more on DANGEROUS DRUGS

(by Poppy)

Several years ago, in 2010, I posted Dangerous Drugs, in which I explored my thoughts and concerns about the adverse effect of opiate drugs on a baby's ability to function normally in the first few days of life.  In that post the narcotic (opiate) drug endone came under the spotlight, as it was being (and still is) used liberally in early postnatal settings, particularly after caesarean births or when women complain of perineal pain.



[Note to readers:  If you would like to check the information about any drug, you can search the myDr medicines site.  For example, Endone tablets. ]


In 2012 I completed an accredited course in Pharmacology, the Graduate Certificate in Midwifery at Flinders University, and subsequently received endorsement of my registration as a midwife prescriber, and obtained my own prescription pads.  I and many other Australian midwives have used social media for discussion of prescribing issues, in the Midwife Prescriber group.


Any medicine that contains opiates (including over the counter medicines such as panadeine [paracetamol+codeine]) is metabolised into morphine as well as other substances, and has a similar analgesic action to endone for the mother, and is transmitted via breast milk to the baby.  There is a great deal of variability in the way an individual metabolises opiate medicines, transferring the substances from the stomach, via the liver, to the blood stream, and to pain receptor sites.  The existence of ultra-rapid metabolizers of codeine should be noted by any midwife or doctor or pharmacist who prescribes or recommends oral opiates for women who are breastfeeding, and the medicine should not be used if the baby appears affected (excessively sleepy/lethargic) after being fed with mother's milk.  (??? aren't babies supposed to be sleepy after breastfeeding?  Yes - not lethargic though.)


Pethidine (meperidine)
After that rather lengthy introduction, today I would like to focus on another opiate, pethidine, or meperidine (Demarol) in some countries.

Peer reviewed medical literature has for more than a decade drawn attention to the neurotoxic effect of metabolites of pethidine, in both the adult and in the breastfed infant.  In 2006, the New Zealand Medical Journal published a paper by Shipton, stating that "Pethidine is no longer considered a first-line analgesic. ... Clinicians around the World recommend its removal from health systems
or restriction of its use." (p1)

Anderson published A Review of Systemic Opioids Commonly Used for Labor Pain Relief (Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, 2011), and stated that,
"Meperidine [Pethidine] and its metabolites accumulate in colostrum and breast milk and may be associated with newborn neurobehavioral alterations and unfavorable effects on developing breastfeeding behaviors. Wittels et al43 conducted a prospective, randomized study of breastfeeding women who underwent cesarean births and compared intravenous PCA administration of meperidine to intravenous PCA administration of morphine. Meperidine was associated with significantly more neurobehavioral depression in breastfeeding newborns on the third and fourth days of life when compared with the behavior of the newborns in the morphine cohort (P .05), despite similar overall doses of morphine and meperidine." (page 227)


A question posted at the Midwife Prescriber site a week ago indicated that pethidine is currently used liberally in labour and postnatally, except in public hospitals in New South Wales, where I understand its use has been restricted.  Old habits die hard!


Here's a recent case (true story) -

A woman who is a well informed registered professional, having her second baby by elective caesarean for transverse lie, at a public teaching hospital in Melbourne:

• requested that the IV be inserted in a vein on her left arm rather than the back of her hand, because she wanted freedom to hold and feed her baby after the birth.
• was surprised that the young anaesthetic doctor was very reluctant to do this - had to insist - and eventually got what she requested
• asked not to be given pethidine which is the standard in that hospital, preferred morphine via a PCA, as she was aware of concerns about metabolisation of pethidine, and transfer to colostrum, and felt she could have more control over the amount of drug in her system this way
• once again found that she had to argue with the anaesthetic doctor in order to achieve this preference. No valid reason was given for the hospital's preference of pethidine. The doctor said that "the midwives don't like PCA and don't know how to manage it" (which I think is nonsense)
• and after this doctor had (albeit reluctantly) complied with the woman's wishes, said to the woman. "You're right you know, we don't like using pethidine. It's a 'dirty drug'. And not siting the IV on the back of your hand is a no brainer."

This story illustrates unprofessional behaviours, particularly by the anaesthetic doctor, who was probably doing exactly what she or he had been told to do.  As a teaching hospital, one would expect evidence to be critically examined and applied.  If pethidine is not the best available medicine, it should not be used.  Passing the blame to the midwives is outrageous.  Most of the midwives working in hospitals have not studied pharmacology, and do not have authorisation to prescribe.  The person who signs the medications chart is the person who takes responsibility for the prescription.  If there are problems with the equipment, sort that out.


Drugs such as pethidine, morphine, endone, OxyContin, and others are DANGEROUS DRUGS.  They are kept in the DANGEROUS DRUG cupboard in hospital wards, and protocols must be followed to ensure that these medicines are signed out and administered correctly.  They are called DANGEROUS DRUGS because they are DANGEROUS!

The challenge is that when a dangerous drug is required, such as after major surgery, what is the least dangerous option for the mother and her new baby?

breech

For several years now there has been a growing movement of consumer and professional opinion about the 'best' way to give birth to babies presenting breech. [See Breech Birth ANZ website]  This has come as a small pendulum swing away from the prevailing policy of elective caesarean for breech babies, which was quickly adopted after the Hannah et al (2000) paper on the Term Breech Trial, published in the Lancett.

Another historical grab, before I tell my breech story.

Please see the attached picture of the midwifery exam which I undertook in 1973.   Midwives then were required to have a basic understanding of breech presentations.   I don't want readers to imagine that the work of a midwife (or mother giving birth) was somehow ideal back then - in fact the medicalisation of childbirth, and the dominance of medical 'men' over the more subservient female nursing profession (which included midwifery) was entrenched, as can be seen in the previous post I wrote about this midwifery exam.

click to enlarge

I have always held that if for no other reason than the surprise breech, a midwife attending births needs to be competent in vaginal breech birth (vbb).   My involvement in workshops and education about vaginal breech births, and in the few vbbs I have attended, there has been an emphasis on having obstetricians who lead the cause of promoting vbb.  I have felt uncomfortable with this.  Obstetricians are surgeons.  Midwives need to claim breech births as being well within their scope of practice, as well as the identification of those for whom a vaginal birth is not likely to lead to good outcomes, and being able to refer to and collaborate with obstetricians.

Recently I have had the privilege of attending a birth at home, which turned out to be a surprise (undiagnosed) breech.  As the mother rested with her baby in her arms, she asked me to be sure to write a story about this birth.

Without identifying her, I am pleased to record the birth - through a midwife's eyes, with a midwife's knowledge and decision-making.  I don't consider myself an expert in breech or any other type of birth.  In fact, the only births that I take professional responsibility for are the ones that are very likely to proceed under the mother's and baby's own power, driven by an amazing natural physiological process.  My job is to work in harmony with those natural processes, and to protect, promote and support the natural processes, with the intention to intervene only if illness or complication arise in the birth and nurture of the baby.   In the case of breech births, the most critical period can be the birth of the baby's arms and head, and it is important that all midwives and doctors who take professional responsibility for birth are skilled in the decision making and simple manoeuvers. 

Working as I do, attending births privately usually in the home of the woman giving birth, I have a background knowledge of a mother before she tells me her labour has started.  In this case, I had been midwife for the birth of another child in this family, five years ago, also at home.  Reflections on the previous birth had also been tenderly preserved in my blog.

The first clear indication that this baby was presenting breech was the information that the waters had broken, and were "clear, with a bit of blood, and a black blob."  Labour was strong when I arrived.

I quickly set up my gear: the baby resuscitation box, and oxytocic, syringe and needle, and procedure gloves within reach; the oxygen cylinder connected up and ready if needed; a few clean bath towels to keep baby warm after the birth.   The 'nest' had been prepared - the couch draped with a waterproof cloth, so that the mother could kneel on the couch, facing away from me: an ideal upright position for a breech birth! (and a very reasonable position for an older midwife)

I saw more meconium, and asked the mother if I could examine her internally to confirm the presenting part.  The baby's bottom was 'at spines' - well on the way to being birthed.

I had a decision to make: I spoke simply to the mother and the father.  "The baby is coming, and it will be born bottom first."  I advised them that I did not expect any problems with the birth, but as an extra precaution I would like an ambulance to be called, in case we needed to transfer to hospital.

I would now like to describe each part of the birth as it proceeded.  Contractions were approximately every five minutes. 

As the baby's rump came on view a purple, swollen scrotum also appeared, and a stream of urine was passed from a swollen little penis.  I didn't mention these facts - the mother had work to do, and she would be able to discover her baby's gender in her own time.  From that moment it must have been 10-15 minutes until the birth was completed.  At some stage the 'first response' paramedic arrived, and I confirmed that the birth was going well.  He stood back.

• Next contraction: a big push and one leg plopped out.
• Next contraction: a slight rotation of the baby's bottom, and the second leg came down, and a little 'cycling' action of the legs (as though he said, "Thanks Mum, that feels better! Now, what should I do?")
• Next contraction: the baby's body was born past the navel, then to the nipples, and a large, full blue and white umbilical cord was central.  The body hanging was unsupported - I had not touched him to this point (Hands off the breech!).  I was delighted to see the cord positioned beautifully in the little protected channel between the baby's two breasts that were squeezed together in the tightly stretched vaginal opening.  I gently checked the pulse - about 120, which is good.
• Next contraction: first arm popped out, a little rotation, then second arm.  Baby's colour reasonable.
• Next contraction: no progress.  I placed my thumb and fingers over the cord, close to its insertion.  Pulsing had slowed to about 80.  Time to get this little one out and breathing! 
• With mother in the kneeling position, I placed my right hand in over the baby's chin, and a finger into his mouth.  The left hand went behind the baby 's head to flex it, and the head was born with minimal effort on my part.
• Baby was initially pale as he lay on the birthing mat under his mother, with his cord intact, as mother turned to look at him, and ask how he was.  I dried him, checked the pulsing of the cord, blew on his face, and before the first minute was up, he had taken a gasp of air.  His colour began to improve.  A few more minutes before he was ready to cry, but all the time he was making the transition from womb to the outside world, there was no reason for me to interfere.
• By 5 minutes, he was in his mother's arms, pink and strong. 
• By the next day when I visited them, he had been breastfeeding strongly and effectively, and doing all the things newborn babies are expected to do. He weighed just over 4 kilograms.

midwifery: protecting health across generations

Maria Lactans (17th Century) Antwerp

One of the truly compelling reasons that I have for practising midwifery the way I do is the knowledge that there is no safer, no better way for a baby to be born and nurtured than the way our bodies have been wonderfully created to do it.  The marvels of science and medicine have not come up with a better process.  

I'll call it NORMAL birth: normal from a biological, physiological perspective in ideal conditions.
Not what *normally* happens today.
Not what is most common in birth today, or 100 years ago, or in a primitive society .... 

NORMAL birth requires a strong healthy woman who carries her pregnancy to term, and comes into spontaneous labour.  It requires the mother to accept and work with her body in labour, and to progress, without medication, to the climax of birth.  It requires the mother and baby to work together in establishing breastfeeding, within a nurturing family-community setting that supports the mother in these challenges.

This 'ideal' is what a midwife seeks to facilitate. "In NORMAL birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process." (WHO 1996)

At any point in the process we can face challenges, complication, illness, and the need to intervene.  That's when science, medicine, obstetrics ... become life-saving.


There are obvious and unquestioned benefits to a mother and her baby when the NORMAL processes are protected, promoted and supported.

• A mother's body and mind respond in unison to the changes in hormones in her blood, as she prepares, and progresses.  
• The mother's thinking brain is suppressed, in a quiet and unstimulating environment where she does not feel that she is being observed, so that her instinctive mind is free to proceed with the final nesting, and the surrender that accompanies strong labour.  
• The baby is born alert and healthy, ready to engage in the instinctive breast crawl as breastfeeding is initiated.   
• Early and effective suckling at the breast, together with the physical pressure of the baby's weight against the mother's uterine fundus, lead to strong contractions and completion of the third stage.  
• Once the placenta and membranes are completely expelled the risk of haemorrhage is minimised, and continuing breastfeeding supports the involution of the uterus.  
• Close physical contact from the time of birth supports the development of normal bacterial flora on the baby's skin and digestive organs, preparing the baby's immunological processes for ongoing function.  
• Bonding between a mother and her newborn proceed as they make eye contact, with uninterrupted close contact, and the mother's body is awash with love hormones.

I have not mentioned the midwife.  Yes, the midwife is present, working in harmony with the NORMAL processes, and guiding and supporting when things get difficult, but staying quietly and unobtrusively out of the limelight.  The midwife is guardian - protecting the mother and her child, and providing a safe space for them in NORMAL birth.

When there is a valid reason to interfere with the natural process, the midwife guides the woman, and provides appropriate explanations.  The midwife seeks only the health and wellbeing of mother and child.


Today I am looking further than the primary episode of care, spanning the nine months of the pregnancy, and the six weeks of the postnatal period.

I am looking at future generations.


The study of epigenetics: "the study of heritable changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence" offers huge challenges in health care, and particularly at the beginning of it all; conception, pregnancy and birth.  Emerging within this field of science is a new respect, for example, for the effect of nutrition during a woman's pregnancy on the health of her grand-children - the children of the child forming in her womb.

I have no claim to expert knowledge in biology, but would encourage readers to keep exploring this field.

Our bodies are wonderfully made.

I have recently become aware of a new film project,
micro birth

"MICROBIRTH" is a feature-length documentary looking at birth in a whole new way, through the lens of a microscope.
The film explores the latest scientific research into the microscopic events that occur during and immediately after birth.
This compelling, brand new science is starting to indicate that if the natural processes of childbirth are interfered with or bypassed completely, this could have devastating consequences for the long-term health of our children.
Just to be clear, this film is not calling for an end to interventions as many times they are essential and they can be life-saving.
But as this new science is starting to indicate, the use of synthetic oxytocin to induce or speed up labour (Pitocin / Syntocinon), antibiotics, C-section, the routine separation of mother and baby immediately after birth and formula feeding, could significantly raise the risk of our children developing serious disease later in life.
And as the film shows, the medicalisation of childbirth could even be contributing to a potential global human catastrophe predicted to happen by the year 2030.

...

conversations about breastfeeding

Two recent online Conversation articles, 'Breastfeeding improves IQ – now have we got your attention?' (Hayley Dickinson, 1 August 2013), and ‘Nipple Nazis’ vs overwrought mums: the breastfeeding debate' (Katie Attwell, 9 August 2013) have prompted a great deal of attention and sharing of strong opinions. 

I have read many of these comments with interest; and am surprised at the lack of comment from midwives.  We are the one profession that has more ability to protect, promote and support breastfeeding than any other - simply because we are with woman at the incredibly critical times for breastfeeding: the birth, the hours after the birth, and the early days.  If breastfeeding works for both mother and baby in the first week of life, most of the problems have been sorted.

If, on the other hand, after a couple of sleepless nights and days, both mother and baby exhausted and crying, the mother's nipples bleeding and incredibly painful, and someone tells her that her baby should have some formula because her baby will lose too much weight, and she should express her milk until her nipples heal  ...  It's all uphill, isn't it?

These discussions - they are all there for you to read, and come to your own conclusions.  I will make a few observations.

Having read the IQ article, and a quick succession of responses that questioned everything from the validity of the research conclusions, to the value of breastfeeding, I wrote:

There are many compelling reasons today for health professionals to promote, protect and support breastfeeding. We have a duty of care to do no harm. Promoting breastfeeding is, to my mind, a no-brainer. (and I don't really care if my IQ would have been higher if my mother had breastfed me longer)

Almost everyone in our society accepts that 'breast is best' for babies and their mothers.
The dilemma that midwives face in the brief period of birth and postnatal care in which we are directly responsible for mother and baby is that breastfeeding can be easily disrupted. Midwives, more than any other group of health professionals, can work with mothers and babies in through those early days, and guide and encourage mothers when the going gets tough.

When hospital maternity units work towards becoming 'Baby Friendly', implementing the BFHI global criteria, one of the most challenging steps is to demonstrate that a sufficient proportion of healthy breastfed babies were exclusively breast fed or breast milk fed from birth to discharge from the unit.

Mother-baby pairs who have used formula supplements, or milk from another mother, can be supported in optimising their reliance on mother's own milk, at the same time as being realistic about their particular situation.

Breastfeeding is one of life's big challenges. If it weren't so good, it probably would not be so contested.

 Many of those who posted comments supportive of breastfeeding were challenged by a doctor who claimed, repeatedly, that there was little difference between the health of breastfed and formula fed babies in our (wealthy) society, which has clean water and enough money to purchase formula.  For example:

why are you so resistant to discussion of what the data actually show about the effects of feeding type in our society? Is it because it threatens your ideology? And what, exactly, do you consider the ''risks of formula'' to be (in our wealthy society)?
Families should be encouraged to choose breast feeding and, if they choose it, the mother should be assisted to make it work - so long as the harms of continuing do not become greater than the benefts.

The self-appointed jury panel in this case included mothers, retired persons, university lecturers, a public hospital clinician, a PhD candidate, and others.  The strength and frequency of comment from one leader set the rules.  Nothing was protected, other than mothers who did not breastfeed.  How dare anyone make a connection between the harmful effects of smoking, and the (supposed) harmful effects of not breastfeeding (in a wealthy society)!


A point that I want to record in this context is that no matter how 'wealthy' our society is, no matter how difficult it is to demonstrate through research an advantage for a breastfed child over the non-breastfed child, breast feeding is the biological norm.  No technology or man-made substance has, or will, be developed to replace that norm.  Anything that is developed as a replacement for a mother's own milk, delivered directly to her suckling infant, can only be an inferior substance.

Another point that is clear to me is that, if it is truly dangerous (as we know it is) for a baby in the developing world to be denied his or her mother's milk, the onus is on us, the developed/wealthy world, to set the standard.  Statements that trivialise the life-giving properties of breastmilk in the wealthy world have overtones of colonialism and racism.  Australia is not uniformly wealthy.  Disadvantaged groups of people in Australia today have lower rates of breastfeeding than those in the better postcodes, and poorer health outcomes for babies as well as other age groups.

Here's a true story: A woman who came to Australia with her husband on a 457 work visa told me, with tears, of the birth of their first baby.  He had been born in a hospital in India, was healthy and hungry, and she was shown how to give him formula in a bottle.  She did not receive assistance with breastfeeding, which she tried, unsuccessfully, to initiate.  By the time he was three weeks of age he was refusing the breast, and essentially fully bottle fed.  He died at one month of age.  She asked me to help her give birth to her new baby, and breastfeed him - which she did.  



This brings me to the second article, headed 'Nipple Nazis'.

Again the correlation between social attitudes towards smoking, and not breastfeeding, was drawn.  Again, the cry from the stalls: how dare you!  That's not allowed!

It is true that the quantum of harm is greater with smoking than with not breast feeding.  But the harm of smoking is (usually) to the adult who smokes.  Even if there is only a small amount of harm with not breastfeeding - especially for premature babies who develop necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and need surgery to remove large portions of dead bowel tissue, and for babies in poorer communities, and for those who receive contaminated feeds when someone in the big business making the formula makes a mistake ...  surely the onus is on the midwives, and the health system, to do all it can to promote, protect and support breastfeeding.  The baby is the innocent recipient of whatever the mother chooses to feed him or her.  I reject any notion that a wealthy society can accept a standard that would put poorer people groups at an increased risk of harm. 

So, dear reader, why are we looking at offensive headings such as 'Nipple Nazis', when considering breastfeeding?  Who is a 'Nipple Nazi'?  The term has been used in maternity and child health services for the midwives, nurses, lactation consultants, and doctors, who seek to promote, protect and support breastfeeding. How is it that the thought police have not stamped out that outrageous and offensive suggestion?  What is it about the work that we do that has ANY relation at all to that horrible and inhumane blot on history?

It seems to me that while our society - at least that section of it who reads the health section of The Conversation - is very protective of the feelings of any mother who finds herself unable to, or chooses to not breast feed for whatever reason - we don't see anything wrong with the implied derision of those who make it their business to work in harmony with the natural processes in breastfeeding.

The midwife

I have been enjoying the BBC series 'Call the Midwife', which has been shown on Australian ABC TV.  This week we will see the fifth and final episode in the series.

(If you go to You Tube you can apparently download and watch the full first series.)

Since I began writing my stories in the mid 1990s, in The Midwife's Journal,  I have hoped that I am setting down on the record something of the essence of midwifery, within the context of ordinary life, so that it is available to future generations of midwives, and anyone else who is interested.  The discipline of writing down the stories as they happen must have been similar for the writer, Jennifer Worth, who journaled her experiences in London in the 1950s.

Last week I wrote about women's rights in childbearing.  This is a very important topic, but is likely to lead to a skewed view of birth, unless there is an equal emphasis put on the midwife.  The partnership of midwife and woman, working in harmony with sensitive natural physiological processes, is precious, but easily disrupted.

Just as without a strong healthy mother the baby is unlikely to thrive; without a strong, confident, and capable midwife, the woman is unlikely to progress safely along the pathway to birth: a mystery journey each time.

Today's world offers women a potentially overwhelming burden of knowledge about aspects of birth, without preparing a woman for the real job, which includes giving birth and nurturing their young.  Women are bombarded with an array of mainstream and alternative treatments, for their bodies, their minds, their relationships ...
By the way, I am referring to the woman, because only the woman can give birth.

A woman (or couple) may attend childbirth education classes at a hospital, independent childbirth education, exercise classes on balls, exercise classes in a yoga studio, exercise classes in the local swimming pool, and video sessions with commentaries by consumers, professionals, and lay activists to name a few.  They may follow pregnancy-birth related social media groups and forums.  She may see her primary maternity care provider for basic check-ups, as well as a naturopath and homeopath and acupuncturist and chiro or osteo or any number of other therapists and healers, each of whom offer to have some part of her body in tip-top shape for the big event, but none of whom can offer what the midwife does.

I said it's a potentially overwhelming burden of knowledge about aspects of birth.  I rarely see women coming to birth with calm confidence in the wonderful processes that our minds can not fully grasp no matter how hard we try.  I see a father anxiously coaching the woman who is carrying his child, telling he how to move or what to relax.  I wonder where he obtained this knowledge.  I hear recorded voices of unknown strangers who guide visualisation of climbing a mountain or a flower opening.

One mother who gave birth about a week ago had confidence.  I have been with her for several of her babies.  She is a beautiful, gentle woman who invests herself fully in her family, and avoids the public gaze.  Her preparation for birth included good food, adequate rest, and work about her home.

As the labour became strong this mother withdrew from her children, knowing that they were all in bed and quiet.  I rested on the couch.  Then she invited me into her bedroom: "it won't be long now," she told me.

Quietly and steadily she guided her baby down and out.  There was a cry as the little one's head passed over the perineal threshold - the older children said they heard it.  Shortly afterwards there was another cry, as the newborn took air into her lungs and made that amazing transition from placental to lung circulation.  The third stage proceeded without the need for any medical intervention, and there was minimal blood loss.  When I visited this mother she was sitting outside in the gentle spring sunshine.  I saw a well mother, with a well baby at her breast. 


In telling this story I have not mentioned the buzz word of the day: collaboration.  Those in authority today will insist that collaboration is the key to safe maternity care.

Yes, there was a collaborative arrangement in place, a letter of referral from a suitably qualified doctor, enabling this mother to claim some Medicare rebate on my fees.  The birth plan was, as is usually the case in primary maternity care for planned homebirth, to proceed under normal physiological conditions, working in harmony with the natural processes, unless complications were to arise. We planned to go to the nearest suitable public maternity hospital without delay for urgent obstetric concerns, or to refer to a local doctor for non-urgent medical indications.  This is basic midwifery.  The baby is born safely; the mother recovers quickly; all without medical (or midwifery) intervention.


Thankyou for your comments.

www.babyfriendly.org.au

The Australian Baby Friendly Health Initiative – NEW WEBSITE - now live!

You are invited to visit www.babyfriendly.org.au to hear an introduction by Tara Moss the UNICEF Australia Patron for Breastfeeding and BFHI. You can also view short clips from the new BFHI DVD about each of the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding.

The website includes information about why and how your facility can ‘Go Baby Friendly’ and a list of Baby Friendly accredited hospitals in Australia.

Launch Special! The first 50 people to subscribe as a Baby Friendly Supporter will receive a copy of the new BFHI DVD signed by Tara Moss. The DVD is due to be launched in May 2012.

Seeking Testimonials: If you, or someone you know, has a Baby Friendly story or photo and are happy to share this on the website, please contact the BFHI Manager, Rachel Ford, on 1300 360 480 or info@babyfriendly.org.au. We are particularly interested in stories about working or birthing in a Baby Friendly hospital, undergoing Baby Friendly accreditation, or what Baby Friendly means to you.

A big thank you to UNICEF Australia for the hours of work and consultation that went into designing and developing the website, in particular the careful sourcing of all the fabulous images! Thanks also to the BFHI National Advisory Committee for their contributions and advice.
Ann Kinnear
Executive Officer
Australian College of Midwives

Millennium Development Goals: How are we progressing with the maternity goals?

Millennium Declaration

In 2000, 189 nations made a promise to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations. This pledge became the eight Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. In September 2010, the world recommitted itself to accelerate progress towards these goals.

The 8 Millennium Development Goals are:

1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2 Achieve universal primary education
3 Promote gender equality and empower women

4 Reduce child mortality

5 Improve maternal health

6 Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7 Ensure environmental sustainability
8 Develop a global partnership for development

Each of these goals has a potential to improve maternity outcomes in the world's poorest countries.  Goals 4 and 5 give direct measures of maternity care.
If you would like to see the UN 2011 table summarising progress, click here.


Readers may wonder what significance the MDGs have in the context in which I practise midwifery.  Private midwifery in and around Melbourne is, surely, for a privileged minority, who are usually healthy, well educated women, and able to pay for the maternity care they choose.

This is true.

Women who plan homebirth in my practice understand that my role includes arranging transfer to hospital if complications are detected.  Well staffed and equipped maternity hospitals are within easy reach by car or ambulance, in most instances.  Availability of appropriate referral services is a key to safe and optimal outcomes, whether the referral is from planned homebirth, or from small primary maternity care units in rural towns.

Women in places where maternal mortality is high may not be within reasonable reach of emergency obstetric services; may face prohibitive costs if they do go to hospital; and often delay in seeking medical intervention.  Their bodies are often weakened by anaemia, malaria, HIV/AIDS, intestinal parasites, and other preventable conditions.  Mothers and babies die from Tetanus, because the mothers have never been vaccinated against Tetanus.   Women do not have access to acceptable family planning measures; child-brides are pregnant before their bodies are fully developed; too many women develop obstetric fistula; and the list goes on.

The challenge that I see in comparing maternity care here in Melbourne, with maternity care in some of the world's most disadvantaged settings, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, or the highlands of Papua New Guinea, is the continuing and increasing reliance on medical and surgical management of birth in the West.  This logically equates to a loss of knowledge, a loss of expertise, in working with natural processes in the childbearing continuum.  The excessive and unnecessary medicalisation of birth and everything related to maternity care, as is seen in mainstream maternity care in Melbourne, will not improve maternal or infant health in less developed countries. Melbourne hospitals are teaching doctors and midwives who will pass contemporary practices on to their students in all parts of the globe.  Melbourne, which has world-best facilities for those who need them, must set an example of best practice in protecting each woman's ability to give birth under her own amazing power - 'Plan A', unless there is a valid reason for 'Plan B'.

For decades we have seen the global impact on the lives of babies of the loss of collective confidence in breastfeeding.  Efforts to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding are required in the rich world if we want to have any impact in poorer countries.  The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which in Australia is known as the Baby Friendly Health Initiative, has the expectation of the same high standards in each of the '10 Steps to successful breastfeeding', whether the hospital provides care for those who pay big money, or those who are in low socio-economic settings.

Childbirth is not very different from breastfeeding.  The loss of confidence in natural physiological processes in childbirth, including the spontaneous onset of labour, progress in labour, giving birth without medical pain relief or physical assistance, expelling the placenta, and establishing breastfeeding, to name a few key points, needs to be recognised and rectified in Australian mainstream maternity care.  There is no safer or more reasonable way to proceed with childbirth, for most women, than to do so under the natural, hormonally-driven processes within each woman's body.  Only those for whom a valid reason to interrupt the natural processes will be better off with such intervention.

I expect any readers are likely to be already convinced of these facts, so I won't press on.   

Midwives, we carry the knowledge of normal birth!  We must value that knowledge, and hold on to the skills of working in harmony with women's natural physiological processes, whether in early labour, breastfeeding, birth, or the third stage. 

The 1996 'Care in normal birth' instruction from World Health Organisation, that
"In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process" is as relevant when applied to the Millennium Development Goals, as it is in a Birth Centre in the rich world.

learning about breastfeeding

A young midwifery student who I will call 'B' wrote to me:

Today I had work on the postnatal ward, and I had one of my "What would Joy do?" moments, as I had a particularly hard case to deal with, well for me it was hard.

I was caring for a woman who had a baby girl at term. There was some concern about possible infection, so baby was admitted to the newborn nursery soon after birth. I found the mother in her bed crying. I found myself having to be 'with' her in a very human, tangible way that I find hard to put into words.

After having a talk and her calming down, I wanted to help her with breastfeeding. The issues I saw for this mother were:
a) separated from her child
b) bottles and formula
c) sick baby
d) the fact she had only expressed once since her baby had been moved to special care 24 hours before and had minimal skin to skin/ feeding attempts since.

I showed her how to hand express, showed her how to use a pump, and helped her attach her baby in the special care nursery.

It was just one of those cases where I especially wanted her to succeed in feeding, which was what she desperately wanted too, and I wonder if there is anything else I can do for her?

This is an all too common scenario that student midwives face. I congratulate 'B' on the way she has been working through her thoughts in this situation.

A key to supporting this mother and baby are to understand breastfeeding from the baby’s point of view, and to help the mother to see that perspective too. Babies want milk; they want it in abundance and from their mothers' breasts. Any artificial substitute is inferior in the baby's mind, as well as being inferior from a nutritional perspective.

A student midwife working in a hospital has very little authority or ability to change the culture within the unit. Did that baby really need to be separated from her mother? Were all the medical processes that followed the separation necessary and helpful? ...

The ideals of the Baby Friendly Health Initiative, or the Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative, empowering women as mothers and promoting bonding, breastfeeding and health are not very useful to a person like 'B' working a shift in a postnatal maternity ward. 'B' needs a strategy by which she can impart hope and encouragement to the new mother until her child is returned to her care.

As soon as baby is well enough she will be looking for her mother's milk. It is usually possible to revisit the unhurried, skin-to-skin experience as could have happened in those magical hours after birth, when a baby intuitively seeks and takes milk. The midwife who is confident in understanding a baby's approach to breast feeding will also be 'with woman' in that natural process.

DANGEROUS DRUGS?

ps [added 17 November 2012]
This US FDA website gives reliable guidance on codeine ultra-rapid metabolisers.



A baby's ability to breastfeed is one of the key 'performance indicators' that I observe after birth.

The majority of my work is with women and babies who are free of medication, giving birth to healthy babies at Term. Babies behave in the normal physiological fashion when the mother takes her child to her breast, and they remain together, skin to skin, for the next couple of hours. Babies seek the breast, making licking and rooting movements and moving in a distinctive way until they are in place and can take the breast and suckle effectively. This process is known as the breast crawl.

When a woman giving birth requires surgery she is given drugs. The anaesthetist and the obstetrician will prescribe whatever they consider to be necessary.

I am concerned about the current drug of choice for postnatal pain relief, Endone.

In the past year I have worked with three women who received Endone postnatally, and I believe I have observed a strong sedative effect of the drug on two of these babies. They became quite uninterested in the breast after the first breast feed, which had been unremarkable.

Recently another client of mine had a caesarean for obstructed labour, and I talked with her and the midwife in the postnatal ward 12 hours after the birth. The analgesia ordered was Endone (for 48 hours), Panadol and Voltarin. We agreed that if she was needing Endone she would breastfeed first, then take the drug. She has progressed very well with breastfeeding, went home on the third day - in fact this baby does a little breast crawl like a pro for every feed!

I am now checking for research literature specifically on Endone (oxycodone) and breastfeeding. Other midwives have said they share my concerns. A quick Google search came up with a very clear statement: "Do not take ENDONE during pregnancy or during breastfeeding as it may cause difficulty in breathing in an unborn or newborn child." [at http://www.mydr.com.au/medicines/cmis/endone-tablets]




A colleague who lives in regional Victoria told me that one of the local hospitals uses Endone less than the others, and that the local GPs, who provide anaesthetic services for the hospital, are still giving spinal morphine 1mg which works so well that very few women require more than Panadol and Voltaren.

I spoke to the pharmacist at a tertiary materntiy hospital in Melbourne, and he gave me some more information. He agreed that it's a very potent opioid that has a high transfer ratio into the milk, and variation from person to person as to how they metabolize Endone into morphine substances - hence variation in effect. He said the doses given appear to be pretty hefty.

The medical justification seems to be relatively short half life - 3-6 hours; that it's only used for 48 hours, claiming that the majority of babies are not sedated, and that the amount of colostrum the baby gets is pretty negligible anyway !!. Read here breastfeeding isn't something 'we' care much about!


The Lactmed site notes that "Newborn infants seem to be particularly sensitive to the effects of even small dosages of narcotic analgesics, particularly in the first week of life."

Dr Tom Hale, a world-respected expert and author on medications and mother's milk, has a forum

Hale states that "Oxycodone is a categoryL3... moderately safe, to be used only if the potential benefit to mother justifies potential risk to baby, and it has a half life of 3-6 hrs." Potential benefit to mother justifies potential risk to baby. I wonder how many mothers are given the opportunity to consider the risk/benefit before they swallow the tablet?



A newborn infant has important work to do, including learning how to breast feed. A newborn infant who is being systematically sedated through dangerous drugs that are passing from mother's blood to mother's milk, is being put at risk of breastfeeding delay leading to dehydration, jaundice, and a subsequent cascade of interventions, each with their own package of risks. The mother, receiving powerful sedation, is also likely to experience iatrogenic (physician-induced) difficulties with bonding and establishing breastfeeding.

I have often mused on the fact that "would you like something to help with the pain?" really means "would you like me to give you a dangerous drug?" I wish I knew a friendly cartoonist.

The anaesthetists and obstetricians really need to be questioned about this.
We live in a culture of acceptance of 'doctor knows best'. Women who undergo surgery for birth place an enormous trust in their surgeons and the other medical people - we need to act in their interests and on behalf of their babies.

I would like to ask that anyone reading this blog who works in the system, and who observes any cases where the baby of a mother receiving Endone in the early postnatal days appears sedated or performs poorly at breastfeeding, please draw attention to it. Speak to the obs and anaes departments, and point out what you observe. Ask them if they are aware of other such problems. Speak to the midwife manager of the unit, and ask her if she would support an internal audit of use of Endone. Find out what application is needed to get data from the general records. How often is it prescribed? What doses? (the pharmacy should be able to tell you this) Does the hospital have a protocol for the use of Endone? (you may find this on the hospital's intranet) What is the rate of supplementation of breastfeeding babies who were born by Caesarean (all the Baby Friendly hospitals should be able to give this data easily. Feeding on discharge is recorded on the Victorian perinatal statistics, so there could be some initial comparisons done.)

And while we're on the topic, I think some midwives are telling women in early labour to take some Panadeine and go to bed. Has anyone else heard this? In that case the codeine part of the drug will be added to the opioid soup in baby's system in the early days.


This is just not good enough!