Yeah I would!
And I'd love to know where he got his stats from.
Study after study shows that women have very high levels of satisfaction with midwifery care.
Printable View
Yeah I would!
And I'd love to know where he got his stats from.
Study after study shows that women have very high levels of satisfaction with midwifery care.
I birthed with midwife only care throughout both my pg's. With DS2 I birthed in the birth centre at Monash, was home within 24 hrs and loved it. I recovered very well both emotionally and physically...no stitches no drugs.
I have had the best OB in the world for both my sons and can't imagine going through pregnancy without him.
The first time round I would have decked the midwife if I had have had the energy.
The second time round I had the most wonderful midwife, who delivered DS2 on her own (the OB hadn't been able to get there in time - Sydney traffic:rolleyes:)
However, both times I had complications with the placenta, so needed a doctor on hand - it was so important to me to have someone that I could trust. (Also, with the speed of my labours I need to go to the nearest hospital, so I don't have a choice!)
I'll check it out, but not changing horses at this point. Actually, I'm really happy with my Ob. He teams with a great midwife who I meet with when he's on school hols with his kids. This time round I am only paying for hospital cover, because I am always healthy and I don't need extras, so I found the fund that was most cost effective for obstetrics hospital services alone.:
Kurazia, NSW Teachers and I think Unity Health both cover part of (about half with Teachers, which is what I'm with) homebirth. I don't know if it would be too late for you to change funds?
However, I would consider a homebirth or something similar next time, now that I have experienced an uncomplicated pregnancy and I feel more confident. I'll see how the hospital and birth experience goes. I've never been to hospital for anything in my life.
I thought the Birth Centre did support VBAC. How do you go about organising a private midwife for a homebirth? I thought this was almost impossible in Australia.:
I am choosing to see a private midwife and am planning a homebirth partly because the Gold Coast Birth Centre doesn't support VBAC.
I am very surprised to hear that only 10% of women would chose midwifery led care. i would have thought a woman would only chose an obstetrician if they wanted intervention. i think perhaps the midwife option is not as well known as it should be. with my first pregnancy i went ot a doctor to have her confirm that i was in fact pregnant and she straight away tried to find me an obstetrician. luckily i went to another doctor who told me of midwife led birth units. i never saw another doctor for that pregnancy. this time once again i am going with midwives (i have two independant midwives.).
i have been asked several times "who is your obstetrician?" by other women. it just seems to be a part of our culture to go straight to an ob. i do hope that this will change.
Kurazia,
I thought the Birth Centre did support VBAC. How do you go about organising a private midwife for a homebirth? I thought this was almost impossible in Australia.[/QUOTE]
Sadly no, GC Birth Centre are not presently able to support VBACs. As far as I know (current about 3 months ago when I spoke with the head midwife at GC Birth Centre) there is a proposal being put together to be presented to Qld Health(?) to enable the midwifes of the birth centre to assist with VBACs.
There is a list of private midwives who will assist homebirths. This information is available through the HMA (Homemidwife Association). I'm not sure I can post the address (?) so PM me if you (or anyone) is interested.
I felt unsupported by my GP when I went to her for a referral for 12 weeks ultrasound for my current preg. She too asked me who my ob is and when I told her I'm having an independant midwife she told me, "You're very brave." while shaking her head in (I assume) astonishment or wonder.:
Needless to say I won't be returning to that GP! :rolleyes:
In Melbourne, VBAC's are classed as 'high risk' by the forces above and not allowed in birth centres, even though the main ward is usually just a very short stroll through double doors. Know women who have had great HBACs though ;)
i think you'd be more brave to have an obstetrician in control of your pregnancy!
I wonder where they got their data from?
Personally, I would prefer a birth centre over an Ob. I wouldnt ever have an ob for my pregnancy. Midwife care all the way for me. I wouldnt consider a hospital labour ward. I would like to have the continuity of care a midwife led centre can offer.
I was talking to the Family Day Carer today who has an almost 2 year olf son. She came over here from America and told me that her friends back home were amazed that she gave birth with midwives in a birth centre and not an ob. Apparently over there no one has a midwife for their first birth - they pretty much all go to a hospital and have an ob.
If only I had you in the GP consult with me! That's exactly how I feel. :hug::
i have done and doing again, midwife led care, i saw the same midwife for all but one appointment, when in labour over the two days i had the same midwife i had seem just once, but was awesome to see a familiar face, she delvered bubs, doing the same this time, again saw the same midwife just a few weeks ago, i love knowing that i'll have someone i have met before there to care for me deliver bubs, not just have an ob blow in to deliver bubs, or completly miss it! as least the people i want there and trust WILL be there!!
i am also having a doula this time, the closest i can get to an independat midwife, someone else i have complete faith in to be there for me and hubby!! cant wait!!
I voted undecided. I had an ob and I was happy with the result. I will probably do the same again, but I'm also quite relaxed about it and a midwifery led unit might also suit me.
Re: the number, I'm not really that surprised. BellyBelly women tend to do a lot of research on their options, but not all women have the time, knowledge or inclination to go searching for these things.
Huh?, Our culture of birth has it backwards , healthy women with low risk pregnancies don't need an OB, except to be on hand in case of an emergency. Midwifes are trained to attend to healthy women giving birth normally, and trained to know when to call in the Specialists in special circumstances.. If anything needs justifying it's why so many healthy women hire surgical specialists when they are not unwell or unhealthy, just having a baby. I think we are so so lucky to have all the amazing obstetric care available to us when it's needed and sad that so many of us submit ourselves to it, I guess out of fear, when it is not needed. I had midwifes care for me throughout my pregnancy and labour, they were wonderful, and gave me every chance to have the natural birth I wanted, they also recognised when my body and my baby wasn't going to co-operate and called in the hospital OB to perform a vacum extraction. Really this is the best of both worlds.:
only 10 per cent of women preferred the midwife-led option. This does not justify the use of taxpayers' money
This is probably quite close to the mark. Unfortunately, women seem to spend more time researching OB's, private health cover and private hospitals, as well as preparing to separate themselves from their babies upon birth (I'm talking about setting up the 'quintessential' nursery here!), setting themselves up for 'failing' at breastfeeding (buying sterilisers, bottles, teats, tins of formula before baby is even born) and upgrading their cars to carry all their paraphanalia than they do for getting their babies into this world as safely and peacefully as possible :( Somewhere along the line, the priorities got really screwed up! We research our ISP's better than we think we're allowed to research our birth options!!:
Re: the number, I'm not really that surprised. BellyBelly women tend to do a lot of research on their options, but not all women have the time, knowledge or inclination to go searching for these things.
i voted yes. i birthed my baby in a midwife-led maternity hospital. but i also had a private OB. i went with him cause i knew that he worked in close contact with the 2 midwives that would provide my care. it was a really happy balance for all of us. i just wish that this was a system available publicly.
That seems way to low! I had my first baby in hospital but with 1 midwife and 1 trainee, the midwife I had to share with 2 other ladies that day, but everything was fine. Baby 2 I retained my placenta and we have been told should we have any more children that we will have to go with an Ob. given a choice, I would go midwife again though
With the wisdom of hindsight and the knowledge I have about 'my choice' in regards to birthing my babie, the answer is a resounding...ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
As someone who has been about and seen the focus groups and the surveys I really must say I am not surprised with this result. The vast majority of Australian women have no concept of midwifery care, nor the amazing benefits of 1-2-1 care. How could they? It's virtually non existent.
When I explain what my antenatal consults were like ( appointment of an hour plus, cuppa at home with MW travelling to me etc) they are flawed, esp those who have paid huge $$$ for a private Ob and waited for an hour for 5-10 mins.
Peiter Mourik is a direct recipient of the current system that is stacked heavily against women and choice and much more towards entrenched power within the medical profession.
I ave birth to our 7th child 2 days ago. I have birthed all children at home. The amazing care (and I mean competence and considerable clinical skill, esp to deal with an emergency) I have received has sadly outstripped that of many friends and colleagues using both the mainstream public and private systems.
How can you get any better than 1 care provider knowing you and your family for the entire pregnancy then only caring for You?? This level of luxury happens nowhere else.
A yes with bells on for me!!!!:D Justine Caines
Hey Justine, shall I make you mum2seven? ;) Congrats - beautiful photos xx
huge congratulations justine!!!
im not spending enough time with my fellow homebirthers to have known this yet!!( i met you at the sydney homebirth conf last yr not that i would expect you to remember)
I worked in a level three NICU for several years. I would never have my baby at home with a mid-wife. A very skilled mid-wife that is able to pick up on fetal distress that requires hospitalization may still run the risk of long term or permanent damage to the baby. In a emergency situation there needs to be interventions taken with-in seconds to minutes to guarantee the most optimal outcome for the baby. We are talking all it takes is a few minutes of decreased oxygen supply to the baby to cause permanent brain damage. People who delivery their babies at home may have no ideal that there was fetal compromise during delivery, if they were not hooked up to a fetal monitor during the delivery. At the hospital oxygen will be applied if need to increase oxygen supply to the baby. I know some mid-wives do this at home or in birthing centers. As for me, I would not take the risk of compromising my baby delivering at home. Not to say bad things don't ever happen in the hospital, and a lot people have wonderful deliveries at home. You don't know if you are going to have a smooth delivery until it's over. I think you have much better outcome for you and the baby at a hospital with a highly skilled doctors and staff.
I have looked into a homebirth myself.. Apperently Privet Midwives are about $4000 and since we are a low income family with no health cover. We can not afford this even if they were willing to take it from the Baby Bonus.. We can't afford to give that much.. So I am crossing my fingers for the Birth center At Royal Brisbane otherwise my only option for a water birth as this is what I want is to do it with some good old fationed womenly support at home..
Oh JuJu, 'highly skilled doctors'..what, do you mean the ones that wave their forceps or scalpel the second a CTG shows even the slightest deceleration? The ones that don't know when to back off and allow a woman to birth without them shoving their fingers into the woman's vagina every hour to make sure she is 'progressing as she should'? Sure, the 'specialists' have their place...but you are painting normal, natural birth as some bleak, life threatening procedure that only a dr can handle. I know you dealt with 'sick' babies in NICU, pregnancy and birth isn't a sickness or a dangerous situation ( the majority of the time) that needs to be 'fixed' by medical professionals. Your post is scary!:( Midwives who choose to help women birth their babies at home must have top rate skills in assessing for compromise during labour and birth, neo natal resus as well as maternal resus skills and knowing when to transfer. I would hate to think what you thought on 'free birthing' is!:
Why don't we start a campaign to write to the Doctor quoted in the article at Wodonga Hospital to make him understand how many women feel unhappy with OB care and would prefer a choice for midwife led care in the birth of their child not limited by their funds or hospital funding. I was lucky enough to get into the KYM program with both my babies and even though I had complications I felt so relieved I had someone who knew what my wishes were in any scenario whereas the Drs in that environment didn't even know what my name was.
It's hard for people to understand the magnitude of critical thinking skills that are involved in taking care of a baby in the Nicu. I have seen babies delivery at home come in with permanent damage done with mental retardation etc... If you think that you can get yourself to the hospital to do a emergency c-section if something goes wrong with delivery in time, then take that chance. I would not ever take that chance. There a lot of wonderful doctors out there that delivery babies that aren't wanting to take a blade to you. A lot these doctors have spent 16 years in school and been practicing for decades. There isn't any perfect system. Until medical intervention was available a lot of woman and babies died during child birth. Yes, it's something that is natural your body does, however, it isn't without very high risks involved that need medical interventions in some cases.
Given that I saw an obstetrician once through my entire pregnancy, what need do I have for them?
I saw the same midwife every appointment, there was not an obstetrician in site during my labour or birth and thanks to me being informed and having brilliantly supportive midwives and birth support, i had an amazing eighteen hour birth with nno drugs, no tears and no complications.
Not many people will say their eighteen hour birth was amazing.. its a long freaking time.
The reason that the United States has one of the highest rates for neo-natal death is that the standards are set so high compared to other countries. Any baby born after 23 weeks or taking spontaneous respirations is consider a live birth in the United States. In places like Austria a live birth is after 28 weeks of gestation. We are very advance in fertility treatment that leads to a lot of multiple births. Mid-wives do not take on these high risk cases. The doctors in the hospital end up having to delivery babies with no prenatal care, high risk, multiple births, premature 23-24 weeks, and mother's on drugs during their pregnancies. Of course, there is going to be a higher rate of death and complications. I'm sure doctors would love the break of getting delivery all full term healthy babies. If you have a baby at home full term with no complications during your pregnancy you probably will be fine, but you can't guarantee that. So, when you ask who needs doctors you can't be serious. Do you have any family members that have given birth prematurely or with complications at home? You can go to Wikipedia on line and research all of this. All the statics and facts are right there. I suppose people don't understand this until they see a 24 week old baby on high frequency oscillator fighting for their life in the NICU.
I had planned on having my daughter in a midwife led unit however I was only 36 weeks when I went into labour however the birth was managed by my midwife with a neonatologist there to review my daughter after the birt.
For low risk pregnancys I beleive midwife led care during pregnncy, birth and postnatally should be an available option. I am going through the birth centre again this time. I want as minimal intervention as possible.
I feel that obstertricians have an important role in pregnancies with medical complications.
juju300 - if you are discussing statistics/studies many studies have been done that show low risk pregnancies and home birth is equally as safe if not safer than hospital birth for low risk pregnacies. Maternal and neonatal death rates are the same or higher for low risk pregancies in hospital compared to homebirths attended by qualafied midwives. I beleive that there is a place for obstertricians and that is in the hospital attending women who have medical complications of pregnancy.
I hope kelly doesn't mind but here is a link of one such article
Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America -- Johnson and Daviss 330 (7505): 1416 -- BMJ
there are many more if you choose to google the topic.
I think women should have the right to choose where they birth by being given accurate information.
I am a nurse and I think there are times when I see the worst outcomes of an illness and it skews my preception as I don't see the x number of people with really good outcomes as they don't need my assistance.
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[2]
Historically, until the 1990s Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least 7 days.[3] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[4] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[5]
Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[6]
Another seemingly paradoxical finding is that when countries with poor medical services introduce new medical centers and services, instead of declining the reported IMRs often increase for a time. The main cause of this is that improvement in access to medical care is often accompanied by improvement in the registration of births and deaths. Deaths that might have occurred in a remote or rural area and not been reported to the government might now be reported by the new medical personnel or facilities. Thus, even if the new health services reduce the actual IMR, the reported IMR may increase.
[edit] Global infant mortality trends
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[2]
Historically, until the 1990s Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least 7 days.[3] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[4] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[5]
Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[6]
Another seemingly paradoxical finding is that when countries with poor medical services introduce new medical centers and services, instead of declining the reported IMRs often increase for a time. The main cause of this is that improvement in access to medical care is often accompanied by improvement in the registration of births and deaths. Deaths that might have occurred in a remote or rural area and not been reported to the government might now be reported by the new medical personnel or facilities. Thus, even if the new health services reduce the actual IMR, the reported IMR may increase.
:cryinglaugh: kuraiza, you sound just like my DH - true libertarian. Me on the other hand, I figure that if we have to pay tax and have public health care (because that seems to be the way the majority want to go) why not give people options when it comes to birthing? After all, it is our tax money. ;):
Um - why isn't there an option to have both an OB and midwives working together for patient care? Why does it need to be a turf war?
Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom
That is pretty funny that you gather me for a libertarian from my postings. I'm not sure if you know what a Libertarian is then. I'm assuming when you said we pay tax that you meant taxes. I think it would be great for everyone to be able to seek medical care where ever they like. Unfortunately, we are having a hard enough time covering the medical cost of sick children and adults in this country. We have a long ways to go to get to that point. I think it would be great if doctors and mid-wives worked together for the best optimal care of mother and baby. I still would choose to have my baby in the hospital. Some mid-wives will go to the hospital with you.
:
JuJu my post was directed to kuraiza, I wrote her name at the beginning of my post to indicate this. I was not responding to your post.
isnt this what happens in private hospitals everyday?:
midwives do teh work, the ob blows in delivers the baby, cuts the cord and collects a few thousand dollars for the privledge? thats if they even make it, in that case the still collect their thousands!
I would prefer to be in the hospital system. After 2 inductions for high BP, three retained placentas and one very significant haemorrage, I am safer in that environment. Although my last birth didn't have a doctor present, I was solely in the care of the midwife (and no retained placenta ;)).
However I am a capable woman and I am able to stand up for my rights and desires to the doctors. I don't get bullied :p.
Of course it isn't LOL. It would never be reflective of a gentle birthing community whose ideals are skewed the other way.:
I chose a midwife run birth centre. It was the best for US. The thing I cherish most about being an Australian is we have a choice. Lose that and we lose control over our bodies, pregnancies and birth's.
I needed to be transferred to the hospital after the baby was born. If we decide to have another we will choose the birth centre again.
But its also very well known that deaths at birth prior to obstetric care were due to bad nutrition and that has also changed. Also, it was safer giving birth with a midwife than an obstetrician who were new to the scene.:
Also, with mortality rates, check out the new zealand stats. The rates actually reduced when they introduced midwifery led care again. You have Obs in the USA who believe that there is too much intervention at birth in the USA leading to these deaths!
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Obstetrics CAN save lives, but what is done to normal healthy women results in the NEED to save a baby, when if those inductions/interventions weren't done in the first place, there wouldn't have been a need to save a baby.
Yet the profession blames women for the skyrocketing c/s rates well above WHO levels. Shame on them. It's all about the women isn't it! 'Failure to progress' and other labels - shame on us faulty women!
River, our ideals are not skewed. We choose to be informed and find out more BASED ON STUDIES, FACTS and EVIDENCE. Alot more than many women are realising they need to do.
Having been a mother who delivered with both options (first hosp birth was only midwives as OB didnt make it and 2nd was OB & midwife) I voted yes I would. I dont think midwives give any less care and Im starting to realise that OB's charge a ton of money to women who in the end dont even need an OB there. My OBs did just about nothing for the $$$ I forked out (I was happy with their treatment though, great OBs) and the midwives did all the medical stuff.
So Im going to a birth centre this time round and ditching the OB option unless neccesary.
Half the problem nowdays is people tar all OBs and all midwives with the same brush when in every bunch there are going to be bad apples, including some dodgy midwives. I think the focus needs to be more on empowering women to make informed choices about their births. Maybe compulsory classes run by unbiased people about pro's and con's of all birth procedures, what options and rights birthing women have and maybe some personal stories from women who've given birth in every manner. Id certainly have attended as a first timer.
Funny side note - I had Dr Mourik as a locum for my OB that delivered baby #2 in Wodonga at the start of the year. Nice guy but very old school.