Birth statistics

Source: Victorian Health Department 2009

I expect readers will find the trend in the number of women achieving planned home birth (Table 33)  interesting.  (click on picture to enlarge)

To access the full Victorian Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality & Morbidity (CCOPMM) Annual Report for the year 2009, click here.
[This is the most recent of the annual reports]

Midwives are the only professionals who attend women for planned home birth these days.  In years past there were a few GPs, but time and cost of insurance has caught up with them.  Midwives are attending homebirths privately without professional indemnity insurance, under a special exemption that is in place until June 2015.


I note:

• the gradual increase in homebirths as a percentage of all confinements*, from 0.2 in 1985, to 0.4 in 2009 (Table 33).
• Table 34 indicates the type of birth for all women who were recorded at the onset of labour as 'planned' homebirth.  Women planning homebirth in 2009 had 90% 'unassisted vaginal' birth (the overwhelming majority of these being spontaneous, unmedicated); 6% caesarean birth, and the rest forceps, vacuum, or unknown.  
• This compares with only 38.6% of all women in 2009 coming into spontaneous labour without augmentation (same report, p61), and 54.6% having unassisted vaginal births (p64).

AIHW 2010 - click to enlarge

We do not yet have a 'Births in Victoria' report for 2010 or subsequent years.
 
This 2010 national report is from the Australian government's Mothers and Babies publications site.

I note:

• In Table 3.18 (shown here), the number of babies born at home in Victoria has increased from 300 in 2009 (PDCU) to 567 in 2010. 
• This is the actual place of birth, including those who planned to give birth in hospital, and the baby beat them to it, and those who intentionally gave birth unattended ('free birth')
• The AIHW 2010 data does not report on home birth by intended place of birth in Victoria (Table 3.19, p29)
• 2010 was the year that the two public hospital homebirth trials commenced at Sunshine and Casey.  The number of homebirths births through those hospitals was small (40)
• 2010 was also the year that the federal government's maternity reform package was implemented, with midwives becoming eligible to provide Medicare-rebated antenatal and postnatal services from November 2010.

AIHW 2011 click to enlarge

 The 2011 national report from AIHW provides more information on home births in Victoria, as it includes the breakdown of those women who gave birth at home, having planned (intended to) give birth at home.

I note:

• The number of planned homebirths in 2011, in Victoria,  was 432, accounting for 0.6% of the State's births.  
• Looking back at Table 33 (above), the increase from 300 in 2009, 0.4%, is substantial.
• Midwives in Victoria quickly accessed eligibility for Medicare, and promoted primary maternity care options for women.
• The only place in Victoria where a midwife can practise privately is in the community, for planned homebirth.
• No Victorian hospital has yet established processes whereby midwives can apply for clinical privileges and attend their clients in the hospital
• Since 2010, a number of experienced midwives have resigned from mainstream Victorian hospital and birth centre employment and joined the ranks of midwives offering homebirth.

The following excerpt from AIHW 2011 provides interesting comment:

Homebirths 
In 2011, there were 1,267 women who gave birth at home, representing 0.4% of all women who gave birth. The highest proportions were in Victoria and Western Australia (0.8%) (Table 3.18). It is probable that not all homebirths are reported to the perinatal data collections.

The mean age of mothers who gave birth at home was 31.7 years (Table 3.49). The proportion of mothers younger than 20 was 1.3%, and the proportion aged 35 and over was 29.8%.

The proportion of mothers who gave birth at home who identified as being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin was 1.1%.

Most women who gave birth at home were living in Major cities (70.8%) (Table 3.49). Of mothers who gave birth at home, about one-quarter had their first baby (22.3%), and 77.4% were multiparous.

The predominant method of birth for 99.3% of women who gave birth at home was non-instrumental vaginal (Table 3.49). The presentation was vertex for 97.6% of women who gave birth at home.

Of babies born at home in 2011, 99.2% were liveborn. The mean birthweight of these liveborn babies was 3,614 grams (Table 3.49). The proportion of liveborn babies of low birthweight born at home was 1.6%, and the proportion of preterm babies born at home was 1.3%. (AIHW 2011, pages 65-66)

I note:

• There were 10 babies of the 1,301 homebirths in 2011 recorded as fetal deaths.  These data do not provide detail as to how or why those deaths occurred.
• The midwife is duty bound to promote the wellbeing and safety of the mother and baby in her care, above preference for place of birth, or other factors.

*The word 'confinements' is used in these reports, as a tally of the number of women who have given birth, rather than the number of births, which includes multiples.  Readers might like to suggest a better word!

CULTURAL HYSTERIA?

Readers of this blog are probably familiar with the historical roots of 'hysteria'; the Greek word ὑστέρα (hystera) meaning womb, the condition of the wandering womb, and recommended treatments.

"Galen, a prominent physician from the 2nd century, wrote that hysteria was a disease caused by sexual deprivation in particularly passionate women: hysteria was noted quite often in virgins, nuns, widows and, occasionally, married women. The prescription in medieval and renaissance medicine was intercourse if married, marriage if single, or vaginal massage (pelvic massage) by a midwife as a last recourse.[1]" [Wikipedia]

The Medical Dictionary that my computer's online dictionary led me to offers this information:

hysteria hys·ter·i·a (hĭ-stěr'ē-ə, -stēr'-) n.

A neurosis characterized by the presentation of a physical ailment without an organic cause, such as amnesia.

Excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear.[Link]

I wish to contend here that there is a cultural hysteria in response to midwifery.  A cultural neurosis that leads to excessive and uncontrollable fear about that highly contested terrain, childbirth.

While midwives are recognised internationally as essential providers of primary maternity care, Australian midwives (and our sisters in many other developed countries) face exclusion and restriction when simply practising our profession.

Cultural hysteria with regard to midwifery depicts the midwife as someone who lacks skill in management of obstetric emergencies, events that are bound to happen, leading to a mass fear reaction.  Cultural hysteria sets up a fearful scenario, and uses that scenario to prove its point.

I don't have answers to every possible scenario, but I do know that in the State of Victoria, where I live and work, data from privately attended planned homebirth have been collected and reported on for many years, demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of planned homebirth in the care of a midwife.

The mothers who planned to give birth at home have not been uniformly 'low risk': they include births after Caesarean, mothers who are older, or who have had more births, or whose babies are bigger than average.  They are ordinary women, who just want to give birth to their babies.

The midwives have not undertaken any special courses of study: they are simply competent midwives, who seek to work in harmony with physiological processes, and who, generally, refer women appropriately when complications are suspected. 

The Victorian government’s Perinatal Data Collection (PDC) unit within the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity (CCOPMM) publishes an annual profile that captures all planned homebirths in the state, and puts the data alongside cumulative data from hospitals and statewide totals. These reports, although retrospective, carry a high degree of reliability.

The reports over the past 20+ years have shown planned homebirth in the care of a midwife as a safe option in terms of maternal and perinatal morbidity, with many features that are considered protective of the mother’s and baby’s wellbeing and safety. 

For example, in 2008, the most recent set of published data in this series:
• 91.5% of women planning homebirth had unassisted cephalic births, compared with 55.4% state-wide.
• Approximately 5% of women planning homebirth at the beginning of labour had caesareans, compared with 19% in small ‘low risk’ (<100 births) hospitals, and 31% statewide.

When looking at the baby outcomes for the same group (2008),
• 95.6% of babies born to mothers who planned homebirth at the beginning of labour did not require admission to a hospital nursery, which is approximately the same as the rate for small hospitals with less than 400 births per year.

These data support our contention that there is safety and protection of wellbeing for mother and baby when midwives attend women for planned homebirth.


I recognise that individual cases may be held up as examples of things going very wrong in birth, whether that birth takes place in a tertiary hospital, a private hospital, the woman's home, a birth centre, or in the back seat of the car. 

There are risks associated with birth, as there are particular risks linked to any life event.

I believe that the safety and wellbeing of mothers and babies in our community is enhanced by a strong midwifery profession that is recognised as essential in effective primary maternity care.

WHY I DISAGREE WITH THE CORONER'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Having written last week about some of the complexities of the decisions made by women about their birth-giving, and the roles of midwives, I would like today to briefly explore why I disagree with (most of) the South Australian Coroner's recommendations in the recent case.

I have summarised the recommendations as:
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."

Rather than starting with #1 and plodding through this minefield, I will start with what I see as easier, and pick my way through the minefield, trying to state my opinions clearly. (And, dear reader, I must warn you that I often delete a great deal of what I write, so that you see the heavily edited version)

6) education for public distribution on homebirths and risks 

This is not a bad idea. My only hesitation relates to what sort of education, and who writes it, and who defines the risks, and ...

 5) "establishment of alternative birthing centres" 

Also not a bad idea - for the 1980s, that is. Midwifery theorists proposed that hospital rooms dressed as 'home-like' settings would help women to feel OK about birth.  Some women did well, while many were excluded by risk protocols, and moved into standard (the alternative to 'alternative') obstetric care.  I gave birth to my fourth child at the Women's Birth Centre in 1980, and that experience helped me come out of medically managed and dominated midwifery.  I know many other midwives who have learnt to work in harmony with physiology in unmedicated birth, and to trust their midwifery knowledge when detecting and acting upon complications, during their time working or giving birth in a birth centre.  Perhaps that's a good reason to establish birthing centres.

4) "establishment of a position known as the Supervisor of Midwives"

I need to sit on the fence for this one.  The role of Supervisor of Midwives is one that I don't fully understand.  How would these people be appointed?  What would their role entail?  Would all midwives be supervised, or only certain midwives?    The UK-style Supervisor of Midwives is different from the New Zealand system.  Psychologists work under a system of professional supervision.  I believe a thorough exploration of this proposal needs to be had by midwives, ethicists, psychologists, lawyers, and maternity consumer spokespeople, and some agreement reached, before yet another regulatory control be imposed on the profession.

1) legislation to outlaw unregulated midwifery services "without being a midwife or a medical practitioner registered pursuant to the National Law;"

NO!
Australia does not need to outlaw unregulated midwifery services.
Australia needs to protect and support the midwifery profession, so that midwives can provide midwifery services in homes and hospitals; so that women will feel safe in the professional care of midwives as primary carers, who are able to work seamlessly with specialist services when indicated.
Modern societies, and the legislators and coroners and others in positions of authority need to recognise that spontaneous labour and birth is a fact of nature, not something that a midwife controls or gives permission for, and that women under natural law are able to use the professional services provided in their community, or not.  It's their choice.

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,"

NO!
Midwives who understand the ethical and moral duties of our profession, who by definition work 'in partnership' with a woman, will REFUSE to report women on the grounds of a plan for homebirth.  My own practice for many years has been to encourage women to see the choice of place of birth as a decision they make as labour becomes established, and not before.  I believe this is best practice, as the midwife is committed to the woman, not to the planned setting for birth.

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."

HOW would this work?  Will that woman be arrested and forced to listen to 'appropriate advice' being delivered?

I have not tried to tease out which risk factors the Coroner thinks would be used to initiate reports or the giving of advice.  There are few absolutes in midwifery.  Regardless of what risk factors may be attending a particular situation, physiological birth always starts with spontaneous onset of labour, and spontaneous onset of labour happens in the woman's own time, in her own world, in her own body.  The woman has to make a decision to call a midwife, or not; to go to hospital, or not.  This decision cannot be taken from her.

This set of recommendations exhibits a shallow and linear view of life, risk, and decision-making.  The question that the Coroner seemed to avoid is:

"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?"



Australia is a society which supports a wide range of freedoms for the individual.  I don't have the words to describe the legal and ethical framework that this is built upon, but I know that when a State (government-sanctioned authorities) is given power to control the most intimate relationships between a woman and her child, that comes with a great loss of basic freedom.

Civil disobedience by midwives has been recorded many times, when the midwives believed that the lives or wellbeing of the mother and/or her baby were at risk.  The Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, who were prepared to disobey and deceive the autocratic, absolute authority of Pharoah, are our model.

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, "When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.  But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live.  So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?"  The midwives said to Pharoah, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives come to them."  So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong,.  And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. (Exodus 1: 15-21, From the New Revised Standard Version (1989) of the Bible)

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."

Another reflection on practice

Photo used with permission

The mother in this picture, Cynthia, gave birth at home to her second child at home against medical advice. Her first child, born at a Birth Centre, had been too large, and she was told she had bled too much, so she was not permitted to book at the Birth Centre for her second birth: the advice was that she would require obstetric management.

This is a not uncommon situation, even when 'alternative' birthing services, such as midwife-managed birth centres, are accessible. It presents a challenge for midwife as well as mother, as we find our way through the often unpredictable terrain of pregnancy and birthing. Yet it could be argued that all home births are against medical advice.

Cynthia gave birth to baby Willa at home, early in the morning, as the first light of the new day filtered through the glass above the door on the Eastern wall.  I hold that memory of hushed ecstasy, as we who were witnesses to the miracle of birth watched the mother welcome her newborn daughter.

Cynthia has given me permission to use this beautiful photo, and to use her name as I tell a small part of her story. I am taking the opportunity to reflect on aspects of this birth, and the conversations I had with Cynthia in the months before the birth. Cynthia was strong in her resolve; she had discovered within herself a deep and precious knowledge of her birthing potential, and she asked me to accompany her through the most demanding part of this birthing journey.


With this recent birth in mind, I have been delighted to start reading a new book The Heart in the Womb, by Amali Lokugamage, an obstetrician who defied her profession's wisdom and gave birth to her son at home in the UK.  Amali writes:

I was prompted to write about this very personal experience because, prior to my pregnancy, I was never fully able to understand why a woman would actively choose to give birth at home, outside of a hospital safety-net." (p6)

The idea that being in a hospital for every birth provides a safety-net is one of the great 'lies' under which most Australian maternity services operate.  When a woman discovers her own strength, she arranges her life so that she will not be denied that potential when she is at the peak of her labour.  She chooses her team: midwife, sister, friend, and lover - each in a different partnership relationship with her, and each fully committed to being with her.

I cannot teach a woman how to discover her own innate birthing potential.  It is truly a discovery that she makes as she welcomes the hormonally mediated activity that her body leads her through.  I cannot predict who will progress unassisted to an ecstatic birth; who will gently guide the head of her own baby across the threshold of totally streched perineal tissues; who will enjoy that amazing dance of the breast crawl, and feel the pressure as the placenta presents for expulsion.

But I can reflect on my own memories of my birthings, many years ago, and I can confidently accompany women who are willing to engage in trust and reciprocity, and explore their own journeys as they give birth to their babies.

optimal space for birthing?

There is a special interest branch within midwifery and maternity care that overlaps with design and architecture disciplines, exploring the creation of optimal spaces for birthing. I have been reminded of this field of interest, when reading a recent post by my colleague and friend Carolyn Hastie, who writes the thinkbirth blog. Carolyn refers to, and provides a link to a presentation on optimal birth spaces by Maralyn Foureur, Professor of Midwifery at the University of Technology of Sydney (UTS). I wrote in the comments to thinkbirth:

I have seen some wonderfully designed spaces in which women can give birth. I have also seen women give birth beautifully (and, I would say, optimally) in settings that would seem to contravene every goal of the optimal birthing space ideology.

The woman's own nesting, which I believe is hormonally driven more than the result of intelligent planning and preparation, seems to be the key. Nesting can include the choice of setting, as well as the choice of people who make up that woman's birthing team. Nesting also enables the woman to change her plan if her situation requires it, without losing the ability to proceed normally.

I don't want to be critical of the optimal birth space ideology.

HOWEVER ...

The reality in my world is that each birth space is often very different from what the woman had planned or wanted, yet women are able to give birth in that wonderfully spontaneous way, without any regrets.

It would be naive to imagine that a woman's home is automatically the optimal birthing space for her.

I need to do a postnatal visit now, but hope to get back to this post later, and write some more.

[Melbourne readers may know that a private hospital in Hawthorn had recently set up a beautifully designed birthing facility, which has closed its doors after just a few months' operation, because the plan was not working, and there were too few women making bookings.]


NESTING and optimal birthing conditions
Nesting is one of those normal physiological functions that everyone knows about, but rarely pays much attention to.   While researchers have for a couple of decades looked seriously at the impact of the love hormone oxytocin, and the 'fight-or-flight' adrenal hormones, on the birth and mothering behaviours of laboratory animals, nesting doesn't seem to raise research interest or dollars.

A woman anticipating the birth of her child will usually have a 'to do' list, including stocking and preparation of food and other consumables, washing and setting out baby clothes, and packing a bag for herself and her baby in preparation for a stay in hospital, or 'birth kit' items in readiness for giving birth at home.  This process of getting ready would be recognised broadly as 'nesting'.  I have known some who feel the need to clean windows, and sweep, vacuum, and dust almost obsessively in the days leading up to the labour.  This is all intentional nesting, driven mainly by the woman's intellectual grasp of the enormity of the job that lies ahead.

With the establishment of spontaneous labour, physiological nesting becomes more pronounced.  Women who thought they would like to have the other children present for the birth of their sibling will often withdraw into a secluded space.  Women who have a plan to call a trusted midwife will often call her, just to check that she is able to come when called.  Nesting can continue until the peak of first stage, often called 'transition', when the woman must give up conscious control and surrender to the work of bringing her child out of her body. 

Women who plan to go to hospital to give birth face a nesting conflict.  It goes something like this:
"If I go to hospital too early my labour might fizzle.  If I stay at home I won't want to move when the labour becomes strong."  It's their natural nesting drive that makes them want to find the place where they will give birth - not the street address, but the actual room, with its contents, and the actual people with whom she will need to communicate.

Women who are booked at a modern hospital Birth Centre, where there are well-designed birthing rooms, often experience a conflict about the availability of a room.  They know that if the rooms are all in use when they arrive, they will be admitted to a standard hospital suite.  They have heard stories about how often this might happen.  Other matters of 'nesting' concern might focus on the times of shift changes in the hospital. 

I have, on occasion, been called to a 'planned' home birth, only to find that the woman and her home show no sign of nesting.  This dysfunctional nesting is, I think, a sign that the woman's sensitivity to natural instinctive urges has been in some way shut down.  The woman's labour can continue without nesting, and the baby can be born, "ready or not!"

Returning to the initial question of this blog: is there, and what is, an optimal space for birthing?
I would refine the question further, and add the word 'physiological' - the space for medically managed care in labour and childbirth must be very different from the space that enables and supports and protects physiological processes.  Here are a few ideals for that space:

• a place that the woman has chosen to be in
• a place that the woman is happy to continue in, as labour progresses
• a place where the woman can receive care, support, and guidance from a trusted midwife, and other chosen people
• a place where the woman is able to cover windows, dim lights, and make other physical adjustments when she wishes
• a place that allows the woman to feel private and unobserved
• a place where the midwife, as the responsible professional at the time, is confident that the wellbeing of mother and baby are being protected.

As with all other basic life events, "the best laid plans of mice and men ..."  There can be no guarantees.  The only people who we can be sure will be at a birth are the mother and her baby. 

The optimal space for physiological birthing in suburban Melbourne should not be very different from the optimal space for physiological birthing for Inuit women in Nunavik in the Arctic Circle.  The type of bed or birthing pool; the colour of the walls or the pattern of the furnishings - these things can be nice, but are of little significance to the woman giving birth.  The woman's feeling of unintruded privacy, as she reaches the point of surrender, knowing that her midwife is *with* her, is the essence of optimality. 


Your comments are very welcome.