human rights and childbirth

A number of Australian midwives and birth activists are watching with interest the campaign demanding human rights in childbirth, particularly in European countries where midwives may face criminal proceedings when they attend women for homebirth.

For information on this movement, and details of the next conference, click the hyperlink:

Birth Rights in the European Union: Mobilizing Change
Monday November 4th 2013
in Blankenberge, Belgium

Rights .... choices



The meaning of phrase 'human rights and childbirth' may be debated at length. Notions of individual freedom, fairness, equality, respect ... - such ideals are often at odds with what happens in the real world.

Human rights in the European Union should not be very different from those in resource-rich Australia, or developing countries such as Papua New Guinea where national maternal morbidity and mortality rates are among the highest in the world.  Yet the choices that are available for women in childbirth vary enormously from place to place, and between socio-economic groups, as variable as differences in outcomes.

What are the intrinsic *rights* of any (human) woman in her childbirth experience?

Let's consider this question: Does a woman have the right to demand the type of birth she considers best?   

Does a woman have a *right* to a birth that requires expert medical, midwifery, and nursing services, and a host of related ancillary services, in order to achieve her chosen birth: induction of labour, regional anaesthesia (spinal/epidural), or even elective caesarean?  I am not asking if a woman can access these elements of her choice - ability and right are two different matters.  And many readers may claim that it's easier in Australia today to access elective caesarean on demand than to access a maternity service that has a good track record with spontaneous, unmedicated, (garden-variety-natural) birth.

I would suggest that there is no human rights imperative in medically managed birth.  In modern maternity services there are professional/legal duties of care, to help and not to harm, but the access to surgical intervention or medical treatment is limited by factors such as availability of the necessary resources, and professional willingness to support the woman's individual choice. 


Which brings me to the other side of the question, Does a woman have the right to demand the type of birth she considers best?

Does a woman have a *right* to a birth that avoids medical intervention and optimises her chance of working in harmony with natural physiological processes?

Not really.  Perhaps there is more of a right in this situation than in the former, because the woman is the only person able to give birth spontaneously, and she does have the right to refuse any 'help'.  But in essence the woman's ability to proceed along the natural pathway, and give birth to a healthy baby without complication, is not about human rights.  It's about a finely tuned process that relies on physical, hormonal and emotional elements that can be either supported and protected by those who are with the labouring woman, or terribly messed up, to the detriment of the mother and her baby.  Even if 95% of women who received optimal support and care (whatever that looks like) through their childbearing experience were able to proceed naturally and spontaneously to great births, the other 5% of women who wanted natural births would miss out.  It's not a right unless it can be applied to all.

Effective maternity services are ones that provide the 'best practice' options for all women, placing the individual woman at the centre of the package of care that is available for her.  In most cases, it is not possible to plan or choose the outcomes.  Careful decision making throughout the journey enables the woman to access the best care, and thereby expect the best outcomes. 


Decision-making

Decision making is a process that 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.

There are times when the best option is not clear, when doing one thing may avoid one potential risk, but for some increase another.  This question of risk-utility analysis in decisions around childbirth is huge, and will, I hope, continue to occupy the minds of each generation of mothers and their professional care providers (whoever they are) for as long as childbearing continues.

I fought/aggitated for the rights of women to have their husband/partner present in hospital births in the early 1970s. I gave birth to my fourth child in a birth centre in 1980 - my personal statement of ownership of my birthing potential, and moving out of medicalised childbirth. I mention this because I have seen and experienced the changes in maternity care over 40 years in 2 continents, and am now nearing the end of my period of usefulness as a midwife.

The physiology of the birthing process requires a woman to minimise the activity of her neocortex - her thinking brain - and work with her intuitive brain as she progresses towards the climax of giving birth. This is where the authentic midwife is able to be guardian of the space, so that the woman is free to do the primal, hormonally driven (rather than intellectually driven) work of giving birth. The reality in my mind is that this is not a matter of empowerment or conscious choice - or of any sort of legal *rights*.

A woman's body will do the work of birth if it can, whether she likes it or not, because we are wonderfully made.  On the other hand, decisions about interventions which are designed to protect the wellbeing of mother and/or baby, when obstetric complications arise, are influenced by wealth and availability of /funding for maternity services.


*Note that I am not advocating for 'free' birth: Giving birth under 'Plan A' is an option regardless of place of birth or professional services available.  A woman can give birth without assistance or education or coaching or therapies or any outside help in the care of a midwife, a doctor, a hospital or any other service.

Questioning a midwife about women and risk

I am reluctant to make any broad statements about privately practising midwives and the way each one approaches a professional situation in which the woman has risk factors.  Each midwife, and each woman, is unique.  In fact, that's what the often repeated phrase 'woman centred care' points to: that the care for each woman is approached by her midwife from an individual perspective.

A midwife whose practice is under the regulatory spotlight for events that led to allegations that she has engaged in unprofessional conduct when she agreed to provide homebirth care for women in a risk category* is on the stand, under oath, and quizzed by the Barrister acting on behalf of the statutory body.  Here are a selection of the questions that this midwife may be required to answer.  Perhaps other midwives will take a moment to reflect on how we would answer these questions.

* The 'risk' profile could include, for example, postmaturity, prematurity, birth after caesarean, multiple pregnancy, breech presentation.  

With reference to a woman who wishes to give birth at home, the midwife is asked:

"Do you accept that you have a professional responsibility to inform the woman of risks?"
"Do you consider that after you have informed the woman of risk, such as post maturity, or previous caesarean, that it is appropriate for you to agree to homebirth?"
"Do you accept that homebirth after caesarean (hbac) entails higher risk than homebirth without previous surgery?"
"Do you agree that risks in a vaginal birth after caesarean (vbac) birth are better managed in hospital if they occur?"
"If as you say there are some risks for the vbac at home, why did you not record this in your notes?"

"What evidence do you rely upon for permitting vbac at home?"
"What special preparations did you make for a high risk birth at home?"

"Did the mother lead the decisions about homebirth, or did you give her the green light?"
"Did you consider saying no to homebirth, and sending the woman to a doctor?"
"In your midwifery practice, do you follow the Australian College of Midwives National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (ACM Guidelines)?"
"Do you accept that the ACM Guidelines state that the pathway for birth after caesarean is to at least consider referral and transfer to obstetric care?"
"Do you accept the first guiding principle of the ACM Guidelines, that 'As a primary caregiver, the midwife, together with the woman, is responsible for decision making.'?"
"Do you as midwife accept that you and the woman are jointly responsible for the decision to give birth at home?"
"On reflection, with the wisdom of hindsight, do you agree that you made a poor decision in providing home birth care in this situation?"
"Are you able to give the panel the assurance that if you were faced with a similar situation again, you would act differently?"
"Don't you think that a woman who is more than 10 days postmature, and unable to give birth in a small hospital, is too high risk for homebirth, where there are even fewer resources on hand than at a small hospital?"

The main 'requirement' for homebirth is that the woman is able to labour spontaneously without medical stimulation of labour or pain relief.  Midwives attending homebirth use no drugs to stimulate labour or to ease pain.  The only stimulation of labour available for homebirth is natural processes, such as walking, nipple stimulation, sexual intercourse, and perhaps a special meal.  If a woman who has had a previous caesarean, or whose baby is in a breech presentation, intends to give birth spontaneously, she usually accepts the requirement for spontaneous onset and good unmedicated progress in labour. 

The polarisation of midwifery care into 'planned homebirth with a private midwife' and 'standard hospital care for birth' is in itself unreasonable.

Physiological birth is a basic function of the female of the species.  In our world today we have the opportunity to interrupt physiological processes if we think they are progressing in a way that would lead to poor outcomes.

Consider any other physiological process: breathing, for example.
I breathe because that's what my body does.
I continue to breathe whether I am conscious of the fact or not.
If breathing becomes difficult, this can be a warning sign that prompts me to seek medical attention.

In the same way, a physiological labour will proceed because that's what the woman's body does.
She will continue to labour whether she is paying attention to it or not.
If labour becomes difficult, this can be a warning sign that can prompt transfer to another level of care.

Planned homebirth is 'Plan A'.  The midwife checks the fetal heart, or records signs of progress, or monitors the woman's vital signs in preparation for intervention if that becomes necessary.  The midwife has (or should have) no intention to interrupt the natural processes without a valid reason.  A transfer to hospital, 'Plan B,' is a change in the plan.   There are different rules in operation under 'Plan B' than 'Plan A'.

Effective decision making in labour requires a shared responsibility for the decisions that are made.  The midwife has a certain body of knowledge, and familiarity with the processes, and the woman has other knowledge about herself, her values, and her life direction.  Together they are able to navigate the often unpredictable journey of bringing a baby into the world.  A midwife is not a hired help, employed to facilitate a certain preferred option.  Active participation in decision making protects the wellbeing and safety of mother, baby(ies), and the future of the midwife.

Birth is a highly contested zone.  Our society takes a paternalistic attitude towards birth, through the regulation of the midwifery and medical professions, and the oversight of institutions such as hospitals.  This is good - to a degree.

However, the one who is literally 'holding the baby' at the end of the day is the mother, and she is usually within an immediate family and broader community.  Unless the mother-family-community relationships are broken down beyond repair, the best place for a child to be cared for and to grow is within that network.  A midwife works in partnership with the woman, for the childbearing period, promoting health, protecting wellness, and supporting the development of healthy families.

There will always be aspects of risk that either exist prior to the onset of labour, or that develop during labour.  The midwife who recognises and acts appropriately in the care relationship, and the woman who engages in an intelligent way in decision-making, will have a high level of safety built into their care plan.  There is no safer way than Plan A for a well woman to approach birth.  When complications are present the care decisions become more complex, and the need for medical attention becomes more urgent.  A midwife and woman working together in a trusting relationship bring strength and confidence to the decision making process.



Your comments are welcome.

choice of home birth: a human right?

This heading 'choice of home birth: a human right?' refers to the woman, not the midwife. Is it a woman's right to choose home birth?

Many would argue that the choice of home birth is a human right. As recently as 2010, the European court ruled that the choice of home birth is a European human right (please read on to the end of this post for the source of that piece of information).

Whatever the woman's right in choosing to give birth in her own home, that 'right' is at best meaningless if the woman is not able to access professional midwifery services.  In the absence of a suitably skilled midwife, the woman who hopes to exercise her 'right' to home birth must either give up the notion of home birth, or proceed without professional midwifery care.


In this brief essay I am seeking to apply the notion of a woman's right to choose to give birth in her home, to current Australian situations in which midwives may feel that they are not able allowed to attend certain women: those who have risk factors, such as post maturity, a previous caesarean or other obstetric complicated birth, a multiple pregnancy, or a baby in breech presentation.

Midwives who attend home births independently are facing increasing pressure to conform to external professional protocols which seek to define who is, and who is not 'suitable' to be in the care of a midwife. Such documents become instruments of a society's expectation on women giving birth, effectively forcing conformity on the midwife, and indirectly on the woman.

The current protocols (also referred to as guidelines and position statements) in relation to a midwife attending a woman for planned home birth, include:
AHPRA Safety and Quality Framework for Privately Practising Midwives attending homebirths
ACM Position Statement on Homebirth Services 2011
ACM Guidance for Midwives regarding Homebirth Services 2011

Other codes and professional documents, such as the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral (Second Edition 2008) that apply to all midwives can also be used to restrict the scope of the midwife's practice.

The broad principles underpinning contemporary midwifery are defined by the International Confederation of Midwives in the Definition of the Midwife (2005 – it was revised 2011), which stated

“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. ... A midwife may practise in any setting including the home, community, hospitals, clinics or health units.”  [Note that this paragraph is unchanged in the revised (2011) ICM Definition of the Midwife.]

This definition is a core statement in Australian midwifery codes, eg the Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Midwives in Australia.

Midwives around the world, in all levels of socio-economic and health status, grapple with the home birth issue.  In recent generations in developed countries, the professionalisation of midwifery has progressed hand in hand with the medicalisation of birth.  Australian midwifery education and regulation is a good example of this phenomenon.  Under current laws, midwives are the like poor cousins of nurses in the professional regulatory scene.  It may be difficult for midwives to have complaints against them investigated and heard by professional peers who have any recent midwifery practice experience.  Determinations by investigators in cases of professional conduct may have little relevance to the real world in which the midwife works.  The focus of the medicalised midwifery on risk factors and mainstream 'broad brush' risk management in hospitals can easily overshadow any acknowledgement of the woman's informed decisions.  The well known Monte Python skit, 'The Meaning of Life' applies: the woman on the bed calls out "Can I do anything?" and is told without delay "No, you're not qualified!" 

It is worth noting that the ICM Position Statement on Home Birth emphasises the social/family aspect of birth, as distinct from a medical condition.

“Childbirth is a social and emotional event and is an essential part of family life. The care given should take into consideration the individual woman’s cultural and social needs. There is a consequent need and demand for care that is close to where and how people live, close to their birthing culture, and at the same time safe. The World Health Report 2005 states that ‘There is a value in the rituals surrounding birth, and in keeping these as a central feature of family life. The setting for birth may therefore be the woman’s home, a local health facility or, if medical or surgical care is likely to be needed, a hospital. Furthermore a recent (2010) the European court judgement declared that the choice of home birth is a European human right.” 

[For more detail on the European Court decision, click here]

The woman who, notwithstanding her knowledge of her own particular 'risk' status, asks a midwife to work with her to protect and promote normal physiological birthing in her home, is as entitled to professional midwifery care as the woman who chooses care in a birth centre or hospital.  The conversation between the midwife and the woman will address the woman's plans as to how she hopes to give birth to her baby, and what will happen if her midwife advises transfer of care to an obstetric unit.  This is not new or unusual in midwifery.  Every woman who comes into spontaneous labour has to make decisions about when to go to hospital, or when to ask the midwife to attend, if home birth is planned. 

In conclusion, I do not want to seem to encourage midwives to encourage 'at risk' women to see home birth as their only option.  In my experience, a woman with twins, or breech presentation, or BAC, who is clear that she intends to hold onto 'Plan A' unless a valid reason is given for intervention whether she is at home or goes to hospital (with her midwife) to give birth; this woman will make an informed decision that she believes is in the best interests of her baby, her family, and her own wellbeing.  This woman is enabled to take responsibility for her family's social, emotional, and physical health in a new way, in a special partnership with her midwife.

The midwife is also enabled to fulfill her duty of care to the woman, without exposing herself unnecessarily to potential investigations for professional misconduct.

Questions and answers 2: VBAC

The questions for today are focused on vaginal birth after caesarean surgery, VBAC.

This is the second post in the current series

• about midwives who have (or plan to obtain) Medicare provider numbers 
• about planned homebirth 
• about planned hospital birth 
• about vaginal birth after caesarean surgery (VBAC) 
• about women who have certain 'risk' factors 
• about ... 

I have shaded the 'planned homebirth' and 'planned hospital birth' lines as well as the VBAC line, because the place of birth, home or hospital, is a *setting* - not an outcome.

Women often ask independent midwives:
"Will you be my midwife for a HBAC?", or HBA2C (where H=home, and 2=2, and where, because it's at H, it's obviously V)
(and yes, we use abbreviations freely!)

The only truthful answer is "I have no idea, because it's impossible for me to know where your baby will be born!"


But, what is implied in the question "Will you be my midwife for a HBAC"? is,

"If you are my midwife, 

• are you willing and able to provide the professional services I am likely to need in order to give birth safely at home, and 
• do you have the skill to recognise situations in which you would advise me to transfer to hospital, and 
• do you have the wisdom to guide me?"

Planning VBAC at home is perhaps the simpler option from the woman's and midwife's point of view, because it's clear that in order to give birth the woman and her baby need to be well, at Term, and come into strong labour *naturally* - without induction or augmentation of labour, and without relying on medical strategies for pain management. It's clear that if a decision point is reached when medical expertise, or technology, are recommended, these are accessed by transferring care to the medical/obstetric/midwifery/nursing team in hospital. Transferring to hospital does not mean that the plan for VBAC is given up.

Yet planning VBAC at home may be considered by some to be unreasonable risk-taking.  Midwives attending homebirths are required to comply with various guidelines that have been approved by the regulatory authority, such as the Safety and Quality Framework.[Open this link and scroll down to 'Eligible Midwives'].  The Safety and Quality Framework seeks to ensure that women understand that the midwife has no professional indemnity insurance for homebirth, and requires a midwife providing homebirth services to

adhere to recognised consultation and referral guidelines developed by the Australian College of Midwives (ACM) and to have processes and relationships in place to demonstrate compliance with the guidelines.

The ACM Guidelines list Casearean Section as

6.3      Previous Obstetric history
6.3.11  Caesarean Section
CODE B = CONSULT [Evaluation involving both primary and secondary care needs.  The individual situation of the woman will be evaluated and agreements will be made about the responsibility (medical or midwifery) responsibility for maternity care]

The journey to homebirth for a midwife and woman, using the ACM Guidelines, may then proceed to Appendix A: WHEN A WOMAN CHOOSES CARE OUTSIDE THE RECOMMENDED ...
This process seeks to ensure that the midwife and other maternity professionals are advising the woman clearly, and the woman is making an informed decision.

If the midwife is Medicare-eligible, there are other requirements for collaborative arrangements before the midwife's fees can be rebated through Medicare.  This is the case whether the plan is to give birth at home or hospital.


When planning VBAC in hospital, many of the same issues arise for women who intend to proceed without medical intervention, unless there is a valid reason.  Most hospital guidelines require midwifery staff to obtain continuous electronic monitoring.  The woman in this situation is able to decline, if she makes that decision.  

A VBAC in hospital can proceed with continuous electronic fetal monitoring, epidural anaesthesia, IV fluids, a urinary catheter, forceps or other assistance that is available within the scope of a medically managed vaginal birth. Or a VBAC in hospital can proceed without any of these interventions.

Women planning VBAC in hospital would do well, if they can, to find a hospital that has a track record that demonstrates an understanding of VBAC. When you inquire about making a booking at the hospital, ask if the hospital has a clinical practice guideline or other written document that you can take away to read. Some hospitals have this material on the internet - click here for the Women's VBAC guideline.    This will give you an idea of what you are likely to experience.  Your midwife can help you understand the detail.

Specific questions can be asked of the hospital such as what is their current rate of planned vbac (out of all women who have had previous C/s surgery), and actual vbac. The denominator in the actual vbac rate is usually the number who planned vbac, or who commenced spontaneous labour.  So if a hospital says "We have a 65% VBAC rate" it probably means that of all women with a previous C/S who intend to undergo a 'trial of scar' and commenced labour, 65% had vaginal births." 

The decisions that need to be made in any pregnancy and labour (bac or not) are the same. Plan A. If mother and baby are well, and there is no valid reason to interfere with the natural process, the authentic midwife will act in a way that supports and protects natural physiological processes that lead to safe birth. This includes minimising any interruption or interference with the labouring woman.

Homebirth via public hospitals

A midwife from Casey Homebirth service, at a maternity conference, with the 'gear' that she takes to a home

In December 2009 we noted at this blog the announcement that some Victorian women would be able to access homebirth via a publicly funded pilot scheme.

Two metropolital hospitals, Casey in the South-East and Sunshine in the West, have their homebirth programs up and running. We have also been told by a reliable person that Monash Medical Centre, a level 5 hospital in Clayton, is planning to offer homebirth as part of comprehensive maternity services this year. [Click on the highlighted words to go to the websites of the hospitals mentioned]

I have recently met up with a group of the midwives employed at Casey. I was impressed at their enthusiasm for their work. They told me they are loving the work.

Homebirth is a basic aspect of midwifery practice. It allows the practitioner an opportunity to develop a strong midwife identity, accepting the authority in decision-making at any time in the episode of care, and particularly at the time of birth. Homebirth is 'PLAN A' - the woman giving birth spontaneously, without medical intervention, and the midwife acting in harmony with normal physiological processes.

Working in a public hospital homebirth program enables midwives to practise one-to-one (caseload) primary maternity care without taking on the professional marginalisation that is experienced when midwives go into private practice.

Midwives who have moved into private practise may not value this aspect of the hospital program to the same degree as those who take the hospital caseload-homebirth positions.

Hospital midwives are able to provide care for the group of women booked in their caseload, with structured 'backup' processes from other midwives in the program, and arrangements for handing over care if a labour is very long. These midwives value their employment contracts, through which they have a reliable income, employment benefits such as sick leave and long service leave, and their relationship with their clients is separate from their ability to earn a living.

By way of comparison, independent (private practice) midwives value the strong commitment they make to individual women, and very rarely ask another midwife to take over. The 'employment' arrangement is a private one, between the individual woman and her private midwife or midwives.

Both options - private and public - have potential advantages and disadvantages.

‘Hospital at home’ is a reality. Hospitals are over-crowded, and it makes sense to provide services in the home when possible. The hospital risk management includes the latest gadgets that may be useful, such as the 'Neopuff TM' machine shown in the picture above. With the strict policies on inclusion in the program, it’s very unlikely that the midwives will need to use the neopuff. That will come out in audits down the track.

The inclusion by hospitals of this item should not be seen as suggesting that all midwives attending homebirths need to carry such equipment. There would need to be some compelling evidence that babies born at home would be better off. Hospital babies, many of whose labours are induced when they not quite ready to be born, depressed by narcotics, and premature, ... are the ones that would clearly benefit from the Neopuff TM.

Homebirth via public hospitals is a valuable addition to publicly funded maternity services. Women and their babies benefit, as homebirth requires the promotion of normal physiological birthing, feeding, and nurture processes. Midwives benefit in being separated from reliance on unnecessary medical interventions.

I anticipate that there will, in time, be an exchange of midwives between the public and private homebirth options. This will be good for midwifery, and good for birthing women.

Comments by readers are most welcome.