a pot of tea

my new enamel teapot

I am delighted with my new enamel teapot which my daughter found for me.

Today I would like to make a pot of tea, and talk with you about one of the challenging topics in maternity care: decision-making.

here are some of my questions:

• Who is the decider?
• What choices does a woman have?
• Are there limits to personal autonomy?
• How much information does a midwife (or obstetrician) need to give a woman when a decision needs to be made? 

You:  That's easy, it's my body, my baby, my birth.  I'm the decider.

Me:  Yes, but your decision can only be made from what is on offer at the time, can't it?

You:  What do you mean?

Me:  Let's take a very common decision that has big implications for subsequent events in birth, induction of labour.  Let's assume that you and your baby are well, that your pregnancy has continued a few days past the due date, and you are getting tired of being pregnant, of all the phone calls: "Are you still in one piece?" and waking up in the night with a half-full bladder, and half strength contractions that don't go anywhere.  Someone suggests that you ought to have induction of labour.  How would you decide?

You:  I would ask you as my midwife to tell me the pros and the cons, and I would make my mind up.

Me:  I need to declare a certain bias here.  As a midwife, by definition, I am committed to protecting and promoting the natural process unless there is a valid reason for interruption.  It sounds to me as though you are likely to come into spontaneous labour very soon, with all those runs of pre-labour contractions, and I see no clinical reason to induce labour at present, so I cannot encourage you to consider induction of labour.  I will list off some of the risks that are inherent in this procedure: a cascade of interventions, use of artificial stimulants that can lead to hyperstimulation of your uterus, and reduced blood flow to your baby; to increased perception of pain, and need for medical forms of pain management, possibly increasing the likelihood of assisted vaginal birth or even caesarean; separation of mother and baby at birth; difficulties with bonding and breastfeeding ... do you want more? 

You:  So, my decision is no.  I don't want induction of labour.

Me:  When I check you again in a week's time and you still haven't had your baby, I may want to encourage you to re-consider induction of labour.

You:  But you have convinced me that it's not a good idea.

Me:  That was last week.  We are now 10 days past your due date, and the guideline I am required to follow leads me to advise you to carefully consider induction of labour if you are past 40 weeks + 10 days.  There are pros and cons which you need to consider - some the same and some different from what we discussed last week -  as you make your decision. 

You:  I do want to have my baby, but I don't want to do anything that would hurt my baby.  How can I be sure?

Me:  There are no guarantees.  Each decision point is like a fork in the road: you must take one or the other, and there is no turning back.  I would encourage you to be reviewed at the hospital, where they can use ultrasound to check fluid levels around the baby, and the function of your baby's placenta, and do some monitoring.   If any of these tests result in non-reassuring features, there will be more 'encouragement' to proceed to the birth without delay, which could include surgical induction (breaking the waters - the membrane holding amniotic fluid around the baby), and possibly medical induction (IV syntocinon).  If all the tests are reassuring, I will encourage you to consider waiting for spontaneous onset of labour.

You:  So, although I get to make the decision, I need to trust the information and trust the person who is giving it to me.

Me:  That's right.


Another possible pathway in this scenario is that you, the woman, have made an effort to inform yourself, and decided that under no circumstances will you accept induction of labour.  You want to have your baby naturally, in your home.  You know your rights, and you decline any offer of investigations because you have no intention of being spooked by the medical system.  How much information am I required to give you?  Should I discuss all the possibilities, or should I give you my professional assessment based on my palpation of your abdomen, and my (limited) ability to auscultate and assess?

If there is an adverse outcome, am I culpable because I did not give you enough information?

Decision making is not a one-off choice; it constantly evolves as we move through a childbearing episode. The trump card that a woman has is 'Plan A' - her capacity to do it without assistance or education or coaching or therapies or any outside help. But it's the fine line between Plan A and Plan B, when intervention is likely to lead to better outcomes - that may call for expert and timely professional action.

My concern about naming a 'decider' relates to situations in which I have seen the professional treat decision making as a sort of lottery - "I can do this or I can do that - your choice" without giving sufficient information to help the person understand the choice they are making. It's an ongoing process that demands trust and reciprocity between the woman and the midwife.

Even if 95% of women who come into spontaneous labour could stay in 'Plan A', and go on to an unassisted birth, what happens to the 5%? How does a woman know? 

I hope you have enjoyed your cup of tea.
Your comments and further discussion are welcome.

availability of midwives for homebirths

Today I would like to explore a few issues around the availability of midwives to provide professional services for homebirth, and suggest what I see as a way forward.

These issues come under different headings, such as risk, cost, and practical matters such as distance the midwife needs to travel.

'Risk' - however defined - is a major obstacle.  The narrow definition of risk declares that every birth carries substantial risk, and that the only responsible place for birth to take place is in hospital.  This narrow mindedness is not informed by evidence or by logic.

The next level of risk puts it this way: It's OK to plan homebirth if everything is normal, and excludes significant numbers of women in the birthing population, such as those who have had a previous caesarean birth.

With the increased availability of publicly funded, hospital based homebirth programs, women who decline some 'standard' test or investigation are excluded.  A woman who makes what she considers to be an informed decision to avoid exposing her unborn child to routine ultrasound is told she is not permitted to continue in the homebirth program.  Similarly, a woman who indicates her desire to have an unmedicated/unmanaged third stage is told she can do that in hospital, but not at home.

Most readers of this blog probably realise that these restrictions that exist in our world today are based more on fear of birth than potential risk to the woman or her baby.

These distorted and uninformed responses to perceived risk should be discussed critically by midwives who understand the protective effect that is achieved when a well woman works in harmony with natural physiological processes.  Yet midwives say very little. 

These distorted and uninformed responses to perceived risk should be addressed logically and carefully by the maternity decision-makers in mainstream hospitals, providing suitable pathways for women whose risk status is not at the bottom of the ladder.  An obvious pathway is that a midwife who the woman trusts is available to attend as primary carer throughout the episode of care.  Yet the only place a woman can have her own midwife as her primary carer is in privately attended homebirth.  Public hospitals in Melbourne seem to be more committed than ever to preventing midwives from having clinical privileges/visiting access.  When midwives do attend a woman in a public hospital they often experience rudeness and disrespect towards the woman and themselves.

$$ Cost is significant in private homebirth.  While the midwives need to make enough money to sustain their practices, the cost of the service needs to be acceptable to the women who employ midwives.  Medicare rebates for antenatal and postnatal services are small by comparison with the fees that midwives are charging.  For example, a woman in my care will pay me approximately $2,500 for the episode of care, and may receive $500-$700 in Medicare rebate.  The Medicare rebate for intrapartum midwifery services is limited to hospital births with a Medicare-eligible midwife, and as mentioned, that is not an option.

The other factor in cost of private homebirth is the number of midwives.  Traditionally midwives have often worked in pairs, and many of my colleagues, particularly around Melbourne, require two midwives to be booked for homebirth, bringing the expected cost of the booking to $5000 or more.  A recent statement by a Sydney midwife-academic to a coroner's inquest indicated her belief that two midwives are an essential part of planned homebirth.  I disagree.  Strongly!

I have been told that some women who want to plan homebirth have chosen an unregulated woman (doula) as a cheaper alternative to two midwives.  I cannot support this option - it scares me.  I wonder if midwives who demand the 'two midwives' rule feel any responsibility for the apparently increasing rates of planned 'freebirth', either with or without a doula?  A doula speaking to me recently indicated that a woman she has met is considering freebirth, "with me there just to support her".

Practical matters: the main one that comes to mind is the distance across this wide brown land.  Gone are the days of the village midwife on her bike.  Each time I visit a client, I am using precious fuel.  Likewise, each time a woman comes to me.  If a woman lives closer to another private midwife, I will always ask her to consider employing that midwife.  (An exception is a few special women who I have attended on several occasions over the years.  I have become a part of those families, and it's lovely to return for the birth of the next baby.)

Speaking practically, there's no reason why midwives in every town and city across this country should not be able and willing to attend women locally for birth, guiding the women as to their need to be attended in hospital, or at home.  Ageing midwives like me should not be needing to drive an hour or two in our cars to get to the women.

Yet the culture of fear and distrust of birth has destroyed midwives' confidence in their own ability to be 'with woman'.   

What am I saying?

I believe midwives need to take more assertive action to promote and protect normal birth, including homebirth. 

• midwives need to think critically about risk
• midwives need to work to make primary maternity care by a known midwife affordable
• midwives need to wake up to their capacity to provide midwifery services in homes and hospitals, for all women.

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.

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.

old-style midwifery

I have tried to capture the essence of the 'extraordinary'

The old-style ‘independent’ midwife, who has learnt autonomy and independence in practice and in decision-making from experience as the responsible primary maternity care provider for an individual woman, knows the value of working quietly and without fuss, in harmony with natural physiological processes, and enabling ordinary women to access their extraordinary strength and health in giving birth and caring for their babies.

[From APMA Blog]



Last week I was writing about the changes that I see taking place around me in Australian midwifery, as government and professional regulators make their efforts to improve the status quo - a task that all modern societies entrust to expert decision-making processes.

Other midwifery matters on my mind at present are the review of a university study module on postnatal midwifery care, for which I am tutor and marker, and a liability report I was asked to write in relation to a case in which a baby has cerebral palsy. These themes have influenced my thinking, as I engage with women in my care, at many points on the pregnancy-childbirth continuum.

Younger midwives may object to my comparing of 'old-style' midwifery with 'new'.  But the truth as I understand it is that midwifery today should be essentially the same at the primary care level as midwifery (by whatever name) in all societies and all times.  The new midwife who understands and is committed to 'old-style' midwifery, with linkages to the best and most effective medical services when needed, is practising midwifery well.

Since 'being' a pregnant-childbearing woman is not an illness, and never has been, the midwife with woman in the childbearing-nurturing time of that woman's life sees beyond the current fashions and time-related activities of a society.  That's what I mean by the 'old-style' midwife.

The debate around social and primary healthcare models, which aim to base all health care on the individual recipient of the care (in maternity care, the woman), compared with medical models of care that focus on illnesses or conditions, and the right treatment is readily applied to primary maternity care.  Sociologist Kerreen Reiger has contributed to this debate in The Conversation , in a commentary on 'Evidence-based medicine v alternative therapies: moving beyond virulence'. I am aware that some of my colleagues in midwifery look to alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine in an attempt to provide a more holistic and woman-focused treatment option. This, in my mind, is not 'old-style' midwifery.

It might be 'old-style' treatment of illness, in the same way that people of previous generations concocted medicines out of plants that had medicinal properties. That 'old-style' treatment of illness has developed into the world of pharmaceuticals - a whole new terrain for discussion of ethics and power relationships in healthcare.

The basis I have for trusting 'old-style' midwifery is that the physiological and physical and psychological norms of health in the childbearing woman are consistent across time and culture. As long as it is reasonable to continue without interruption in that finely-tuned natural state, there is no better or safer way. The decisions around what is reasonable and what is unreasonable are quite different in a modern society from what our grandmothers experienced. Similarly women in Melbourne today are able to access a very different level of medical management for illness or complications than are women in tribal societies in developing parts of the world today.

'Old-style' midwifery, focused firmly on the woman in the midwife's care, together with the best available scientific, evidence based interventions when illness or complication are detected, is the recipe for best practice in primary maternity care. 

more thoughts on the birthing space

I have appreciated the recent thought-provoking discussion in connection with the previous post in this blog, which is also linked to Carolyn Hastie's thinkbirth blog.

In the past couple of weeks I have attended three births; two at home and one in hospital. These three mothers were 'first timers'; primipara; a special category worthy of consideration in any maternity setting.

Picture this scene:

A woman is labouring strongly and consistently in an inflated birthing pool, set up in her home.  It's 2 or 3 in the morning, the 'wee hours', when everyone is overcome by weariness.  Her man, whose sleep was interrupted by early labour the previous night, is asleep on a couch.  The midwife is nearby - within reach but dropping off to sleep between contractions, occasionally mumbling words of encouragement.  The student midwife is stretched out on another couch. There is a little light from a lamp or candle; the birthing space is quiet except for the sounds of the labour.  

After some time, the woman's sounds become deeper.  Her midwife encourages her "let your baby come down deep in your body; feel the fullness; you're doing well", and listens to the fetal heart after a contraction.  The woman does not notice that the 'period pain' she had been experiencing has gone.  In fact she has stopped thinking about her labour and has surrendered to the work that her body is doing.

By the time the early signs of daylight are peeping through the cracks in the blinds, the urge to push has become strong.  Daddy-to-be and student midwife are awake; midwife is awake and ready; and mother gives birth, through the water, to her first child.  Mother and child complete the mysterious dance of birth, as baby searches for the breast, and the placenta is expelled.

Today I would like to reflect on recent primipara births, and (without identifying individual women) discuss how the birthing space has supported these births. In the past 18 months, approximately, I have attended 10 women giving birth for the first time. 

Before looking at the birthing spaces, here is an overview of these births.  Of the 10 women:

• 10 came into spontaneous labour; which became strong as the night progressed (there's something special about night and birth!)
• 5 gave birth in water: 4 at home; 1 at hospital
• 2 planned hospital birth; both gave birth spontaneously to healthy babies
• 8 planned home birth
• 5 gave birth at home to healthy babies, without complication
• 3 who planned home birth transferred from home to hospital in labour
• 2 proceeded to spontaneous unmedicated births of healthy babies
• 1 was delivered of a healthy baby by emergency Caesarean surgery

The ages of these women ranged from 24 to 37.
The length of gestation ranged from 36 to less than 42 weeks.
The weights of these babies ranged from 2670g to 4250g.
All babies breastfed from birth.
The estimated blood loss for the 9 women who gave birth spontaneously ranged from 100 to 600ml.


I want to make a point here, which may be obvious to some, yet others may find it a challenging statement in the maternity environment in Australia.
Place of birth - home or hospital - is not a measure of good midwifery care.
Yet the decision to plan homebirth is a huge statement of intent, by the woman, that her plan is for spontaneous, unassisted, unmedicated birth.  Those who plan homebirth with an experienced midwife are able, I believe, to proceed down the path of physiological birth if that is feasible, with a high degree of safety.  Those who plan homebirth, then make an informed decision to transfer their care to hospital because there is an indication - a valid reason - are also able to protect their ability to give birth in harmony with the natural, hormonal, physiological processes that direct labour, birth, and the baby's transition from the womb to the outside world. 

In my previous discussion on birthing spaces I wrote about the physiological phenomenon of *Nesting*.  Understanding normal birth in terms of nesting, as the woman progresses under the influence of an amazing cocktail of hormones, provides a key to the mysteries of birthing.  Nesting supported each of these 10 women, as they came into spontaneous labour.  Nesting supported the three who made a decision in labour to move from home to hospital, and obtain special medical intervention that had become necessary for them.  Nesting supported the choice of position for birth, whether kneeling beside the bed, or squatting in the birth pool, or lying on the bed.

Cessation of nesting happens, I think, when the woman is able to surrender to the huge expulsive urges within her body.  Baby is "coming, ready or not".  Night time and weariness enables this transition to occur without question.  The woman, and her personal support team, have given up trying to understand what's going on; to do it the way they were taught in class.  The midwife is skilled at keeping watch, guiding when needed, without taking control from the woman.

The essential elements of the space for optimal birthing are few.  As long as the woman is able to proceed without interruption; as long as the woman is able to trust her midwife; as long as the woman and her support team are able to hold confidence in the process of birthing ...

... a baby is born.

It just happens.



Your comments are, of course, welcome.

midwives in the making

(c) Picture used with permission

Yesterday I had the privilege of presenting a 1.5 hour talk on private midwifery practice to the midwifery students at Deakin University in Burwood. I love having the opportunity to inspire the next generation of midwives.

I know some visitors to this blog are studying midwifery, in many countries. In today's post I want to give you an outline of my presentation, and links to some of the key documents.

The parts of the presentation were:

• Overview and introduction: developing a strong 'midwife identity'
• Private midwifery practice, changes in legislation with Medicare rebates and other changes for eligible midwives. Go to Midwives Australia for more information and links
• Planning for birth: philosophy of birth based on the statement that "In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process" (WHO 1996); decision-making concepts of 'Plan A' and 'Plan B', birth preparation meeting handout
• DVD of a beautiful home/water birth [One picture used here with permission - the visual image is sooo powerful!]
• Highlighting aspects of midwifery practice that can apply only when the whole labour progresses under natural hormonal, unmedicated processes: physiological third stage, and baby's transition from the womb
• Questions

Please follow these links if you are interested in the topics mentioned. I intend to prepare a post on 'Planning for birth' at my private midwifery blog - will do that as soon as I can.

For the record, my relationship with the Deakin University School of Nursing and Midwifery is that I am employed as a casual lecturer, and as a tutor and marker for some of the midwifery Professional Development Unit Learning Packages. Several years ago I prepared one of the Learning Packages on the midwife in the community (PDU 323) and more recently I have written a Learning Package on Caseload and Homebirth midwifery, which is being processed in preparation for release.