Women's rights in childbearing

I took a consultation paper on birth registration, and the latest issue of MIDIRS with me in the plane yesterday.  The flight from Melbourne to Brisbane takes about two hours, which fits well with my capacity to stay focused on a topic. 

The issues around women's rights in childbearing have been promoted by many writers and film makers.  A multi-disciplinary international conference on human rights in childbirth was held in the Netherlands a few months ago, spurred on by outrage at developments in Hungary with relation to  criminal proceedings against doctor-midwife Agnes Gereb.

Australian birthing activists are planning to meet in Sydney next month for a special meeting on Childbirth and the Law.

Who decides how and where a baby is born? Who bears the risks of childbirth? What legal rights do women have to choose how they give birth? These are just a few of the issues that will be discussed at the upcoming Childbirth and Law Forum on Friday 12 October 2012 at Riverside Theatre, Parramatta.

The Childbirth and Law Forum will begin at 2pm with presentations from  two speakers who will discuss the legal issues facing childbirth today in Australia. (Homebirth Australia press release)

It seems that women and childbirth activists in the UK are learning how to demand homebirth services within their public maternity care system.  Barrister Elizabeth Prochaska wrote:

A recent case of mine shows that it is worth fighting decisions to refuse to provide a home birth (even at a late stage in pregnancy).  A large London hospital suspended its home birth service for a month due to staff shortages and informed women who had planned home births that they would be transferred to hospital by ambulance regardless of whether or not they consented to transfer.  AIMS put a coupe in contact with me who had been promised a home birth by the hospital.  With only a few weeks before their baby was due, they decided to threaten legal action, relying on a legitimate expectation and the Ternovsky case. The hospital rapidly backed down and agreed to provide independent midwives to attend all the affected women at home. (Prochaska E. AIMS Journal, vol 24, no2, 2012, pp6-7.)

The debate around women's rights in childbearing are confused and complicated by the whole spectrum of risk and professional duty of care.  Women in Australia who are within cooee [an Aussie slang word for reasonable distance] of a publicly funded homebirth service will often experience extremely narrow definitions of wellness, or exclusion criteria, which make many ineligible for homebirth.  For example, a woman who declines a test, such as ultrasound, or glucose, or group B Streptococcus, may be unacceptable for homebirth.  Similarly a woman who indicates that she plans to decline active management of the third stage, can be excluded.

In these cases it seems fanciful to argue women's rights, when the hospital simply uses narrow risk management protocols to exclude them.  They are no longer 'low risk'.

Similarly, the options for women who have had one or more previous caesarean births, are woefully inadequate.  A woman planning vbac is ideally cared for in her home as her labour establishes, with a known and experienced midwife in attendance.  The decisions about home or hospital birth can be made as labour progresses (or doesn't, as the case may be). 

Midwifery services today use the term 'evidence based' without challenge.  The exclusion of women from birth centres and homebirth programs is considered 'evidence based'.  Rarely does anyone ask, "what evidence is that?"

A recent update of the Cochrane review , the centre of excellence in medical evidence, states:

There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. ...

Benefits and harms of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women

Most pregnancies among healthy women are normal, and most births could take place without unnecessary medical intervention. However, it is not possible to predict with certainty that absolutely no complications will occur in the course of a birth. Thus, in many countries it is believed that the safest option for all women is to give birth at hospital. In a few countries it is believed that as long as the woman is followed during pregnancy and assisted by a midwife during birth, transfer between home and hospital, if needed, is uncomplicated. In these countries home birth is an integrated part of maternity care. It seems increasingly clear that impatience and easy access to many medical procedures at hospital may lead to increased levels of intervention which in turn may lead to new interventions and finally to unnecessary complications. [emphasis added] In a planned home birth assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary these drawbacks are avoided while the benefit of access to medical intervention when needed is maintained. Increasingly better observational studies suggest that planned hospital birth is not any safer than planned home birth assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up, but may lead to more interventions and more complications. 

An article in MIDIRS that prompted my thoughts today is titled Women's Rights in Childbearing, by Nadine Edwards.  Nadine is vice-chair of the UK maternity organisation AIMS, and a director of the Pregnancy and Parents Centre, Edinburgh.

In 'Women's rights in childbearing'  (Edwards, 2012), there is considerable focus on the rights of women to give birth at home unattended: free birth.  The article reports that  UK authorities support a woman's 'right' to give birth "without medical or professional help. ... it is legal as long as the birth is not attended or the responsibility for care is assumed or undertaken by an unqualified individual. ... the woman assumes responsibility for her birth."

Recently a young woman spoke to me about being asked by a woman to attend birth, as a doula, without a midwife being present.  The limits of responsibility in such a situation are in no way defined or clear.  It's clear to me that the Australian authorities will jump at the opportunity to close any opportunity for unregulated birth attendants, whatever they call themselves, to replace the highly regulated midwife.  Unfortunately it will take adverse outcomes to test the limits of women's rights.

Social Media and midwives

Two of my precious grand-daughters, Poppy and Amelie

I want to declare my interest in the use of social media by midwives.

This blog site provides ample evidence of my commitment to and fascination with openly available websites. This blog is a notice board; a library; a magazine; an ongoing journal of my opinions and comments about midwifery and about life.   It is also an ongoing record of special people in my life, such as the two precious little girls pictured today.

I began this blog in 2006, and it sat, unused and dormant, until mid-2007. At that time I felt a strong need to communicate with young women, particularly those who searched the internet for information in preparation for the births of their babies, and I realised I could do this as a blogger. From time to time over the years I had received emails, usually from women in other countries, thanking me for The Midwife's Journal, which they had found on my old website. A woman from Holland referred to The Midwife's Journal, which had been written at least 10 years prior (ie before the word blog existed in my vocabulary, at least), as a 'blog'.

It occurred to me then that I could continue The Midwife's Journal as villagemidwife, the blogger.

These are the headings from that new beginning [link]:

• Natural birthing in Australia today 
• The culture of birthing 
• Vaginal breech birth 
• Who let the dads in? 
• Nurture and nourishment of the newborn baby 
• Paternal behaviours 
• Mother-infant bonding, and maternal instincts 
• Giving birth 
• The life of the unborn child in the womb, and imprinting at birth 
• Commenting on some of life's big moments 
• Midwife for Christ’s birth 
• You are free, my dove 
• The homeborn newborn: how do mothers manage breastfeeding when there's noone to show them what to do? 
• Protecting normal birth 
• Why protect normal birth? 
• Birth Trauma 

The regulator for health professionals in this country has announced a review of its social media policy:

The National Boards will consult publicly on social media policy in coming months The National Boards in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (National Scheme) will release a consultation paper on a social media policy in October/November 2012.

A draft of the social media policy has been released as a preliminary consultation paper to targeted stakeholders for initial feedback, ahead of a wider public release. The preliminary consultation process aims to ‘road test’ the initial draft to weigh operational impact, issues or initial concerns. We are pleased that this early draft is generating a lot of interest, especially on social media. National Boards are monitoring feedback closely and will take the issues raised into account when refining the draft social media policy before it is released for public consultation on the National Boards’ websites.

If you would like to contribute feedback on the preliminary draft social media policy, please email your considerations to socialmediaconsult@ahpra.gov.au by close of business 14 September 2012. When the formal public consultation process opens, the National Boards encourage feedback from registered health practitioners and members of the community on the draft social media policy. The National Boards will publish the public consultation document on their websites, and will encourage wider distribution to seek extensive feedback.

Until then, visit the News section of the National Board websites (via www.ahpra.gov.au) for updates on past and current consultations, general communiqués from National Boards, media releases and more.

I have read the draft policy, which reminds health practitioners that in using social media, we must comply with the National Law, Advertising Guidelines and the code of conduct.


Midwives who in recent years had published testimonials at their websites have found themselves being directed to the law that prohibits the use of testimonials.  Birth Stories, on the other hand, seem to be permitted.

There will be times when I have used experience from real life in my writings, and it is possible that some of those who read my accounts may at times recognise the woman, even if I have been careful not to identify her. Whether this could, in a narrowly defined mindset, be seen as a breach of privacy, is yet to be seen.

There is nothing sinister about blogging, or any other aspect of social media, per se.  The medium is neither good nor bad: it's simply a medium.  The content is what can be anything from wholesome and useful, to trivial navel gazing self absorption, to defamatory and destructive.   The author has the ability to communicate in a way that is useful, or not.  I hope to continue writing in this medium, and I hope there are readers who value the material posted and thoughts expressed.


Your comments are, as always, 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.

Getting information

I have been pondering the question of how do women get the information they want in relation to their maternity decisions.

We have always talked, shared, and explored 'women's business' - in the past over the back fence, or over a cup of tea.  These days it's via social networking, via the iPhone or tablet.  The details of the horrible nausea, or the results of the most recent ultrasound scan, complete with picture, are updated for all one's 'friends' to see, and many check the 'like' button.  Questions are asked at internet forums, and there seems to be no shortage of guides who are willing to assist the inquirer with their tried and true remedies.  Women wanting to get pregnant can download their 'fertility tracker' free!  (How did we get pregnant before we had fertility trackers?)

Today I entered 'nausea and vomiting in pregnancy' in a search engine, and got more than 1.3 million hits.  Take your pick from ginger, vitamin B6, acupuncture, ...

The first site I went to told me that morning sickness is "generally considered to be the result of a combination of elevated oestrogen levels and low blood sugar" [that's news to me!]

So, how does someone get reliable information about a pregnancy issue?  How does one make informed choices?  How should a midwife advise a woman who is experiencing nausea, retching, and vomiting in early pregnancy?

Midwife academics Lisa McKenna and Meredith McIntyre published a literature review on the use of over-the-counter medicines by pregnant women.   The authors reported that ‘preparations used included cold cures, antihistamines, pain killers, herbal teas, antacids and laxatives – all of which are easy to obtain …  and are considered as low risk [of causing any harm to the developing fetus].’ (McKenna and McIntyre 2006, p637)  A Cochrane review by Matthews and colleagues (2010) reported a lack of high-quality evidence to support professional advice on complementary and alternative treatments for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.

I have found in practice that many women who seek primary care from a midwife, especially a midwife who attends homebirths, will have established patterns of alternative health care, including self-care, which the woman may not mention unless specific questions are asked.   The scientific paradigm that midwives and many other regulated health professionals follow in understanding evidence may not be accepted or understood by people who follow alternative health care systems.  To complicate matters even more, there are many midwives and doctors who have integrated alternative therapies into allopathic models of care.

In reviewing over the counter medicines for pregnant women, I came across the RANZCOG College Statement  (C-Obs25) on evidence supporting vitamin and mineral supplementation in pregnancy and lactation.  I recommend this statement for those who are seeking reliable information on folate, vitamin B12, B-group vitamins, vitamin D, vitamin K, and minerals such as Iron, Calcium, and Iodine.

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. 

More evidence ...

... demanding action.

For many years the buzz word in maternity care has been 'evidence'.  'Evidence-based' maternity care guidelines can be found everywhere. 

Application of the evidence into mainstream maternity care is quite another matter.

From my perspective, it's great to see another piece of reliable evidence supporting midwifery continuity of care /caseload midwifery/ one-to-one midwifery.  This evidence is published in a respected professional journal, BJOG, and International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, reporting on research carried out under the strict rules of randomised controlled trials, by the La Trobe University team of midwifery academics, led by Associate Professor Helen McLachlan.

The title of the paper is:
Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial.
Authors: McLachlan et al, BJOG (2012).


The team of authors of this paper includes midwife academics who were prominent in the 'Team Midwifery' research from LaTrobe Uni more than a decade ago.  'Team midwifery' was adopted into many mainstream maternity units, in an attempt to reduce the huge number of midwives who provided care for individual women during their prenatal, intranatal, and postnatal experience.  Women were allocated to the 'Green team' or the 'Pink team'.  Midwives work ordinary hospital nursing shifts.  Women under 'team midwifery' are usually attended in labour by midwives who are strangers. 

Two papers addressing Team Midwifery, authored by Professor Ulla Waldenstrom and others, and Mary-Anne Biro and others in 2000 in the journal BIRTH presented the research findings, and a commentary was written by Karyn Kaufman.  Kaufman, a midwife academic and a member of a community-based midwifery practice in Canada highlighted in her review the lack of difference between the control or ‘standard care’ and the intervention, team midwifery.  Kaufman commented that “midwifery care that follows strict medical protocols is not the same as midwifery care that is enacted from a philosophy of normal birth and is individually negotiated with labouring women.”  This statement sounds logical, yet many Australian midwives at the time may not have realised that midwifery care for well women can be enacted from a philosophy of normal birth.

The primary outcome of the continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) trial is that

"In settings with a relatively high baseline caesarean section rate, caseload midwifery for women at low obstetric risk shows promise for reducing caesarean births."  

Besides having fewer caesareans, women allocated to 'caseload' were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, less likely to have epidural or episiotomy, and their babies were less likely to be taken to the special care nursery than those who received standard care.  

Good for mother, good for baby.

Good for the midwife, too.

In the highly formal language of academia, the authors have boldly come to the conclusion that the midwives with caseloads "can make a difference by reducing the caesarean section rate."

When a reduced likelihood of caesarean can be demonstrated for women at low risk of complications, it's time for the midwifery profession to celebrate.  

Evidence demands action.

This is reliable evidence.

This research was carried out under strict controls.

Midwives and maternity services must be challenged to apply the evidence to practice.  The usual practise of midwifery should be in a caseload model, working autonomously in their scope of practice to promote, protect and support physiological processes in birth whenever possible ('Plan A').  Not as shiftworker nurses in hospitals who work as assistants to obstetricians.  

Only when midwives are willing to take action on evidence will we see improvements in birth outcomes: healthier mothers and babies.

The Midwives Work DVD

Uploaded to YouTube by Midwives magazine on Jul 25, 2011

The Midwives Work DVD premiered at the International Confederation of Midwives Congress in Durban South Africa in June 2011, in front of 3000 midwives and others interested in maternity care from over 100 countries, has attracted huge interest. It highlights the importance of the role of the midwife in reducing maternal and infant mortality as well as the issues and challenges they face.

Category: Nonprofits & Activism
Tags: midwives midwifery
 RCM License: Standard YouTube License

(Thanks to Julie Garrett for the link to this film.)

Back to study

It starts on Monday.
I am planning to keep a record at my other midwifery blog Click here.

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.

24/7

"Within the [ ] health services financing structure, there is no room for financing the disutility of 24/7 availablity." [Mariel Croon, Human Rights in Childbirth conference, 2012]

One unavoidable feature of midwifery practice in primary maternity care is that a midwife needs to be accessible to a woman 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week, except, of course, if the birth is a medically scheduled and managed event.  If the midwife and the woman have agreed prior to the birth that they will work together when that time comes, that means the midwife is under a considerable degree of commitment.

I have often pondered the wastefulness, from an economic/time management point of view, of caseload midwifery. Of course I can understand the bean counters, who want midwives to be rostered to hospital wards, for shifts that can be predicted. Of course I understand why inductions of labour happen in hospital maternity systems, as managers attempt to match peak activity periods in the hospital with the times when adequate staff have been booked.  Of course I understand why midwives choose to work shifts in hospitals.

At present I am waiting for three babies: one 'due' last week, one this week, and the third in a week or so. Babies in my practice often cluster, and I can't worry about it because it is outside my control.  I must see each woman as an individual, and not allow stress about the time of onset of spontaneous labour to complicate our relationship.

The quote above, and particularly the phrase  "disutility of 24/7 availablity" caught my attention when I read it. 
The dictionary meaning is:

'disutility'
a. the shortcomings of a commodity or activity in satisfying human wants
b. the degree to which a commodity or activity fails to satisfy human wants
[Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003]

mmm!

My decision to work as a midwife, placing the 'activity' - the needs and wishes of a birthing woman above my need to 'satisfy human wants' - be able to plan my time for work and play and sleep and whatever else - is a decision on principle, not on economics.  The principle relates to my understanding of the unique trust relationship that can be established between a midwife and a woman, enabling the woman to proceed down the often unpredictable and challenging path that leads to the unassisted, unmedicated birth of her child. 

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.