searching for confidence

A young mother whose second pregnancy is at about 30 weeks phoned me, and we chatted for a while.   As I listened to her story, I felt enormous sympathy for her in her search for confidence. 

I have pondered the predicament of this young woman, who I will call Bea, and others in similar situations many times.  So, dear reader, I will share the story with you, and hope that those readers who are also searching for confidence as you approach your time to give birth will be given some useful tools.   If you think you know Bea, please read any of the more critical comments that I make as criticism of the system that leaves women dangling and lacking in confidence, rather than a criticism of any person.


Bea is booked to have her baby in a hospital, under the care of a team of doctors and midwives.  Bea is hoping to find someone who will palpate her abdomen (See RCM How to perform an abdominal examination) and tell her how her baby is growing, and whether she will be suitable for VBAC (vaginal birth after Caesarean).

Bea experienced an emergency Caesarean birth after a long and painful labour for her first child.  She felt traumatised, disappointed, confused, depressed; at times blaming herself and at times numb towards herself, her child, the child's father, and the world.

In preparing herself for this next birth, and in an effort to come to terms with her memories, Bea has had counselling.  One of the outcomes of that counselling is that Bea recognises a lack of confidence in the (nameless) people who will provide care for her in labour and birth.  Midwives, doctors, others: all with a role in the system that produces babies, yet Bea has no confidence in that system.

Bea is an intelligent woman who is used to researching every aspect of life, from the energy efficiency of white goods in her home, to the source of the food she buys.   She wants to know about pregnancy and birth specifically as it relates to her.  She reads posts from other mothers on social media.

Bea is particularly concerned about the size of her baby; whether he or she will 'fit'.  That's a big question.  It's a question that exercises the mind of every midwife.

Bea would like me to palpate her abdomen and (hopefully) tell her that her baby will fit through her birth canal.  I can palpate her abodmen, feel the fetal poles and hold her baby between my hands.  That gives me a good idea of the size of the baby - it's not much different holding a baby who is still in the womb to holding the baby in my arms.  But I can't tell if the baby will 'fit'! The only times when I would advise against progressing naturally and spontaneously into labour are when a complication presents - when the natural process would be likely to lead to damage or death.

Many times I have attended little women who have big babies.  Many of them have given birth spontaneously and quickly.  I have never tried to be a prophet, predicting events in the future.   The decision making processes in midwifery require the midwife to understand and work in harmony with the natural physiological processes, and only interfere if there is a valid reason to do so. 

Bea told me she has at least three birth plans: a vaginal birth; a caesarean after labouring; and an elective caesarean.

I told Bea that she should have only one birth plan: to do her best. 

You need to take ownership of your own natural processes which are essential if natural birth is to progress well. ...to make the best decision you can at any point when a choice or decision needs to be made.  Here are a few examples:

• The doctor tells you at 38 weeks that he assesses the baby to be large and advises an elective caesarean (without labour) at 40 weeks.  Do you think the best decision at this point is to say yes, to say no, or to make a decision closer to 40 weeks?
• It's a few days before (or after) that magical 40 weeks.  You think you are coming into labour - it's midnight and you woke up with a contraction, and felt baby make a few big moves.  Waters have not broken.   Do you get all excited and ring your support team, and ring the hospital, and wake your husband?  Or do you tell that baby to go back to sleep - you have a big day ahead if labour does begin, so you need to get some shut-eye!
• Later ... You think you are really in labour now.  Memories flood back each time your womb contracts, and you remember the early part of your first labour.  You remember using the labour ap on your phone to track the contractions.  You know you need to get organised - little Johnny will go to his granny after breakfast, DH will stay home from work, and the birth support friends will need to make arrangements for their families and work.  Contractions are coming every 10 minutes, and feel good.  You need to walk and rock through them.   Do you ask your team to come now, or to wait for another call?  Do you call the hospital now?

...

These 'decision points' might seem insignificant, but I say they are some of the most important decisions you will make.  Each decision is a fork in the road.  If you take one, you cannot take the other.  There is no turning back.  Can you feel confident about these decisions?  If you have that confidence, and you establish labour without any outside (medical or psychological) assistance, I know that you are well on the way to successful and healthy VBAC.   

the myth of choice

1983 - working night shifts a the Women's

For a couple of decades now, *choice* has been a pillar of the natural birth movement.

An organisation that I am a member of has the vision, that
"Every woman can choose how, where and with whom she births."

This vision has troubled me for some time.  Today I am attempting to critically explore the notion of choice, and whether it is desirable or imaginable that every woman choose "how, where and with whom she births."


Firstly, some historical considerations:

• The Fortelesa (Fortaleza) Declaration (1985) on appropriate use of technology in birth challenged interventions, from shaves and enemas, to inductions of labour.  This seminal document also declared that "The whole community should be informed about the various procedures in birth care, enable each woman to choose the type of birth care she prefers".  *CHOICE!*
• Changing Childbirth in the UK (early 1990s) declared that women want the 3C's: *choice*, control, and continuity of care.
• A call for *choice* of place of birth (home/hospital) and care provider (such as individual midwife or the maternity system) was clear in the Australian National Maternity Action Plan (2002).

At the same time,  twenty years ago,

• emerging trends in medical research led to the Cochrane Collaboration, defining the reliability of evidence;
•  UNICEF and World Health Organisation introduced the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, with a key document being the Innocenti Declaration  of 1990. 
•  various state and territory governments around this country were conducting broad reviews into birthing services, and producing their reports. (eg Having a baby in Victoria 1990)  These reviews sought consumer comment as well as professional.
•  WHO prepared a series of basic publications on maternity care, including Care in Normal Birth: a practical guide (1996).  This document brought a consensus statement that "In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process"

During the past two decades the world has experienced the digital revolution.  Twenty years ago, in 1994, few households had computers: the world wide web and email had only just been invented.   This phenomenon exploded communication and access to reliable information.  Our home went 'on line' in the early 90s, with a (very slow, and unreliable) dial up connection, and we were leaders in the field.   Prior to that, if I needed to send an email, I would ask my husband Noel to send it from his office at the university.  He kept up with the expansion of knowledge via inservice education, and a very helpful secretary, Jean.  He became the 'IT' expert in our home, until our children absorbed the knowledge and quickly spoke the language, as children do.  (but I have digressed from my topic!)

Twenty years ago, professional peer reviewed scientific publications were held in libraries, and accessed by scholars and the intelligencia.  Today, there is an inexhaustible wealth of knowledge at the tip of our fingers, from our computers, tablets, and phones.

Twenty years ago, information about natural childbirth was passed from teacher to student couples in highly motivated childbirth education.  Today women join social media groups where they share everything from their nausea and indigestion, to ultrasound pictures.  These groups, as well as personal blogs and microblogging, have introduced a degree of sharing of opinions, and introspection ('navel gazing'), that would have been unimaginable when person to person communication was limited to a telephone or over the back fence or a tea room at work.

So, what about choice?

In discussing choice in childbirth with colleagues and other interested folk, I have been a little surprised to observe that the woman's right to decline (a treatment/intervention) is often perceived to be the same as a choice in maternity care.  A woman's autonomy in any care situation (whether it's her toe nails or the birth of her child) is often limited to the little word "No!"

By way of example:

Jill is in hospital, in labour with her first baby.  Jill has been told she needs a Caesarean, because she has been labouring without adequate progress, and the doctor is concerned that her labour is obstructed and her baby is becoming distressed.

Jill does not want a caesarean birth, but she has no other options at this time, other than to do nothing, and that may lead to injury/death to her baby.  She has planned for a natural birth, because she believes that's the best way for her and her baby.  Jill has written in her birth plan/preferences document that if she truly needs a caesarean birth, she wants her baby's umbilical cord to remain uncut, and the placenta delivered intact (known as 'lotus' placenta).  She wants her baby to be placed skin to skin on her chest, and to remain with her in the operating room and in recovery so that breastfeeding can be initiated without delay.  She is aware of 'natural' caesarean births, discussed on her social media forum, and likes the idea. 

Jill communicates her wishes to her doctor.  If that doctor has previously supported women's choices in this way, he/she might be willing to agree.  But Jill is a patient in a public hospital.  The doctor who is performing the surgery is being supervised by the consultant obstetrician, and does not feel able to accommodate such a radical plan.  The hospital's policy is to send the baby and the father to the nursery while mother is in recovery, and Jill is told that the hospital is not able to provide suitable staff to accommodate her choices.  Jill has run out of options.  She needs the help of the hospital to get her baby safely born, and she finds to her surprise that the notion of choice doesn't work in this situation.

 Jill thought, prior to coming into labour, that she had chosen:

how: a natural birth 
where: in the local public hospital
with whom: the hospital staff at the time

'how' Jill gives birth is something that cannot be predicted, whether she chooses a private hospital with the most popular obstetrician according to the online rating system, or the guru homebirth midwife who has amazing skill and, according to social media, can do all sorts of things to make birth work as it's supposed to.  The best Jill can find out when she is choosing her care provider is an approximate rate of spontaneous unmedicated births that person reports for woman in their care.

I (frequently) remind women that they have only one choice in childbirth - to do it themselves, or to ask someone else to take over. This is the case, whether it's avoiding induction, having a vaginal breech birth (vbb), a vaginal birth after caesarean (vbac), a physiological 1st, 2nd or 3rd stage. (Haemorrhage and death are also physiological). 

There's an obvious rationale for the skilled midwife in these equations. A primigravida who wants to have a natural unmedicated birth, booked at Caesar's Palace, in the care of a knife happy OB, may have chosen where and with whom she births, but doesn't have much chance of achieving the 'how'.  

Choice is also dependent on money $$$.

The woman who chooses a caesarean for her own (not clinically indicated) reason can get a private doctor to deliver her baby if she can pay the doctor's fee (Medicare + out of pocket) and the hospital fee. But she has very little say about who else is in the room - her partner is likely to be welcome but may be asked to step outside. 

If we have a vision that every woman should be able to choose how - including elective C/S - do we think our public health $ should be supporting that so that women who can't afford the co-payment are also able to rock up and *choose*?
 
I am very concerned about over-spending of health $.  

The only sustainable policy direction in maternity care is to protect, promote and support the natural processes in birth wherever that is reasonable. The workforce needed as experts in achieving this goal is midwives whose duty of care by definition includes "promote normal birth". This does not remove the woman's right to make an informed decision to decline or accept the plan. Medical and surgical options should of course be available to those for whom they are likely to lead to better outcomes, but that's not a matter of the woman's *choice*.


Your comments are welcome.

more about choice, decisions, and 'the birth you really wanted'

From time to time, as I read social media sites used by mothers, midwives, and others interested in the whole childbirth package, I come across messages such as:
"I was prevented by ... from having the birth I really wanted," or
"I'm so glad you got the birth you really wanted."

Women who feel physically and emotionally traumatised by experiences in previous births declare that they won't go near the hospital, because that's where and why it all happened the way it did.

More and more women are telling me that they are planning to give birth at home without professional support for various reasons - can't afford a midwife; no midwife or publicly funded homebirth program in the area; too 'high risk' for the midwives in the area ...  This really concerns me - it's scary!

Homebirth has resurfaced in the local media recently, with an article by Sydney midwives, Karol Petrovska and Caroline Homer, Beyond the “homebirth horror” headlines: some wider questions for the health system (and media).  This article was responding to a 'news' article on the mamamia blog, titled 'A hospital birth would have saved Kate's baby'.

The Coroner had identified internet-based research of risk as being central to the mother's choices and decisions in this instance
‘‘[This is] an example of the danger of untrained users utilising raw data or statistical information to support a premise as to risk, without knowledge and understanding of the complex myriad of factors relevant to the risk’’.[report]

The Coroner also found that delay in transferring care from home to hospital, after it should have been apparent to the midwives that Kate's baby was in distress, contributed to the death.

Midwives hold to a theory of 'partnership' with each woman in our care.  The midwife-woman partnership has been incorporated into the ICM International Definition of the Midwife.
This partnership, when correctly applied, places the woman at the centre of all decisions, with the intention of protecting the wellbeing and safety of mother and child.

Today I would like to briefly comment on the midwife-woman partnership, especially as it applies to choice, decisions, and achieving 'the birth you really wanted'.


Independent midwives, employed directly by women for birth in their own home, are in a privileged position because we are able to apply midwifery skill, knowledge and expertise directly without being hampered by the levels of bureaucracy and policy and protocol that exist in hospitals.  Women who are low risk and who plan to give birth at home with a midwife in attendance are in the most optimal maternity care situation that exists today.  A large study (de Jonge et al 2013) comparing maternal outcomes from (low risk) homebirths with a comparable group of (low risk) women giving birth in hospitals in the Netherlands concluded that:

"Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous women these differences were statistically significant. Absolute risks were small in both groups. There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system."

Independent midwives practising in Australia are often asked to attend births that are not in the low risk category.  Women who are older, fatter, who have had a lot of children, or caesarean births, or who have been traumatised in previous births often seek a midwife who will plan homebirth with them, particularly those who want to avoid the hospital.

There is no calculation table that lists risk factors against chance of having an uncomplicated vaginal birth - and if there were, I doubt that it would be of any use.  The current 'odds' for serious adverse complications (such as death of a baby, or serious maternal haemorrhage from uterine rupture) in vbac is estimated at 1:2000. [for more on safety of vbac, click here]   There is no comparable statistical estimate that ordinary people face in daily living.  People who bet on horse races may have some understanding.  1:2000 seems remote, and meaningless.

A more useful guidance would be to define at what point in time does actual risk, rather than theoretical risk, escalate.  This appears to me to be a question that was not thoroughly explored in the tragic case referenced at the beginning of this post. This clinical judgment is within the scope of a midwife's practice.  Spontaneous, unassisted birth becomes less safe if there is anything that indicates compromise of the mother or the fetus: complications of pregnancy, including raised blood pressure or impaired glucose tolerance; prolonged pregnancy; antepartum haemorrhage. Complications of labour including poor progress over time; and fetal heart rate decelerations or other abnormalities.

When 'the birth I really wanted' focuses on place of birth, or even on the process of birth, a significant number of mothers are going to be disappointed.  A midwife cannot become so committed to homebirth, or natural birth, that she forgets to keep a keen, critical eye on what is actually happening.  There are a couple of significant hurdles that a woman needs to get over before the spontaneous, unmedicated homebirth can even be considered. These are:

• spontaneous onset of labour, and
• spontaneous progress in labour - to the point where natural expulsive forces can be applied.

As it happens, there is no safer way for most babies to be born, than for the mother to do it herself - spontaneously - irrespective of place.  Not with herbal stimulants or acupuncture or coaching or hypno/calm birth education or pelvic manipulation or olive oil being rubbed into the perineum, or the best midwife in town.  Spontaneous is from within.  As labour progresses, a mother's capacity to judge progress and safety decreases, as her calculating, educated mind closes down to permit intuitive activity from deeper brain structures.  As this altered state of consciousness becomes strong, her midwife maintains a skilled, watchful vigil.  A mother cannot do this for herself.

The midwife's role is clear: if the mother and baby are coping well with spontaneous labour, no interruption or interference is permitted.  On the other hand, if warning signs are present, the midwife's ongoing clinical judgment and assessment throughout the birthing process protect the interests of her clients, both mother and baby.

You might have a birth plan for 'the birth I really want'.  Please check that birth plan, and check with your midwife, to ensure clear decision points.  While you are able to spontaneously progress through labour and birth, the physiological process is magnificent.  But, if there is a valid reason to interrupt the natural process, be ready to get the best birth possible, using the best and most timely intervention that is accessible at the time.

'The birth I really wanted' is above all, one that protects my baby and myself.   

Thankyou for your comments.

the death of a baby

I am writing with deep sympathy for the family who lost their baby in late 2010, and for the midwives and doctors who attended the mother.

I am writing about this because the Melbourne Coroner is currently hearing evidence from the various parties.  In time the Coroner's report will be published.  The Coroner's job is to find out what happened, in a respectful and unbiased way.  At present fragments of information have been published in newspapers and online news sites.  Some pieces of the information circulating in the media are factual, while others are contested.

I am writing because this case raises issues that are similar to a case that I wrote about a couple of months ago.

It is difficult for me to write.  I know the midwives; they are my colleagues, and we have shared in professional and personal journeys over the years.  I know the hospital; I have been there with women many times over the years.  I know the mother, who was a member of a peer support group I facilitated a few years ago.

The big issues as I understand this and similar cases are around a midwife's duty of care, a woman's decision-making, and the need for women to be able to feel respected in maternity hospitals.

The questions that I asked in my previous post are still pertinent:
"If a mother does not want to go to hospital, when overwhelming professional advice would want her to give birth in hospital, WHY?", and
"What can be done to make going to hospital a more acceptable choice for women for whom complex obstetric care may become necessary?"


I have many thoughts that I will not make public at present. 

hospitals and independent midwives

When a midwife walks into a hospital with a woman for whom she is providing private midwifery services, that midwife faces a complex and often challenging work environment.

Recently I went to hospital with a woman who I will call Melissa, who was planning VBAC.  Melissa's first child had been delivered by emergency caesarean, after induction of labour at 42 weeks.  This time Melissa was well informed, and intentional about all her decisions.

Melissa had experienced a difficult week 39-40 in her pregnancy.  There were several nights without much sleep, and she had a cold.  A couple of days after her expected due date, Melissa asked me to assess her internally, and consider a 'stretch and sweep' of the membranes at her cervix.  I was pleased to report a well applied head, a very thin cervix, and about 1.5cm dilation.  With very gentle stretching of the cervix, I felt confident that the labour was imminent.

Sure enough, Melissa called me a few hours later, and I went with her as she was admitted to the hospital birth suite.  Melissa laboured strongly, and together we considered any decisions that needed to be made, following 'Plan A'.  I continued 'with woman' through the labour and birth, and afterwards.

There is nothing remarkable about this little account.  However, the matter that has prompted me to write about hospitals and independent midwives is the question of what to call a midwife who goes to hospital with a woman in her care.

I call that midwife a midwife.

Others call that midwife a 'support person', or a 'birth support person', or even 'only support'!

Why?

Because the independent midwife does not have visiting access/ clinical privileges/ credentialling in that hospital.

This is true - Victorian public maternity hospitals have dragged their feet on this matter.  Despite government-supported indemnity insurance for private midwives providing intrapartum care in hospital, there is no likelihood of hospital visiting access in the near future.

So does a midwife cease to be a midwife, just because the hospital refuses to roll out the red carpet?  Of course not!  A midwife is 'with woman': not with a setting for birth.  The midwife's registration is with the regulatory body, which is not under the management of the hospital.  And, let's remember that if a midwife acted in a way that was considered unprofessional, she or he would expect to be reported to the regulatory authority as a midwife, not as a 'support person'.

The ICM definition of the Midwife
declares that the midwife's Scope of Practice is:

The midwife is recognised as a responsible and accountable professional who works in partnership with women to give the necessary support, care and advice during pregnancy, labour and the postpartum period, to conduct births on the midwife’s own responsibility and to provide care for the newborn and the infant. This care includes preventative measures, the promotion of normal birth, the detection of complications in mother and child, the accessing of medical care or other appropriate assistance and the carrying out of emergency measures.

'Support' is listed in the definition as one of the elements of midwifery.  I do not want to seem to devalue support.  But the point I want to make is that support is a part of the midwife's scope of practice: not an alternative to midwifery practice, and definitely not an alternative to the title 'midwife'.

Thankyou for your comments.

Understanding what's behind an adverse outcome

Today I am recording a few of my personal thoughts in relation to the (lengthy) Coroner's report that was released this past week, in Adelaide.  I have written about it from the perspective of Australian Private Midwives Association (APMA) at the privatemidwives blog.

Principles of accountability and transparency must be applied to professional practice.  When something goes wrong in birth, our society wants to know, and has a right to know what happened.  It's easy for me to say that the safety and wellbeing of mother and baby guide my professional advice and actions, but what about the times when things aren't clear?  How must I act when a woman in my care understands her personal risk differently from the mainstream?

A considerable proportion of my practice in the past 20 years has been with women who would not be graded 'low' risk, yet they want to give birth spontaneously, without drugs to stimulate their labours, or to ameliorate pain.  The most usual 'risk factors' that these women have include previous caesarean surgery, a previous large baby, a previous post partum haemorrhage, and grand-multiparity.  So, when I read in the SA Coroner's report that 

"All three infants died after complications that were experienced in the course of their deliveries. These were complications of a kind that from time to time occur in deliveries of the types involved in these cases, and were therefore not entirely unpredictable."

I wonder if a similar judgment is being made of my practice, as though a midwife who agrees to attend women with recognised risk profiles is playing a version of Russian Roulette, and the midwife in South Australia was just unlucky?

The recommendations made by the Coroner in this instance appear to be an [albeit superficial] attempt to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

This course of action - the statutory authority using its considerable muscle to regulate and control the practice of midwifery - would appear acceptable to the majority of maternity care providers and academics. The suggestion is that:

• if a baby is known to be large, the birth should be facilitated (presumably by repeat caesarean, because it's not safe to induce a BAC labour);  
• if the baby is known to be presenting breech, it would almost certainly be born alive by elective caesarean; 
• if a woman is known to have twins, the babies will probably be born alive in the care of an obstetrician (most of whom will strongly advise elective caesarean) 

That is a superficial, linear argument that fails to recognise the complexities of maternity care.  This suggested course of action ignores the increased risk that each caesarean places on the woman's reproductive future: a risk that does not really show up in the statistical reports.  It passes over the fact that many women who seek private midwifery care are consciously avoiding mainstream services.  It fails to notice that highly skilled, experienced midwives have been excluded from practising in any setting except the home.  And then there are all the issues of trust and continuity in providing optimal maternity care.

I cannot ignore the fact that some women in my practice who have agreed to go to hospital, following my advice, have told me how they suffered as a result.  The woman who gave birth spontaneously to twins in hospital told me she still grieved, several years later, that the first baby was taken from her, became chilled, and she deeply grieved that unnecessary separation.  She told me she felt exposed and a lack of respect when she realised that a gaggle of unknown extra people had quietly slipped into the room to watch her breech baby being 'delivered' by the obstetrician. [It could be argued here that public hospitals are training grounds, and doctors and midwives have become deskilled in breech vaginal births, so ...]

Another woman who agreed to have an IV cannula when she gave birth in hospital to her third baby after a previous caesarean experienced the shock of being treated, without any discussion or consent, for post partum haemorrhage immediately after the birth, despite the fact that her blood loss was not excessive.  The 'risk' factors - VBAC, multiparity, and large baby - seemed to precipitate an over-energetic response by the hospital midwives.  The emergency code had been rehearsed, prepared for, and was called into action.  Perhaps that group of midwives will be more ready and competent when it really is called for???

In each of these, and other situations, I have grieved my contribution to the 'harming' of women, even though what happened occurred as I tried to ensure wellbeing and safety.  I cannot control another person's actions.  I also cannot use these experiences as a reason to stay out of hospital in future situations.  The safety of mothers and babies in my care is linked in complex ways with my own attitude towards the hospitals, my own ability to facilitate a spirit of cooperation between hospital staff, myself, and my client.

I look forward to the day when midwives will be free to practise (midwifery) without restriction in any setting; home or hospital.
***********

The Coroner's recommendations are listed at the end of the 106-page report.  In this blog I am attempting to summarise the recommendations, for future reference:


1) legislation to outlaw unregulated midwifery services "without being a midwife or a medical practitioner registered pursuant to the National Law;"
2) legislation requiring reporting "the intention of any person under his or her care to undergo a homebirth in respect of deliveries that are attended by an enhanced risk of complication,"
3) That the woman who is reported in (2) will receive "advice to be tendered to that person from a senior consultant obstetrician as to the desirability or otherwise, ..."
4) "establishment of a position known as the Supervisor of Midwives"
5) "establishment of alternative birthing centres" [note: not one of the three mothers of babies who died would have been eligible to go to 'alternative birthing centres']
6) education for public distribution on homebirths and risks
7) revised policy for Planned Birth at Home in South Australia "with an addition that current risk factors for shoulder dystocia be specifically identified;"
8) "That in any case where it comes to the attention of clinicians in a public hospital that a patient intends to undergo a homebirth that is attended by an enhanced risk of complication, that appropriate advice be tendered to that person by a senior consultant obstetrician."

H+BAC=?

TROUBLE!
[H+BAC stands for Home + Birth After Caesarean]

I have written about births after caesarean from time to time on this and other blogs. Last August I focused briefly on 'A scarred uterus', in the context of guidelines that had been hastily put together by ACM, and which were subsequently adopted by the National Board as its regulatory position on homebirth [link].

Yes, according to this statement homebirth is contraindicated for the 'scarred uterus'. Just to put the 'scarred uterus' in perspective, the Australia-wide rate of caesarean birth is more than 30% of all births [See Australia's Mothers and Babies 2009 report, published Dec 2011]. That's a lot of scarred uteruses.

Q. When a woman who has one of those scarred uteruses wants to have another baby, and she wants to optimise her chances of vaginal birth (vbac), to whom does she turn for professional help?
A. An experienced midwife who is committed to working with each woman, protecting promoting and supporting healthy physiologically normal processes in pregnancy and childbirth.

Q. Where do you find a midwife like that?
A. A midwife in private practice is able to make a personal commitment to the individual woman, and work professionally with her as her primary carer.

Q. Where does the midwife work?
A. The midwife's work is limited to the home, because (except in a few cases) midwives in private practice are unable to be recognised as a woman's midwife once admitted to hospital.

Q. What does the woman with the scarred uterus need to do in order to plan vbac?
A. The woman who is healthy with a healthy fetus at Term, who experiences spontaneous onset of labour, and who progresses in labour under the natural hormonal environment without medical assistance (augmentation or analgesia), is most likely to give birth spontaneously without complication.

Q. So, coming into spontaneous labour - that happens best at home?
A. Correct.

Q. And progressing without medical assistance - that happens best at home?
A. Correct.

Q. And that's where the midwife is experienced and competent?
 A. Correct.

Q. So, why is homebirth contraindicated?

[But there's a hole in the bucket, dear Eliza ...]

Of course this little Q&A sequence is overly simplistic.

But the point I am trying to make is that 'home' is not the key issue.  The central issue is that a midwife is the most appropriate and expert primary professional care provider for any woman who intends to give birth under normal physiological conditions, using natural oxytocin, natural adrenalin and catecolamines, natural endorphins, natural anti-diuretic hormone, and all the other amazing substances that work together in the healthy body to bring a woman to safely and proudly give birth to her baby.  The woman who is able to proceed in labour with the confidence that her midwife is protecting the birthing space, and that her midwife will identify and act appropriately to protect the wellbeing of both mother and child if needed, is able to look forward to BAC, whether they are at home or in a supportive hospital environment.

Achieving vaginal BAC is core business of midwifery.  It's where the midwife's skill is most needed, and where an experienced midwife is confident and in her element.

Yet, BAC is 'contraindicated' in the one place where the woman is most able to proceed well, and the one place where the midwife is able to work without restrictions.

Midwives who are facing up to this dilemma that has come about as a result of hasty bureaucratic processes that failed to consult with the midwives or the women it affects most, do not have many choices.  Either we continue to attend women with scarred uteruses professionally, or we refuse to do so.  The latter alternative is likely to result in some women facing unnecessary repeat caesarean surgery, with the inherent compounding risks of abnormal placental implantation and severe haemorrhage; and some will take the other extreme pathway - freebirth.

The central issue is not about the big 'H' - homebirth.  The central issue is the midwife's right to engage in professional practice.  A midwife who is attending a woman in labour, with or without a scarred uterus or any other of the listed contraindications, or complication, is professionally able to work with the woman to make appropriate decisions.  In some cases that may mean going to hospital; in others it means staying at home.  At all times the wellbeing and safety of mother and baby guide the midwife's professional advice.  Home is only a setting.  Healthy mothers and babies are the outcome we desire.

Refining and redefining a midwife's boundaries

The release by the Australian College of Midwives (ACM) of an Interim Homebirth Position Statement and guidance document has prompted discussion and debate amongst those of us who are interested in the boundaries of a midwife's practice. Of immediate concern is the statement in the guidance that:

"There are some contraindications to a planned homebirth which women should be informed of at booking. These are: • Multiple pregnancy • Abnormal presentation (including breech presentation) • Preterm labour prior to 37 completed weeks of pregnancy • Post term pregnancy of more than 42 completed weeks • Scarred uterus"

[I have written about the 'Scarred uterus' at the MIPP blog]

The word 'contraindication' means 'NO!'.

There is little room for movement in the word ‘contraindication’ which in any medical setting means that there is a reason to avoid using a particular treatment. For example, Penicillin is contraindicated when a person has an allergy to penicillin. Many specific drugs are contraindicated in pregnancy because they may adversely affect the fetus.

When I spoke about this concern to a respected colleague she told me not to worry, that it just means we have to initiate ‘Appendix A’ [in the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (ACM 2008)]. Appendix A gives a process for the midwife to follow 'When a woman chooses care outside the recommended ACM National Midwifery Guidelines ...' . My colleague argued that once a midwife has signed off on Appendix A for whatever reason, the midwife just continues to provide care, confident that the woman is making an informed decision. "Put it to the woman when she inquires about homebirth that her previous caesarean means that you are not able to support homebirth because the guidelines say so, but if she still wants homebirth she can sign a statement ..."

As has been pointed out by a consumer activist, the ACM has generously speculated in the guidance document on the possibility that “In the event of a woman making her own decision/s ...” This statement made me stop and think – a woman making her own decision/s – isn’t that what usually happens??? Oh dear!

What ever happened to all the notions of woman-centred care, informed decision making, partnership, cultural safety, reciprocity, trust? Is ACM trying to protect midwives from those women who make their own decisions? I think that's the only sort of woman I can provide midwifery for!

I have been a member of ACM continuously since the 1980's when it was the Midwives Association of Victoria Inc, and I proudly received Fellowship (FACM) from the College in 1997. Professional bodies attempt to describe and define boundaries of that profession, and members must either go with the change or resist it.  In this matter, I am resisting.

The ACM has been funded in this project by the federal government, which has initiated major reforms across health, to refine and redefine the midwife's boundaries, especially in the context of private practice. The Australian people elected a Labor government. We are now experiencing centrally controlled social health policy that restricts the individual (consumer and practitioner) while claiming to bring benefits for everyone? That's how a socialist health policy works.  Why are we surprised?

Enough from me.
Your comments are very welcome.
Joy