questions ...

...

"Do you [the midwife] consider that after you have informed the woman of risk, such as twins, that it is appropriate for you to agree to homebirth?"


"In your opinion, what is more important: the right of the woman to have informed choice, or the safety of the mother and baby or babies?"


"If a woman who was having quadruplets told you she wanted to give birth at home, and you informed her of the risk, would you agree to attend her for homebirth?" 

"Isn't the reality that if the midwife says 'Yes, I'll come to your homebirth of quads, isn't the midwife giving the green light to the woman's wishes?"

Continuing from the previous post, I want to further record and begin to explore lines of questioning that have been pursued by the barrister acting for AHPRA, in a formal hearing into the professional conduct of a midwife who attended births for two women classified as risk categories C and/or B in the ACM National Midwifery Guidelines for Consultation and Referral - in this case the 2004 version of that document.  In both cases there was a transfer of care to hospital; mothers and babies are well.  

The legal expert's job in the hearing is to prove allegations that the midwife acted in an unprofessional manner when she attended these births privately at the homes of the women.  The case relies heavily on the categorisation of risk in the ACM Guidelines.

The midwife has retained the services of a barrister to defend her.  The costs have accumulated to in excess of $20,000.

The panel of three, appointed by AHPRA to hear the case, includes one person who is a nurse academic, who lists RM (registered midwife) in her cv that is available online.  This person has published in her field, but there is no mention of midwifery or maternity in the titles listed.  This person has listed memberships in professional organisations, and there is no mention of any midwifery or maternity related organisation.   The other two members of the panel are a lawyer, and a nurse whose specialty area is psychiatry.

I am recording this point because there is an expectation in hearings into professional conduct that the evidence will be heard by peers.  The panel in this case was totally lacking in peers, and the one member who listed RM should perhaps reconsider her use of the title RM.  Midwives continue to be judged by nurses, as nurses, despite the reforms that have restored the register of midwives.
 

The pursuit of information by the Board's barrister, who acted like a blood hound, included many questions about choice and risk and safety.  The complexities of informed decision-making over time, and within that woman's real world, were barely acknowledged.  The relationship between 'risk' and 'safety' was not explored.  If the 'guidelines' identify 'risk' ... it's *obviously* unsafe, and not suitable for a midwife to be providing primary care in the home.

The midwife expert witness called by the defense barrister brought some clarity and sense to the hearing, with her consistent and persistent assertion that safety can only be achieved when a mother's right to informed decision making is protected and upheld.


ps
Midwives and others who promote humane maternity care around the world have been alerted to the criminal case against Hungarian midwife-obstetrician Ágnes Geréb.  For an update on this case, click here.

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.

Hospital back-up bookings for planned homebirth

Midwives practising privately in and around Melbourne have, for many years, used the booking and emergency referral arrangements provided by the Women's hospital. The process has been simple: the midwife can fax the woman's details to the hospital, and the woman is given a hospital record number confirming the booking. The midwife provides copies of any blood test and other investigations relevant to the pregnancy, and contacts the hospital if and when obstetric referral is required.

In the past two years, after the Women's hospital relocated from the old Carlton site to its present site in Parkville, and, coincidentally as the numbers of births increased with the recent 'baby boom', restrictions have been placed by the hospital on which women are able to make bookings. For women who are experiencing uncomplicated pregnancies (which is usually the case for women planning homebirth), only those who live in the Women's local area are able to make a booking.  The hospital was apparently bursting at the seams.   Midwives who had previously brought women transferring from planned homebirth to the hospital from distant locations are now referring women who need medical attention to the nearest public maternity hospital.

Some midwives objected to the change.  Transferring to the Women's had been a well-managed matter, that the midwife could confidently navigate.  Professional respect between the independent midwife and the hospital staff, and vice versa, was generally upheld.  This of course tends to reassure the (labouring-birthing) woman, who is at the *centre* of the care.  [The good relationship between Midwives in Private Practice (MIPP)s and the Women's has been written about previously in this blog - eg see July 2008]

The Women’s hospital is now undertaking a review of ‘Services provided by the Women’s hospital in relation to women who choose to give birth at home’. A letter to participating midwives states that The Women’s “has identified a number of issues associated with its existing homebirth backup arrangements and, in recent months, significant concern regarding the clinical risks has heightened.” The Women’s Executive “has decided to review the current arrangements in order to clarify the Women’s role and responsibilities in this area and to determine the most appropriate processes for supporting women who choose to give birth at home.”

The fact that "significant concern regarding the clinical risks has heightened" in recent months, in relation to homebirth, is a matter that midwives who attend homebirths care a great deal about. Has there been some change in the way midwives practise, or in the way midwives and women planning homebirth proceed through their decision-making processes?  Is there a problem specific to the Women's, or ...?

MIPP leaders have also been aware of some issues that would come under the heading of 'clinical risk'.  During the past couple of years, with the federal government's Maternity Services Review; the passing of new legislation requiring professional indemnity insurance which was not accessible; the 'exemption' for homebirth; and the Medicare provisions for participating eligible midwives - this has been a time of unprecedented stress and concern for midwives practising privately, attending women for planned homebirth. 

An application was made some months ago to the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection Unit (VPDC) by MIPP for retrospective information on the birth outcomes of women identified as ‘at risk’, having been recorded as planning to give birth at home in the care of a midwife, and that they have one or more of the following obstetric risk categories: 

Multiple pregnancy; 

abnormal presentation (especially breech); 

preterm labour prior to 37 completed weeks of pregnancy; 

post term pregnancy 42+ weeks; and 

previous caesarean birth. 

There has been an unexpected delay in obtaining the data requested, as 2009 data cannot yet be publicly released. We understand that the delay has been related to the change from manual data entry to electronic data entry at some sites.  We will inform our members and readers as soon as something becomes available.  The VPDC publishes data on actual homebirths (and outcome data for each hospital providing data to the system) each year.  The MIPP audit is seeking information on outcomes specific to 'at risk' pregnancies and planned homebirth.

Thankyou to anyone who has read this far.  We will keep you updated on matters of interest to the private midwifery community, as information becomes available.

Your comments are welcome.