effectively through your pelvis
- your baby, unable to descend through your pelvis aided by gravity, and pounded by strong contractions, may become distressed
- if you are not yet fully dilated, you will have a caesarean
- if you are fully dilated, you will have forceps or a vacuum. Maybe an episiotomy too. And stitches
- you have an injection to speed the delivery of the placenta. Your uterus may be tired from the strong syntocinon-induced contractions. You may have a post-partum haemorrhage.

That’s called the cascade of intervention. Google it. It makes for interesting reading!

It is clear that for the most part, it is the hospital or doctor that causes the unnecessary complication of what is supposedly to be a low risk labour. This is achieved by interfering with the course of normal pregnancy or labour every step of the way. One intervention simply leads to another. Sometimes, it even starts in pregnancy with an ultraound because the baby is too big ….

In the scenario described above, see if you can count how many interventions the woman had (answers at the bottom). Let me know if I’ve missed any!

Of course, medical technology can be a life saver for true emergency situations. And I wholeheartedly promote hospital birth for high-risk women. But, the majority of women are not in this category. According to WHO, 80% women have healthy pregnancies.

You may have heard the legal phrase, “innocent until proven guilty”. Unfortunately, this does not apply to pregnant and birthing women in the hospital system. They’re guilty (high risk) until proven innocent (low risk) …. and unfortunately, that’s not until after the labour is over. In obstetric terms, birth is only normal in retrospect. Whereas midwives will always look for normality.

It is therefore not surprising that with this kind of birthing philosophy, birth becomes a more and more of a medical event rather than a normal family event.

Fetal Monitoring
Aside from this kind of obvious interventions, there are other routines along with the ‘dos and don’ts’ within the hospital policies that can potentially cause complications. The routine use of fetal monitoring during hospital birth, for instance, may seem harmless. But it also means you’ll have to lie still for the duration of the monitoring. You may be able to assume other positions, but continual movement will not permit the monitoring to pick up the baby’s heart rate. Unless a “clip” – read – thin wire that’s screwed into the baby’s head – is used.

To make things worse, the trace obtained from this machine (CTG) is often misinterpreted. Studies have shown that if you show the same trace to several people, they’ll all give different interpretations. And if you show the same trace to the same person, a few times over, each time the person will give a different opinion regarding the welfare of the baby.

Indeed, it has been shown that the use of CTG is associated with a dramatic increase in caesareans, without providing an improvement in outcome, compared to the use of the doppler to monitor the baby’s heartbeat.

Hospiral Policies
Interestingly, a lot of hospital policies are not in place to make birth easier. You would think that hospitals would help you to have a more natural experience. Rather, they are designed for the sake of efficiency and legal protection. As an institution, hospitals are more interested in managing the patients, than accomodating every client’s whim. The welfare and feelings of the woman are often taken out of the equation in the policy-making process. As long as the woman and baby are alive at the end of the process, it doesn’t matter whether women and babies are suffering unnecessarily. Suffering is hard to measure legally, whereas outcomes such as low apgar scores and duration of labour, are easier to measure and account for.

When you birth in an institution, no matter how person-friendly it seems to be, at the end of the day, you are on a production line. It is very process-oriented. The midwives are usually expert at not having you feel that you are on that conveyor belt. But you are. You are a thing to be processed according to hospital policies, deviations from which will not be tolerated because it interferes with the smooth running and efficiency of the whole machine (institution). The faster you can be put through the conveyor belt, the better for the institution. They can then have more through-put (income). Or, they (or their share holders) can benefit from fewer expenses (staff time) related to a shorter stay in delivery suite.

Thank you, Doctor
Unfortunately, many women think it’s normal to suffer greatly during childbirth. It is also quite common that they continue to believe that their bodies are abnormal and cannot withstand childbirth. They feel forever grateful to the hospital and their doctor, the one who saved them from the misery of childbirth, or who saved their baby from death. Little that they know that the source of disaster can be from the hospital intervention, not because of their bodies.

Hospital Is Not A Good Place For Healthy Babies
Finally, hospitals may not also be a great place to greet your newborn into the world. Aside from the fact that a hospital is a place full of antibiotic-resistant germs, a lot of hospitals also do not treat the newborn as respectfully or as kindly as you want it to be. In addition, there is usually separation between mother and baby after birth. At least for some time – maybe the baby will be in the same room as you, but may be assessed on the resuscitaire (how many women ask that their baby be assessed in the bed or on the floor or in the bath / shower with them?)

Also, many babies are separated from you over night “to let you get some sleep”. This sounds like a good thing at the time, until you get home and do not know what to do with your baby in the wee hours of the morning.

To Sum Up – The Truth Of Hospital Birth
In short, if you are planning to have a natural birth in hospital, consider the following:

Hospitals are rampant with medical intervention which can increase the risk of complications. As a result, you are at higher risk of having an unnecessary cesarian section if you choose a hospital birth.

You are not in control of your birth. Instead, hospitals control the birth through policies.

Hospitals are full of policies (routines) that are neither evidence-based nor birth-friendly.

In hospital, birth is viewed as a medical, not a normal, event. The health care professionals at the hospital are trained in pathology of birth, not normal birth.

The hospital environment may be impersonal and less cozy. This may impact your birth experience.

It’s almost impossible to have an intimate birth at a hospital.

Hospital Birth – YES or NO
After pondering the above facts, I hope you can now make your own decision on where you want to have your natural birth.

You have to realise that if you choose hospital birth, you have to be ready with all the consequences. A lot of time, requesting or rejecting certain procedures can cause irritation and misunderstanding between patient and the hospital staff. This friction may create a hostile or awkward environment which can make you feel uncomfortable and hard to relax.

Is this the environment you would like to be for your labour and birth ?

What are the other options?

There is good news!! There are two other options.

1. If you are a healthy woman, having a normal pregnancy, birth your baby at home with a registered midwife.

2. If you prefer to birth in hospital, or if you need to birth in hospital because you have a high risk pregnancy, employ the services of a private midwife. She can provide your antenatal (pregnancy) and postnatal (after baby is born) care and birth with you in hospital.

If you birth in hospital, expecting a natural birth, and you do not have a private midwife with you, this is much the same as doing your supermarket shopping in Bunnings. Newsflash! Bunnings do not sell groceries. Do not be disappointed when you do not find groceries in Bunnings. Rather, do your research and make choices that are aligned to the sort of birth you want to have. If you desire a natural birth and you’re healthy, have a home birth or a private midwife for a hospital birth. You do not need anyone’s permission (hospital, doctor etc). No more than you need their permission to have a massage or eat chocolate mousse. Private midwifery is known to carry a high natural birth rate and deliver excellent clinical outcomes to women and babies. The World Health Organisation recognises midwives as primary care providers for healthy, low risk women because midwifery care is know to deliver the best outcomes for this large group of women. For high risk women who are birthing in hospital, private midwifery will see you experiencing the minimal amount of intervention necessary.

ANSWERS:
1 gel
2 waters broken artificially
3 syntocinon drip to start labour
4 syntocinon drip to keep labour going
5 continuous monitoring
6 immobility
7 lack of access to the required tolls to facilitate normal labour
8 gas
9 pethidine or morphine
10 epidural
11 labouring in bed, unaided by gravity
12 caesarean or forceps or vacuum
13 vaginal examinations
14 forced (directed pushing) – needed with an epidural

These are the direct interventions. But what about the indirect interventions?

15 birthing in an unfamiliar environment
16 birthing with strangers
17 lack or direct one-to-one midwifery support
18 lack of continuity of care (can be assumed since vew few women are able to access this option in Australia)
19 imposed time limits on labour
20 managed third stage
21 separation of mother and baby after birth: a baby who is born after an operative delivery (caesarean, forceps, vacuum) will be taken to the resuscitaire for assessment by a paediatrician
22 breastfeeding will be impacted
23 bonding will be impacted.

Have I missed any? Let me know.

So …… 23 interventions when you thought you were only signing up for one!

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Hospital VBAC?

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Article

Ruby Wales holds her newborn, Carson. Her first doctor worried more about the risks of vaginal delivery than of cesarean, so she found a different one.

After an emergency cesarean with her first baby, Ruby Wales was holding out for a vaginal birth with her second one.

With a toddler underfoot, the 33-year-old Mission Viejo woman wanted a faster recovery. But finding a physician to deliver her second child wasn’t easy. Her first obstetrician turned her down flat. “She said, ‘No — no way,’ ” Wales recalled.

Once reserved for cases in which the life of the baby or mother was in danger, the cesarean is now routine. The most common operation in the U.S., it is performed in 31% of births, up from 4.5% in 1965.

Same stats as we have in Australia ….

With that surge has come an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications — and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.

It is a big reason childbirth often is held up in healthcare reform debates as an example of how the intensive and expensive U.S. brand of medicine has failed to deliver better results and may, in fact, be doing more harm than good.

“We’re going in the wrong direction,” said Dr. Roger A. Rosenblatt … “in which more intervention, such as cesareans, is linked with declining outcomes, such as neonatal intensive care admissions …”

… Because spending on the average uncomplicated cesarean for all patients runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs …

… The cesarean rate in the U.S. is higher than in most other developed nations. And in spite of a standing government goal of reducing such deliveries, the U.S. has set a new record every year for more than a decade.

We have the same situation in Australia: every year, the CS rate only goes up.

The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean … exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns …

Inducing childbirth — bringing on or hastening labor with the drug oxytocin — also is on the rise and is another source of growing concern. Experts say miscalculations often result in the delivery of infants who are too young to breathe on their own. Induction, studies show, also raises the risk of complications that lead to cesareans.

Induction may also fail. The majority of failed inductions end in caesarean.

Despite all this intervention — and, many believe, because of it — childbirth in the U.S. doesn’t measure up. The U.S. lags behind other developed nations on key performance indicators including infant mortality and birth weight.

And in at least two areas, the U.S. has lost ground after decades of improvement: The maternal death rate began to rise in 2002, and the typical American newborn is delivered at 39 weeks, down from the full 40 …

… “Cesarean birth ends up being a profit center in hospitals, so there’s not a lot of incentive to reduce them,” said Dr. Elliot Main, chief of obstetrics for Sutter Health, a Northern California hospital chain.

But there is a lot that hospitals can do to reduce them … Among California hospitals, cesareans range from 16% to 62% of births.

NSW caesarean rates vary from 15% to 46%. The average is 29%, two to three times that recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Such variation means a lot of women are getting unnecessary cesareans, Main said. “There’s no justification for that kind of variation.”

Physicians … have been blamed for failing to make women fully aware of the consequences of cesareans, and for promoting them for convenience.

But change is underway. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Strategic Partners program trains hospitals to implement a set of guidelines, such as the careful use of oxytocin, and a ban on elective deliveries before 39 weeks. In four years, 60 hospitals have signed on.

… 48% of newborns admitted to neonatal intensive care units were from scheduled deliveries, many of them before 39 weeks.

… After being notified of the correlation, the physicians changed their practices and reduced neonatal ICU admissions by 46% in three months.

The rise in avoidable first-birth cesareans has had a multiplier effect. Most U.S. physicians discourage vaginal deliveries after a cesarean because of some widely publicized cases several years ago in which the uterus split disastrously along the prior incision.

That’s why Ruby Wales’ first obstetrician refused.

“She said it was because there is a 1% chance of a uterine rupture,” Wales said. “And I thought that was weird because there’s more chance of things going wrong with a cesarean section.”

VBAC rates in Australia are very low. Some hospitals flat out refuse to “do” VBACs. Others openly discourage them.

But some obstetricians believe that new evidence supports allowing some women the option of trying for a vaginal birth.

… Saddleback supported Wales’ desire for a vaginal birth. Nine days after her due date and after 30 hours of labor, she gave birth — the way she wanted — to an 8-pound, 11-ounce boy.

“I was so glad nothing happened at the last minute to have an emergency C-section because I’d gone through all this work,” said Wales, resting in her hospital bed with baby Carson in her arms. “I’m so relieved that I don’t have to deal with a [cesarean] recovery because I have a 2 1/2-year-old at home who is very active.”

It can be very hard to achieve a VBAC in hospital. It’s far easier to have a VBAC at home. Hospital policies typically work against natural labour, and interventions such as continuous fetal monitoring and vaginal examinations every 2 or 4 hours will most likely see you labouring on your back in bed. This doesn’t allow you to work with your body to see you through a natural labour.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Upright Labor Positions Reduce Pain and Speed Birth

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link to article

Women who walk, sit, kneel or otherwise avoid lying in bed during early labor can shorten the first stage of labor by about an hour, according to a new Cochrane evidence review. Women who labored out of bed during the early stages were also 17 percent less likely to seek pain relief through epidural analgesia, the review found.

… So why would staying out of bed shorten labor and reduce pain?

… “The ability to change positions, to utilize a wider variety of positions, and try other options, such as hot showers, birthing balls and beanbag supports, may help reduce overall pain and give women a greater sense of control over the progress of their labor”.

When women are upright, there is also more room for the baby to move downward because the diameter of the pelvis expands slightly. This puts less pressure on nerves in the spine, which could mean less pain.

… Being upright allows gravity to help the baby make her way into the world. Lawrence said, “The physiological advantages of upright positions and mobility include the effective use of gravity, which aids in the descent of the baby’s head. As the head is applied more directly and evenly against the cervix, the regularity, frequency, strength and therefore efficiency of uterine contractions are intensified.”

When the mom-to-be moves, this also helps the baby to get into the best position to hasten birth. “This improves its alignment for passage through the pelvis,” Lawrence said. “There is also a psychological advantage associated with the belief that being upright and mobile empowers women to actively participate in their birth experience and maintain a sense of control.”

Other research has found that feeling in control and able to make choices reduces pain and psychological distress in general.

In contrast, however, lying flat on one’s back during labor can put a great deal of pressure on the blood vessels in the abdomen. “There is widely accepted physiological evidence that the supine position may be harmful in late pregnancy and labor,” Lawrence said.

According to the reviewers, the supine position puts the entire weight of the pregnant uterus on the blood vessels that supply oxygen to both mother and child, which could potentially lead to problems with heart functioning in the mother and reduced oxygen to the baby. These outcomes could be serious in extreme cases. Lying on one’s side has no link with such problems, however.

Stone-Godena said that despite all the attention given to empowering women to have the type of birth experience they prefer, medical professionals still pressure women into lying in bed during labor, because it is more convenient this way for nurses and doctors and makes fetal monitoring easier.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting 0400 418 448

Caesarean rates rise as mothers get older

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Link to article

MORE than one in five babies in NSW are born to mothers aged over 35, and almost one in three are delivered by caesarean section, latest figures reveal. NSW Health authorities say women are ignoring warnings about the increased risk of pregnancy complications and birth defects as women age.

This may be for good reason. Risk does not equate with eventuality. If it did, we’d all live in hospitals just in case. Another approach is to argue that since some complications are more likely in women over 35 or 40 or whatever age, let’s take the path of prevention, and put our energies into preventing what may go wrong and enjoying the healthful state of pregnancy. Doctors are always available if needed; let’s call on them when we need them, not because we might need them.

For the first time, fewer than half of all babies born in private hospitals had been delivered by normal vaginal birth.

This is a disgrace! In some private hospitals, around 1 in 3 first-time women will birth their baby without forceps, vacuum or caesarean. The article goes on to say:

Women with private health insurance had higher elective caesarean rates (25.4 per cent) than the overall rate of 17 per cent.
The Mater at North Sydney and Kareena Private Hospital in Sutherland Shire had rates of 32 per cent.

The data will fuel the debate between maternity experts who say childbirth has become overly “medicalised” and those who advocate the right of the mother to choose how, when and where to have a baby.

Is it any wonder women are turning to midwives for their care in an attempt to avoid becoming yet another caesarean statistic?

… Over 10 years, surgical births had risen by more than 60 per cent, from 17.6 per cent to 28.8 per cent of all births. Normal vaginal births had fallen from more than 70 per cent to 60.4 per cent in the same period.

And what is the Govt doing about this? Homebirth midwives have caesarean rates of well under 10% – many around 5%. It’s amazing how well nature works, when you let it.

Dr Nicholl said the increased level of medical intervention could not be explained by older mothers alone. He said many first-time mothers who have their labour induced do not progress well and go on to need forceps or vacuum delivery, or caesarean section.

At least there’s some acknowledgement of the way the medical model has messed up natural birth and its outcomes. The vast majority of first time mothers do not require induction. Women who start labour spontaneously usually labour very well, and if pain relief consists of use of water in labour and positioning, you’ll find epidurals and forceps / vacuum are not needed so often.

“There is a level of fear attached to childbirth, and women who have had a caesarean section are fearful of trying to have a vaginal birth the next time.”

I’d be fearful too if I knew that my VBAC was going to be managed with admission as soon as labour started, continuous monitoring, labouring in bed, an IV “just in case”, a recommendation of an epidural, vaginal examinations every 2-3 hours, and a caesarean if I didn’t dilate at the required rate. Not to mention the fear of friends and family and the scare-mongering of some of the medical profession. Again, private midwives achieve a VBAC success rate of 80%+. Why is that you need to have a private midwife in order to have a VBAC? NSW’s rate of VBAC was 12.7%, down from 17% in 2002. Some NSW hospitals have rates as low as 2 or 3%. This is in our private hospital system, where we are supposedly supported in our birthing choices. So long as we are choosing caesarean, induction, epidural. It seems natural birth doesn’t exist in the private health system.

To turn now to this article, we can see how it happens that women end up with “necessary” caesareans in the private health system:

FOR Anita Catilano, 43, the choice of a caesarean … was driven by health concerns and age … She said she did not feel that she had missed out by having assisted deliveries for Alexandra, 9, and Nicholas, 11 weeks. “I have a history of high blood pressure and the doctor said to me that I had more risk giving birth naturally. When the doctor explained some of the risks it outweighed the complications associated with a caesarean.”
She said her second pregnancy was a surprise at her age and she did not think twice about another caesarean. “It was a clear-cut decision and I felt very confident … It was based purely on a medical decision. It was safer for me and my baby.”

What a shame this woman, along with so many others, was mis-informed about her options. How can major surgery ever be seen to be a positive thing, in the absense of any obvious complications? Maybe I ought to get an electric wheelchair and start using it now, just in case I need one when I’m 80. Oh, and while I’m at it, a heart bypass would be a good thing too. You just never know when you’re going to have a heart attack, after all.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting.

Fetal Monitoring in VBAC Labour

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

As published on the Birthrites website http://www.birthrites.org/

Caesarean section rates have risen in the past twenty years to a rate of approximately 20% - 25% in the United States (McMahon, 1998, p.369). Repeat caesarean section is cited as the most common indication for caesarean section (McMahon, 1998, p.369). It is hoped that by promoting vaginal birth after caesarean section, we will halt the increase in the caesarean section rates (McMahon, 1998, p.369). A trial of labour should be encouraged after a previous caesarean section, provided that there are no absolute contraindications to vaginal birth, such as placenta praevia or cephalo-pelvic disproportion (Wing and Paul, 1999, p.836). Due to the greater risk of uterine rupture in women having vaginal births after previous caesarean sections (Menihan, 1999, p.40), it is necessary to monitor the labour to minimise maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity (McMahon, 1998, p.369). The midwife plays a vital role in monitoring the well being of woman and fetus during labour, hence the focus of this options paper will be intrapartum fetal monitoring for women who have had previous caesarean sections.

It is known that changes in the fetal heart rate may signal an impending or actual uterine rupture (Menihan, 1999, p.40), so the monitoring of fetal heart rate is vital to the success of vaginal birth after caesarean section. There is indecision regarding the most appropriate method of intrapartum fetal monitoring in women attempting a vaginal birth after caesarean section owing to a lack of research in the area. Therefore, I have reviewed the literature regarding fetal monitoring in high risk women (including vaginal birth after caesarean section), and fetal monitoring in general. Unfortunately, there is no consensus as yet; fetal monitoring in labour remains a controversial issue.

Fetal bradycardia may be the first sign of an impending uterine rupture (Menihan, 1999, p.40). Late decelerations, variable decelerations, or prolonged decelerations may also occur (Menihan, 1999, pp.40-46). Furthermore, there is loss of variability, and reactivity may be poor (Menihan, 1999, pp.40-46). It is important that intrapartum monitoring enables the detection of these decelerations. The goal of fetal monitoring in labour is to detect fetal hypoxia early, so that interventions may be instituted to prevent a neonatal death (Mahomed, Nyoni, Mulambo, and Jacobus, 1994, p.497; Vintzileos, Nochimson, Guzman, Knuppel, Lake, and Schifrin, 1995, p.149).

Until the 1960s when the electronic fetal heart rate monitor became commercially available, intermittent auscultation was the only method of monitoring the fetal heart rate (Seymour, 1995, p.47). Intermittent auscultation may be performed by the midwife, using a doppler sonic aid, or a pinard stethoscope (Seymour, 1995, p.47). Alternatively, the midwife may monitor the fetal heart rate continuously with an electronic fetal heart rate monitor, either externally, or internally with a fetal scalp electrode. Since these methods rely on the interpretation of changes in the fetal heart rate, it was thought that a more objective assessment of fetal well being may improve outcomes (McNamara and Dildy, 1999, p.671; Greene, 1999, p.641). Fetal well being may be ascertained by obtaining a fetal blood sample and analysing acidity (pH). This is a medical intervention, and will be evaluated as a method of fetal monitoring that complements intermittent auscultation. The remainder of this options paper will describe and evaluate each of the above-mentioned methods of assessing intrapartum fetal well-being.

Intermittent auscultation involves periodically auscultating the fetal heart rate. Gilles, Norman, Dawes, Gee, Rouse, and Newnham (1997, pp.143-148) reviewed methods for intermittent auscultation. They found no consensus regarding appropriate intervals for auscultating the fetal heart rate. In first stage labour, recommendations ranged from auscultation every two hours to every ten minutes, with most sources advocating auscultation every thirty minutes (Gilles et al., 1997, p.145). During second stage labour, guidelines for intermittent auscultation ranged from Ôat intervalsÕ, to every fifteen minutes, to after every contraction (Gilles et al., 1997, p.145). It was generally accepted that auscultation should be performed after every contraction. Intermittent auscultation, as discussed in this options paper, will imply auscultation every thirty minutes during first stage labour, and after every contraction during second stage labour.

The pinard stethoscope was invented during the 1800s for the purpose of auscultating the fetal heart rate (Seymour, 1995, p.47). It is placed firmly on the womanÕs abdomen, at right angles to it, with the midwifeÕs ear in close contact with the stethoscope (Bennett and Brown (eds.), 1999, p.224). The pinard stethoscope is portable and readily available, and is an excellent tool for monitoring the fetal heart rate as long as the midwife is confident in interpreting what is heard (Seymour, 1995, p.47). The only disadvantage of the pinard stethoscope is that only the listener may hear the heart beat (Seymour, 1995, p.47).

Mahomed et al. (1994, pp.497-500) conducted a randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of different methods of intrapartum monitoring. They found that abnormalities in the fetal heart rate were more reliably detected by doppler sonic aid, compared with a pinard stethoscope. They also found that auscultation with the pinard stethoscope was uncomfortable for the woman as it sometimes required a change of position, and that the woman remain still during auscultation (Mahomed et al., 1994, pp.497-500). Lower apgar scores were more common in the groups monitored with the pinard stethoscope, and neonatal seizures occurred only in the groups monitored with the pinard stethoscope (Mahomed et al., 1994, pp.497-500).

During the late first stage and second stage of labour, contractions are the longest and strongest; theoretically, this period poses the greatest risk of uterine rupture (Arulkumaran, Gibb, Ingermasson, Kitchener, and Ratnam, 1989, cited in Chua and Arulkumaran, 1997, p.7). Anecdotal evidence suggests that auscultation of the fetal heart rate with a pinard stethoscope is often difficult to perform at this time, as the baby has descended into the pelvis. This makes intermittent auscultation difficult to perform, at a time when uterine rupture and possible fetal heart rate abnormalities are the most likely to present. For these reasons, women attempting vaginal birth after caesarean section are best not monitored with the pinard stethoscope as the main method of fetal monitoring.

The doppler sonic aid is the electronic equivalent of the pinard stethoscope, and has the advantage of enabling the woman to hear her baby’s heart beat (Seymour, 1995, p.47). It is possible to auscultate the fetal heart rate with the woman in any position, and there are waterproof probes available for use in the shower or bath (Steer, 1999, p.858). In their study, Mahomed et al. (1994, pp.497-500) found that detection of fetal heart rate abnormalities was better with the doppler sonic aid than with the pinard stethoscope, and that the perinatal outcome was no worse than that achieved by intermittent electronic fetal monitoring.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1989, cited in Cibils, 1996, p.1382) recommends that intermittent auscultation and continuous electronic fetal monitoring are equally acceptable methods of fetal monitoring, even in high risk labours. In a Birth Centre study of vaginal birth after caesarean section, Harrington, Miller, McClain, and Paul (1997, pp.304-307) used intermittent auscultation as the main form of fetal monitoring. It was performed during at least one contraction, every fifteen minutes. In both the study and control groups, the average apgar scores were 8.5 at one minute, and 9 at five minutes, and no five minute apgar scores were less than seven (Harrington et al., 1997, p.306). Neonatal outcomes were similar among both study and control groups (Harrington et al. 1997, p.306). These studies demonstrate the safety and acceptability of intermittent auscultation to monitor the fetal heart rate in women attempting a vaginal birth after caesarean section.

Generally, the literature supports intermittent auscultation as a safe method of fetal heart rate monitoring. Enkin, Kierse, Renfrew, and Neilson (1995) conclude that intermittent auscultation is just as effective in preventing intrapartum death as continuous electronic monitoring. Thacker, Stroup, and Peterson (1995, pp.613-620) studied the efficacy and safety of electronic fetal monitoring, and found that neurological consequences occurred in similar frequencies in babies monitored by intermittent auscultation and continuous electronic monitoring. Kripke (1999, p.2421) describes intermittent auscultation as a Òhigh touch, low-techÓ method of lowering the caesarean section rate for fetal distress. Gilles et al. (1997, p.147) suggest that intermittent auscultation may also play an important role in neonatal outcome, as the personal support provided by a midwife during intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate may contribute to reduced pain relief requirements and improved progress of labour. These are important aspects of the care of a woman attempting a vaginal birth after caesarean section.

To conclude the literature review of intermittent auscultation, use of the doppler sonic aid improves neonatal outcomes when compared with the pinard stethoscope. Literature comparing use intermittent auscultation and continuous fetal monitoring, even for high risk labours, concludes that intermittent auscultation is at least as effective in preventing neonatal morbidity and mortality. Current and accepted recommendations are for the fetal heart rate to be auscultated every thirty minutes (minimum) in the first stage of labour, and after every contraction in the second stage of labour.

The alternative to intermittent auscultation is to continuously monitor the fetal heart rate internally via a fetal scalp electrode, or externally via doppler ultrasound (Bennett and Brown, 1999, pp.418-419). A tocotransducer, strapped to the fundus of the uterus, is also used to monitor the frequency, intensity, and duration of uterine contractions (Bennett and Brown, 1999, pp. 418-419). This form of monitoring is known as cardiotocography (CTG), and the electronic fetal monitor produces a print-out of fetal heart rate in relation to uterine contractions. The fetal heart response to contractions (and fetal movements) is monitored to determine fetal well being in labour (Bennett and Brown, 1999, p.418). Continuous fetal monitoring was introduced with the hope of detecting early signs of fetal compromise, enabling early intervention to reduce neonatal mortality and morbidity (Boehm, 1999, p.623; Parer and King, 2000, p.982).

Continuous fetal monitoring was seen as an important development in the reduction in neonatal mortality and morbidity, however, proponents of CTG failed to acknowledge the contribution that improved antenatal and neonatal intensive care have made to neonatal well being (Dover and Gauge, 1995, p.18).

In fact, it has been suggested that CTG, as a screening tool, has been far from beneficial for most women. There is a lack of agreed interpretation of fetal heart rate traces (Anonymous, 1997, p.1385; Low, 1999, p.725), with the result of increased intervention in the form of caesarean section and forceps deliveries (Boehm, 1999, p.623). The adverse effects of false positive and false negative CTGs suggests that, as a screening tool for fetal distress in labour, the CTG fails miserably (Low, 1999, p.725).

A study conducted by Vintzileos, Nochimson, Antsaklis, Varvarigos, Guzman, and Knuppel (1995, pp.1021-1024) suggested that CTG was superior to intermittent auscultation in detecting fetal acidaemia at birth. This conclusion was correct, however, the authors failed to state the false positive rate of CTG in their study, as opposed to intermittent auscultation. Cibils, (1996, p.1383) states that over 40% of fetal heart rate patterns are abnormal on CTG, yet Vintzileos, Nochimson, Antsaklis et al. (1995, pp.1021-1024) found that only 8.0% of neonates had acidaemia at birth. Although CTGs were able to accurately detect changes in the fetal heart rate suggestive of acidaemia, there must have also been a substantial number of fetal heart traces suggestive of acidaemia that were in fact perfectly normal. A meta-analysis by Vintzileos, Nochimson, Guzman, et al. (1995, pp.149-155), found that one perinatal death may be prevented by the continuous fetal monitoring of one thousand women in labour (p.154). The authors accept that this would occur at the expense of a higher rate of surgical intervention.

A benefit of continuous CTG monitoring in labour is a reduction in neonatal seizures (Greene, 1999, p.647; Boehm, 1999, p.625) and one minute apgar scores of less than four (Thacker, Stroup, and Peterson, 1995, p.615). However, the authors of these articles conclude that the long term effect of this reduction must be balanced against the increase in caesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates (Thacker et al. 1995, p.619; Boehm, 1999, p.623; Greene, 1999, p.647).

Wing and Paul (1999, p.843) and Scott (1997, p.536) advocate continuous CTG monitoring for women planning a vaginal birth after caesarean section because abnormal fetal heart rate traces are the most common signs of uterine rupture. The incidence of uterine rupture among women planning a vaginal birth after caesarean section is quoted at being between 0.3% and 1.7% (Chua and Arulkumaran, 1997, p.6). Fetal heart rate abnormalities occur in 50%-70% of uterine ruptures (Scott, 1997, p.538), but they also occur in at least 40% of labours with an unscarred uterus (Cibils, 1996, p.1383). The literature failed to address how the midwife or doctor may distinguish fetal distress related to uterine rupture, requiring emergency caesarean section, from fetal heart rate abnormalities resulting from occurrences such as cord compression or head compression (Menihan, 1999, p.45). In fact, Menihan (1999, p.40) states that there is “no single, specific change in fetal heart rate (FHR) pattern predictive of uterine rupture prior to the onset of a profound bradycardia”. Furthermore, since abnormal CTG patterns alone cannot accurately distinguish well fetuses from distressed fetuses, I question the accuracy of this form of monitoring in women planning vaginal births after caesarean sections.

A review of the literature suggests that continuous fetal monitoring affords no overall benefit; the reduction in neonatal seizures and low one minute apgar scores occurs at the expense of increased operative deliveries. The options presented thus far are not sufficient enough to conclude that intermittent auscultation is the safest method of fetal monitoring in the woman attempting a vaginal birth after caesarean section. These women require closer monitoring than intermittent auscultation can provide, however, they may suffer unnecessary intervention from the use of continuous monitoring. A compromise is needed.

Fetal blood sampling to ascertain pH (acidity) was developed in the 1960s with the aim of clarifying uncertain CTG patterns (Greene, 1999, p.641). On the basis of CTG patterns alone, false-positive diagnoses of fetal distress are likely to be made (Greene, 1999, p.645). A meta-analysis demonstrated that without access to fetal blood sampling, women who were monitored continuously experienced a four-fold increase in caesarean section rates compared with intermittent auscultation, with no improvement in fetal outcome (Greene, 1999, p.647). When fetal blood sampling was used in conjunction with continuous monitoring or intermittent auscultation, this rise in caesarean section rates was less marked (Greene, 1999, p.647). It is essential that all forms of fetal monitoring be supplemented by fetal blood sampling where indicated, to reduce unnecessary intervention (Steer, 1999, p.859).

Fetal blood sampling has some disadvantages: it is time-consuming to perform (Steer, 1999, p.859), it is unreliable if performed in the presence of oedema or caput succedaneum, and it can only be performed intermittently (Greene, 1999, p.648). However, when it is indicated it may accurately determine fetal acid-base balance in fetuses suspected of compromise on intermittent auscultation of the heart rate. Therefore, it may either confirm the diagnosis of fetal distress, or reassure care givers of fetal well being. Although it is not part of the midwifery management of fetal monitoring, it is capable of complementing intermittent auscultation in women planning vaginal births after previous caesarean sections, thus increasing the safety of vaginal birth after caesarean section, without increasing intervention rates unnecessarily.

In conclusion, the midwifery management of fetal monitoring in women planning vaginal births after caesarean sections is controversial. Standard practice is to continuously monitor the labour using technology that is known to increase operative delivery rates with no proven benefit. On the basis of a literature review, this paper has presented the available options of fetal monitoring. The evidence suggests that even without access to fetal blood sampling, intermittent auscultation is superior to continuous monitoring in correctly identifying fetuses in need of immediate delivery. In the presence of an abnormal fetal heart rate detected by intermittent auscultation, fetal blood sampling may indicate those fetuses that require immediate delivery, or reassure the midwife of fetal well being. Ultimately, the woman needs to be informed of her options for care, and their relative risks and benefits, as she will be the one to experience and live with the consequences (positive or negative) of labour care. This options paper is only a guide, based on the conflicting literature available at this time. Since we cannot say with 100% certainty that one method of monitoring is superior over another, perhaps midwives could best care for women by providing accurate information that facilitates involvement and choice.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting.

Birth by surgery: The skyrocketing cesarean rate

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Story By Mary Beth Pfeiffer • Photos By Lee Ferris • March 29, 2009

Two weeks before Kristi Ashley gave birth to a son in 2007, an ultrasound exam estimated the baby at a hefty 12 pounds, 10 ounces — too big, her doctor believed, for a safe vaginal delivery. After the child weighed in at 9 pounds, 4 ounces in the delivery room, Ashley came to believe that the planned cesarean section she had, with its attendant pain, long recovery and what she called “emotional damage,” may have been a rush to judgment.

It is well-known that ultrasounds are inaccurate for estimation of fetal size in the third trimester. Why is it still being used as a basis for clinical decisions??

“It’s very hard to go up against your physician, especially at the 12th hour,” said Ashley, 38, of Hopewell Junction. “I think doctors are very quick these days to get scared. They would rather opt for the surgical solution.”

Determined to avoid another surgical birth and aided by a supportive doctor, hospital and birthing coach, Ashley last month did something that has become increasingly rare for post-cesarean women today: She gave birth vaginally, to another son. … From 1999 to 2007, the proportion of New York babies born by cesarean section skyrocketed 42 percent. In 1999, just under 1 in 4 babies was born surgically. By 2007, the figure was 1 in 3 — or 34 percent of births — and there is nothing to suggest that the relentless uptick, evident locally as well, is showing any sign of slowing.

In Australia, the national CS rate is currently over 31%.

In Ulster and Dutchess counties, with cesarean rates in the top sixth of counties statewide, surgical birth rates increased from 1999 to 2007 by 64 percent and 36 percent respectively …

Don’t women question why their caesarean is deemed “necessary” with a wide window of suspicion? If the CS rate is 42%, that’s 280% higher than what is recommended by WHO.

At Vassar Brothers Medical Center in Poughkeepsie … 40 percent [of babies were born by caesarean]. In Ulster County, Kingston Hospital had a cesarean rate of 40 percent in 2007, the latest figure available, while Benedictine Hospital’s was 35 percent, nearly double what it was in 1999 …

The World Health Organization calls for a maximum cesarean section rate of 15 percent in any nation in the world. Anything above that “seems to result in more harm than good,” according to a 2006 research summary in the British medical journal Lancet.

Physicians, midwives, childbirth experts and researchers point to a confluence of factors behind the growing rate of cesarean section … Some say that more mothers are older, obese, more prone to multiple births and, in particular at Kingston and Vassar Brothers hospitals, less healthy, increasing risks of surgical measures. Others contend that overused interventions to induce and augment labor, manage pain and monitor for fetal distress have driven cesarean rates to unnecessary heights.

I disagree. The only important variable is the care provider’s support for birth as a natural process.

All agree that fewer women are opting for once-popular vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC, as Ashley did. But some believe doctors emphasize its risk – that the scarred uterus could tear – while minimizing the drawbacks of surgery. VBACs have declined precipitously at five local maternity hospitals … In 2007, just 3 percent of post-cesarean women birthed vaginally at Kingston Hospital, where the procedure is officially banned. The figure was 33 percent in 1999.

VBAC rates have also declined because they are not supported by care providers.

Amid the debate, there is widespread agreement that medical factors are only a part of the story. Cesareans have become so common and accepted that first-time mothers – frightened by societal depictions of overwrought laboring women — sometimes request them simply to avoid labor; doctors, hospitals and insurance companies acquiesce. Moreover, obstetricians, who pay $84,500 a year for malpractice insurance in Ulster and Dutchess and $137,600 in Orange, may see cesareans as a way to avoid lawsuits over injuries to infants from vaginal birth — as well to manage precious time. “I see colleagues around me who seem to operate out of fear,” said Dr. Ira Jaffe, a Rhinebeck obstetrician, [commented]. “They always have in the back of their mind, ‘How is it going to look in court?’ It’s the defensive medicine.” “It’s not in the best interest of women and babies to do this many C-sections,” he said.

….

For a community of activists who say the cesarean section rate is out of control, the question is whether women like Revak are getting both sides of the story – on one hand that cesarean sections no doubt save lives in high-risk circumstances and are generally safe, but that they contribute in other cases to prematurity, cause respiratory problems in babies and increase maternal bleeding and infection.

“Women are getting cheated by not being encouraged to believe both in their ability to birth and that birth can be a positive experience,” said Christie Craigie-Carter, Hudson Valley coordinator of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, or ICAN.

A Paulin bill, signed into law last year, requires the state to educate women on birthing procedures, such as the induction of labor and use of pain-numbing techniques like epidurals, that increase risk of cesarean section. Paulin, a three-time mother who had two midwife-attended babies at home, believes that cesareans are often performed for reasons of convenience, fear and liability. “We have a huge problem,” she said.

“There’s more fevers, wound infections associated with C-section,” acknowledged Dr. John McAndrew, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Kingston Hospital, where the cesarean rate hit 43 percent in 2006. “However, it’s safer for the baby.”

Physicians and researchers concerned with rising cesarean rates take issue with that assertion, which they say fails to weigh the risk that a baby will be damaged or die in vaginal delivery.

“In low-risk or no-risk mothers, studies have consistently shown higher morbidity (illness) in infants delivered by cesarean section,” said Dr. Lucky Jain, a pediatrics professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta … “There is no evidence that cesarean is safer for the baby,” said Dr. Jed Turk, newly appointed obstetrics and gynecology chairman at Vassar Brothers Medical Center and a proponent of lower cesarean rates. “It is not a good trend.”

Vaginal birth undoubtedly has risks. One in 5,000 to 10,000 babies suffers permanent shoulder damage, and one in 1,000 suffers moderate to severe brain damage, according to a 2006 article in the professional journal Seminars in Perinatology. These injuries, as well as 6,000 stillbirths, could be avoided nationwide if the nation’s 3 million annual vaginal births were performed surgically at term — but that would mean additional costs and maternal and infant complications.

“C-section is major surgery, which involves a longer recovery time for the mother and can have other significant consequences,” said Barbara McTague, family health director for the state Health Department.

The cost of cesareans in a cash-starved health-care system is just one consequence. A cesarean birth cost the state Medicaid program $7,200 on average for hospital care in 2007 – 49 percent more than a vaginal delivery. The state’s cesarean price tag was $189 million.

Of greater concern may be the effect of cesareans on babies that are increasingly being delivered early. Thirty-six percent of elective cesareans were performed before 38 weeks, according to a study published in January in the New England Journal of Medicine, producing infants who had high rates of breathing problems, prolonged hospitalization and sepsis, a severe bacterial infection.

As significant, the study found that 10.2 percent of all cesarean-born babies were admitted to neonatal intensive care units, and 4.4 percent suffered from respiratory distress syndrome caused by fluids that are normally wrung from infant lungs during labor and vaginal delivery. … death rates of C-section babies before 28 days were nearly triple those of vaginal deliveries, according to a 2006 study by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care.

Studies have also found 20 percent higher incidence in both childhood-onset diabetes and asthma among cesarean babies, who have one-third to three-quarters the level of healthy bacteria in their intestines as vaginally born babies.

“When a baby comes out the normal way, they swallow vaginal mucus en route and get a nice dose of healthy bacteria to jump start their digestion,” said Dr. Joseph Malak, a Poughkeepsie pediatrician who called “surreal” the number of cesarean babies he sees on hospital rounds. “This doesn’t happen when babies come out through an abdominal incision.”

Malak believes that the rising cesarean rate may be linked to “a dramatic increase” in recent years in infants with colic, acid reflux, eczema and milk allergies – effects that, some say, obstetricians do not consider when weighing vaginal versus cesarean birth.

While cesarean delivery is safer than ever for the mother, it is not risk-free. According to a 2008 report in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2.2 women died for every 100,000 cesarean births – 10 times higher than for vaginal births. “Cesarean delivery is associated with an increased risk of postpartum maternal death,” concluded a 2006 report in the same journal.

In New York, the rate of maternal mortality rose 70 percent from 1997 to 2007, when 40 women died as a consequence of pregnancy … three of the major causes of maternal death as embolism, hemorrhage and infection – all of which occur at higher rates in cesarean section.

Growing complications
Indeed, serious obstetrical complications increased by 27 percent from 1998-99 to 2004-05, according to a 2008 report in Obstetrics and Gynecology. These included renal failure, pulmonary blood clots, shock, blood transfusion and ventilation — upticks that parallel rising cesarean rates.

“It looks like there’s an association,” said the study’s author, Dr. Susan Meikle, an obstetrician and medical officer at the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development …

“There is an awful lot of lying to women about cesarean,” said Dr. Marsden Wagner, former director of women’s and children’s health for the World Health Organization and author of several books on childbirth. “All of those thousands of women who are getting unnecessary cesareans in New York state are at double or more risk of dying and the babies are at risk of dying.”

The argument over cesarean’s benefits is perhaps most pointed when it comes to vaginal birth after cesarean; many doctors fear that the scarred uterus will tear, resulting in hemorrhage and loss of oxygen to the infant.

“There’s a real risk,” said Dr. Maureen Terranova, obstetrics chief at Northern Dutchess Hospital. “They have to be willing to accept that 1 percent risk of uterine rupture.”

“When it occurs, it can be catastrophic,” said Kingston Hospital’s McAndrew.

Melissa Ptacek, 47, of Garrison in Putnam County, said it took her years to recover from a uterine rupture from which her daughter – now a normal 11-year-old – had to be resuscitated. “I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I had to go through,” she said.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004, 124 women suffered uterine rupture among 17,898 who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean — a rate of 0.7 percent. Seven babies suffered brain damage, including two who died. A 2000 research summary by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put the risk of rupture in vaginal birth at 0.2 to 1.5 percent for most women with one prior cesarean.

Proponents of vaginal birth after cesarean say the risks of rupture must be balanced against the downsides of surgical birth. “The conversation about VBAC doesn’t touch on dozens of other concerning outcomes that favor vaginal birth,” said Sakala of Childbirth Connection, noting that cesareans make breastfeeding difficult, lead to adhesions and cause significant pain for up to six months. More than 7,000 repeat cesareans would be needed to save the life of one baby from a ruptured uterus, she said, citing a 2004 British Medical Journal study.

Other proponents argue that not all ruptures are catastrophic and some have actually been caused by labor-enhancing medications, called prostaglandins, whose dangers for post-cesarean women are now recognized.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting.

Making Tough Decisions Without All the Facts: How Inadequate Informed Consent Puts Childbearing Families at Risk

For further information, contact Melissa Maimann at Essential Birth Consulting.

Making Tough Decisions Without All the Facts: How Inadequate Informed Consent Puts Childbearing Families at Risk
WASHINGTON (March 10, 2009)

Imagine you are a woman in labor and your doctor tells you that electronic fetal monitoring is necessary to record your baby’s heartbeat. Without any further information about the monitoring or its risks, you are given a consent form to sign. Believing the doctor is doing what is best for you and your baby, you sign. By neglecting to tell you that electronic fetal monitoring can result in labor complications and increases the need for cesarean surgery, your doctor has not held up his or her end of the informed consent process.

This shocking scenario plays out nationwide thousands of times a day across a range of procedures. The purpose of informed consent is to ensure that before a health professional or researcher does something to a patient’s body, the patient must understand what is being done and give his or her voluntary consent. But in all aspects of medical care, informed consent can fall short of the mark. In the instance of childbirth, women and their partners may be asked to make decisions without being well-informed of the risks and potential outcomes that can affect moms and babies.
….
A recent article published … reveals how sub-par information provided by health care providers undermines the purpose of informed consent. This results in parents having incomplete information when making decisions with potentially grave implications, such as whether or not to use medication or submit to obstetrical procedures during childbirth. [Inadequate informed consent is] a major barrier to women benefiting from evidence-based maternity care.

- I have seen this many many times in hospital settings in this country. Most women do not give truly informed consent because their care providers only tell women what care providers want them to know. I believe most women would not sign up to the vast array of interventions offered on the “menu” if they really knew the risks, benefits, potential complications resulting from the intervention, and the lack of research that has been done (especially in the case of fetal monitoring) prior to the introduction of the intervention on a wide scale.

Why does it matter? It matters how babies are born. It matters for women and it matters for babies. Intervention in birth that is not what you signed up for, can lead to postnatal depression, birth trauma, being labelled “high risk” in your future pregnancies and births, complications in your current birth and future births, not bonding with your baby, breastfeeding problems, and the list goes on.

All women birthing in hospital, planning “natural” births – whatever that means to each woman – needs support in labour. Australia’s caesarean rate is over 31%. Many NSW hospitals have caesarean rates of over 40%. Most women have a “high risk” label of some sort. If you want a successful natural vaginal birth, you need good support. The best support will come from a private / independent midwife.

Melissa Maimann, Essential Birth Consulting.