It won't be long before new Australian mums will be screened for postnatal depression thanks to the work of the national depression group beyond blue. The group is in talks with the federal government to introduce the test and also to support a British study of 1400 women that has revealed that mothers of twins and triplets are almost twice as likely to become depressed. According to recent stats, almost 16% of Aussie mums develop some form of depression and for the most part, help only comes when women are already depressed. A measure to screen new mums nationally would be a step in identifying the triggers for depression and getting women help much earlier. The truth is that many women become depressed antenatally (during pregnancy) but the depression is never identified until postpartum. Based on the results of the British data, beyond blue deputy chief executive Nicole Highet has said that Australian mothers of multiples are at a greater risk of becoming depressed often because of the trauma or challenges involved in getting pregnant (complications with IVF, for example) and in getting the babies into the world safely (caesareans, separation after birth, etc). This is aside from the fact that while having one baby is exhausting, having two or three newborns can be even more so. On top of this, the unrealistic pressures placed on mothers today only makes for a perfect platform for emotional collapse. Highet argues:
"Long-term untreated PND can cause delayed cognitive and emotional development in the baby. The benefits of picking up PND early are immense."
Postnatal depression especially effects the partners of women: Highet notes that 50-60% of partners are also depressed.
Help can not come soon enough. It's amazing: for all of the technology that has managed to save babies in the long run in the US and Australia, for instance, at the same time, technology has also managed to fundamentally change the ways in which women get pregnant, give birth and do motherhood. It is frustrating that with all of the changes that have come to maternity since the rise of hospital birth and obstetrics as a legitimate profession during the Industrial Revolution, there have been very few measures enacted that are solely designed to support mothers emotionally and psychologically. Up until now, we have been very focused on outcomes, making sure the 'products' of birth (e.g. babies) are healthy and that mothers come out on the other end alive. While this is an obvious mark of progress historically (especially in light of my recent post about birth in Tanzania), at the same time, if our mothers aren't happy and well, there is little chance that our babies will also remain healthy and well. Women who are supported (by partners, friends, families, midwives, etc) do much better statistically than women who go at pregnancy, birth and motherhood alone (and this is not implying that all women need to have partners to be good mums). Historically, it has been much more intellectually satisfying for medical professionals to focus on the physical problems associated with pregnancy and birth. Yet, the pastoral care for the mother is extraordinarily important perhaps even more so than the intensive care of infants. The people that ultimately care for babies are parents, and by and large mothers.
If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Midwives given expanded role in new report
According to The Age, a report written by Commonwealth chief nurse and midwifery officer Rosemary Bryant, due to be released today, suggests that new funding arrangements could support the expansion of midwives' roles in Australia's failing maternity system. Under the new scheme, midwives would have access to indemnity insurance, Medicare numbers and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Of course, many obstetricians are upset by this prospect. More than 900 submissions from health professionals, individuals, researchers, industry groups and professional organisations have been received. In submissions, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said midwives should not be given Medicare numbers and the Australian Medical Association said independent midwifery care would jeopardise the care of mothers and babies.
The report states that midwives must meet an advanced level of professional education and experience before being given greater access.
What do we think?
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/report-urges-expanded-role-for-midwives-20090220-8dqz.html?page=-1
The report states that midwives must meet an advanced level of professional education and experience before being given greater access.
What do we think?
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/report-urges-expanded-role-for-midwives-20090220-8dqz.html?page=-1
Miscarriage a normal part of pregnancy
A new Australian study takes the stigma out of miscarriage: according to research from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (following 12,000 women), miscarriage is much more common about younger women than previously expected. For every three women who have given birth by their early 30s, one has had a miscarriage. By their early 20s, 6 per cent of women had already had one, and by their early 30s it was 15 per cent.
As a result of using confidential questionnaires, women were more inclined to reveal their miscarriages (including those that never came to the attention of doctors).
Why is this important? Because the results suggest that miscarriage is a 'normal' part of pregnancy and that many more women experience them than previously suggested.
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/miscarriage-rates-revealed-20090116-7j77.html
As a result of using confidential questionnaires, women were more inclined to reveal their miscarriages (including those that never came to the attention of doctors).
Why is this important? Because the results suggest that miscarriage is a 'normal' part of pregnancy and that many more women experience them than previously suggested.
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/miscarriage-rates-revealed-20090116-7j77.html
Choices in childbirth more complex in 2009
Welcome to 2009. What better way to celebrate the new year then to see new statistics from NSW that show a huge disparity between childbirth intervention rates in private and public hospitals. According to recent reports, here are some humbling statistics:
Although there are not any easy solutions to such a complex issue, particular when it comes to the role of choice and power in hospitals, it seems that some things can be addressed quite easily. For instance, midwives often encourage women to give birth standing up or in other positions that progress labour more quickly and effectively. When women have epidurals, standing is not possible.
Any Aussies out there who feel they were forced to 'choose' intervention during birth?
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-painful-truth-about-childbirth/2009/01/02/1230681748836.html
- the caesarean rate is hovering close to 40% in private NSW hospitals
- between 1/4 and 1/3 of women in private hospitals have an episiotomy compared to only 10 % in public hospitals
- forceps and vacuum deliveries comprise nearly 15% of all private hospital births
- in one NSW private hospital, only 4% of women go without any pain relief
Although there are not any easy solutions to such a complex issue, particular when it comes to the role of choice and power in hospitals, it seems that some things can be addressed quite easily. For instance, midwives often encourage women to give birth standing up or in other positions that progress labour more quickly and effectively. When women have epidurals, standing is not possible.
Any Aussies out there who feel they were forced to 'choose' intervention during birth?
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-painful-truth-about-childbirth/2009/01/02/1230681748836.html
Hold on to your jobs ladies.
If you are pregnant in Australia, beware: a new government report reveals appalling holes in the job protections supposedly afforded to women taking maternity leave. Pat McDonough, a co-author of the report called A Pregnant Pause, said a "'culture of antagonism' towards pregnant women workers and women on maternity leave is alive and well". In the economic downturn, these women workers would be more vulnerable than ever. "They're a soft touch," she said, "especially women on maternity leave who are out of sight."
Although Australian women have had job protection following maternity leave for 30 years, half of the women surveyed had nevertheless lost their jobs, were offered inferior positions or part-time work.
McDonogh sums it up quite nicely: "Everyone thinks the laws will protect them but in lots of cases the law means squat."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/8n6b3d
Although Australian women have had job protection following maternity leave for 30 years, half of the women surveyed had nevertheless lost their jobs, were offered inferior positions or part-time work.
McDonogh sums it up quite nicely: "Everyone thinks the laws will protect them but in lots of cases the law means squat."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/8n6b3d
Paid maternity leave? looks like not a chance
So looks like the whole maternity payment scheme in Oz is sinking. Small business is apparently upset because they will have to contribute to the superannuation accounts of women on maternity leave. A number of others are whining about the plan possibly not being means tested.
I find this amazing and actually it strangely crossovers with some things I have been mulling over lately. Here are some facts:
I find this amazing and actually it strangely crossovers with some things I have been mulling over lately. Here are some facts:
In the last 40 years, the Australian fertility rate has declined from 3.55 babies per women in the ‘baby boom’ of 1961 to a historic low of 1.73 in 2001. The fertility rate first started to decline in 1976 and ever since that time, the population has been below replacement level (2.1 babies per woman). Since 2001, however,
As there is still no national scheme for paid maternity leave and given that provisions for childcare in Melbourne are woefully inadequate, being pregnant and ‘at work’ is still seen as perhaps visually and culturally inconsistent. This may point to a ‘backlash’ against feminism(s) both by the Australian government and women themselves. In spite of hard-won changes to Australian women’s legal and political status over the last 30 years, anxieties about pregnancy and motherhood clearly continue to brew. If the second wave of feminism encouraged middle-class Australian women to expand their understandings of themselves beyond marriage and motherhood, the falling birthrate in
Many of the women in my study were quite anxious about clinging to their positions in the paid workforce or having to make a somewhat defeated ‘choice’ to stay at home for a certain period of time to be ‘full-time’ mothers. They seemed genuinely frustrated and, at times, angry that the versions of feminist discourse presented to them in women’s magazines and by celebrities, for instance, seemed to suggest that being a mother and having a career is a seamless negotiation: that women can ‘have it all’. Ways of combining motherhood with other feminist aspirations are rarely discussed in the current Australian political climate. Rather, it is the women who are blamed for wanting to both have a working life and look after their children. This 'backlash' against maternity leave also particularly highlights the fractured and partial adherence to everyday feminisms by many Australian women themselves.
Paid maternity leave
Today, a landmark government report will recommend that Australian mothers receive up to 14 weeks of paid maternity leave.
Currently, only 43% of Australian women are entitled to paid maternity leave. One in six mums is back to work before their babies turn one month old.
According to the proposed plan, women would be paid the equivalent of minimum wage at the cost of $500 million to the government. This is quite controversial and a number of critics are suggesting that the expenditure is too great especially in the face of a 'global financial crisis'. Others have suggested that the scheme has to be means tested. Some groups are worried that if the scheme is passed, women of 'childbearing age' (read: early 30s) will be discriminated against in the workplace.
Let's just remind ourselves of one fact: Australia is one of the only two developed nations in the world (the other being the US) that does not have a scheme for paid maternity leave. British mums get 39 weeks. Swedish mums get 18 months. Bulgarian mums get 2 years.
Sources: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24415549-12377,00.html
Currently, only 43% of Australian women are entitled to paid maternity leave. One in six mums is back to work before their babies turn one month old.
According to the proposed plan, women would be paid the equivalent of minimum wage at the cost of $500 million to the government. This is quite controversial and a number of critics are suggesting that the expenditure is too great especially in the face of a 'global financial crisis'. Others have suggested that the scheme has to be means tested. Some groups are worried that if the scheme is passed, women of 'childbearing age' (read: early 30s) will be discriminated against in the workplace.
Let's just remind ourselves of one fact: Australia is one of the only two developed nations in the world (the other being the US) that does not have a scheme for paid maternity leave. British mums get 39 weeks. Swedish mums get 18 months. Bulgarian mums get 2 years.
Sources: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24415549-12377,00.html
IVF: pregnancy waiting to happen
Gotta love a little media spin. 2 article about IVF on the same day using the same stats with very different arguments:
Headline: Celebrities give false hope to IVF mums
In this story, the Daily Telegraph claims that only 2% of women over 45 become pregnant successfully through IVF.
"Despite the increase in success rates in women over 40, the majority (over 40) who come for IVF treatment go away without a baby," he said.
Headline: IVF boost for women in their 40s
In this article, women in their 40s have apparently 'doubled' their success rate with IVF over the last 2 years. One doctor is quoted as saying the success rate now amounted to, "a realistic chance" for older women, particularly those aged 40 or 41."
Of course, both articles conclude that IVF is not an 'insurance policy' for women who wait too long. *sigh*
Sources: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24359180-5005941,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/5tjojh
Headline: Celebrities give false hope to IVF mums
In this story, the Daily Telegraph claims that only 2% of women over 45 become pregnant successfully through IVF.
"Despite the increase in success rates in women over 40, the majority (over 40) who come for IVF treatment go away without a baby," he said.
Headline: IVF boost for women in their 40s
In this article, women in their 40s have apparently 'doubled' their success rate with IVF over the last 2 years. One doctor is quoted as saying the success rate now amounted to, "a realistic chance" for older women, particularly those aged 40 or 41."
Of course, both articles conclude that IVF is not an 'insurance policy' for women who wait too long. *sigh*
Sources: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24359180-5005941,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/5tjojh
World Breastfeeding Week
Today marks the start of World Breastfeeding Week (1 - 7 August) . Working mothers are twice as likely to stop breastfeeding their babies by the time they are six months old. This week is more than just a reminder that breastfeeding is important; it is a way for mothers in Australia and the US, especially, to speak out in favour of a national scheme for paid maternity leave and more flexible working environments in which mothers can take their babies to work.
For more info about breastfeeding and La Leche League:
In New Zealand, mums and their bubs are taking part in the Big Latch On in an attempt to break the world record for simultaneous breastfeeding.
Wellington maternity line Womama is launching a saucy new lingerie collection "Mother in Nature" to coincide with the world's celebration of breastfeeding.
Check them out: http://www.womama.co.nz/
Go forth and feed!
Nicole Kidman for Vogue
Well, here it is..the long awaited Nicole Kidman pregnancy cover for the July edition of American Vogue. I wonder when she took the photo because she does not look very pregnant!Here is a tidbit from the interview:
“When I first saw the baby on the ultrasound, I started crying. I didn’t think I’d get to experience that in my lifetime. I like the unpredictable nature of it. To feel life growing with you is something very, very special, and I’m going to embrace that completely. I don’t believe in flittering around the edges of things. You’re either going to walk through life and experience it fully or you’re going to be a voyeur. And I’m not a voyeur.”
You can read the full article here:
http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/061708/page2.html
Source: http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/06/17/nicole-kidman-vogue-july-2008/
Freebirthing rant
As I was watching the Today show this morning (Australian version), my ears perked up immediately when I heard that they were doing a segment on freebirthing..no doctors, no drugs, is it safe? as if it were a conspiracy and with the requisite mysterious music playing in the background. I have to say there was nothing in this segement that was particularly 'new' or enlightening. However, I was very interested in how they were going to 'do' this segment and I assumed correctly that of course, freebirthing was too dangerous and too risky and women who do it were basically 'too optimistic' when it comes to the horrors of labour.
Of course, they went straight to Laura Shanley who is widely respected as one of the pioneers of the freebirthing movement in the US (in fact, Laura commented on my last post about freebirthing). Her positive experiences were contrasted with an incredibly idiotic doctor who of course had to say that birth was dangerous blah blah blah and women are stupid for choosing to avoid technologised birth. Not only was his argument vague but rather than saying 'interventionist' in reference to medicalised birth kept saying 'interventionalist'. Makes me slightly worried that he was allowed to leave medical school. In the studio, Dr. Rick Gordon, the medical editor for the show, was interviewedand he is not an obstetrician or an 'expert' in pregnancy or birth and he said 'death' so many times in the segment I just started to get even more angry.
You can watch the segment on the Today show link below and read the accompanying article. I think it would be great if women who have had homebirths or freebirths would write in about their positive experiences to the network and overwhelm them with responses because this was a completely one-sided story.
Email: today@nine.com.au
Source: http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=417872
Of course, they went straight to Laura Shanley who is widely respected as one of the pioneers of the freebirthing movement in the US (in fact, Laura commented on my last post about freebirthing). Her positive experiences were contrasted with an incredibly idiotic doctor who of course had to say that birth was dangerous blah blah blah and women are stupid for choosing to avoid technologised birth. Not only was his argument vague but rather than saying 'interventionist' in reference to medicalised birth kept saying 'interventionalist'. Makes me slightly worried that he was allowed to leave medical school. In the studio, Dr. Rick Gordon, the medical editor for the show, was interviewedand he is not an obstetrician or an 'expert' in pregnancy or birth and he said 'death' so many times in the segment I just started to get even more angry.
You can watch the segment on the Today show link below and read the accompanying article. I think it would be great if women who have had homebirths or freebirths would write in about their positive experiences to the network and overwhelm them with responses because this was a completely one-sided story.
Email: today@nine.com.au
Source: http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=417872
More statistics that piss me off.
Apparently, the most fertile women in Australia are women in their 30s according to reports in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. In particular, women between 30-34 are fuelling the 'baby boom' bringing Australia's fertility rate to its highest level in 12 years.
This is not the statistic that pisses me off. In fact, this comes as no surprise to me personally considering the bulk of the women in my study are between the ages of 30-34 and a good number of my cohort are older than that, between 37-40. This can be attributed to a number of positive social changes: 1) more women are educated 2) more women are waiting to get married or enter a long-term partnership 3) more women are employed in the paid sector 4) women can 'control' (for want of a better word) fertility more easily
This statistic really pisses me off:
"...Victorian women are real laggers in the younger ages and there has been a substantial fall in fertility rates among 20-year-olds over the last five years," Dr Birrell [a demographer] said.
Isn't that a good thing? For once, certain women feel confident enough be positively selfish and put themselves before motherhood; to establish a career, become financially stable, gain life experience. And yet, now people want to complain that 20 year olds are not having babies any more?
Has anyone been reading the British newspapers? Teen pregnancy is the new black of moral panics. They are sucking off the welfare system. They are irresponsible. They are 'bad' mothers. Young pregnant women have never been well-received. In fact, wasn't it the 'young mothers' of Australia who were blamed for selfishly getting pregnant only to receive the Baby Bonus? And now people are complaining that 20 year olds aren't getting pregnant fast enough? Instead of positioning the growth of 'older' mothers as a great thing, the tables are turned against women for wanting to be better human beings in waiting to have children.
This is the kicker:
"Fertility Society of Australia spokeswoman Anne Clark warned that the decision to defer motherhood could have serious implications for national population growth: "This is not good news, because fertility levels change for women in their mid-30s and for men after 40, so you are going to have a lot of people pushing it to have more than two children."
Seriously, the boring adage that women's reproductive capacities completely deteriorate at 35 is so ridiculous and only reinforces the nature/culture binary which has plagued the representation of women's bodies in medicine for the last century. If women's bodies are positioned as unruly and chaotic, it is so much easier to justify that the minute a woman is 'old' she is no longer useful and this become a perfect means of social control. It's like 'Have a baby before 35 or else you will dry up, like the useless vessel that you are'.
I don't think any woman over 35 is not blinded by the cultural 'ticking' of her 'biological clock' . But if it means that more women can have full lives by waiting to become mothers (especially young women) then that seems like a great trade off to me. IVF has not become a default mechanism for late parenthood. IVF is so expensive it is definitely not as popular or easily accessible as the media would like us to believe. Women are not selfishly waiting to become mothers to screw over the nation; they are selfishly choosing to put themselves first, a rarity indeed.
Sources: http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/baby-boom-for-thirtysomethings/2007/10/29/1193618837109.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/median-age-for-mums-now-308/2007/10/29/1193618797586.html
This is not the statistic that pisses me off. In fact, this comes as no surprise to me personally considering the bulk of the women in my study are between the ages of 30-34 and a good number of my cohort are older than that, between 37-40. This can be attributed to a number of positive social changes: 1) more women are educated 2) more women are waiting to get married or enter a long-term partnership 3) more women are employed in the paid sector 4) women can 'control' (for want of a better word) fertility more easily
This statistic really pisses me off:
"...Victorian women are real laggers in the younger ages and there has been a substantial fall in fertility rates among 20-year-olds over the last five years," Dr Birrell [a demographer] said.
Isn't that a good thing? For once, certain women feel confident enough be positively selfish and put themselves before motherhood; to establish a career, become financially stable, gain life experience. And yet, now people want to complain that 20 year olds are not having babies any more?
Has anyone been reading the British newspapers? Teen pregnancy is the new black of moral panics. They are sucking off the welfare system. They are irresponsible. They are 'bad' mothers. Young pregnant women have never been well-received. In fact, wasn't it the 'young mothers' of Australia who were blamed for selfishly getting pregnant only to receive the Baby Bonus? And now people are complaining that 20 year olds aren't getting pregnant fast enough? Instead of positioning the growth of 'older' mothers as a great thing, the tables are turned against women for wanting to be better human beings in waiting to have children.
This is the kicker:
"Fertility Society of Australia spokeswoman Anne Clark warned that the decision to defer motherhood could have serious implications for national population growth: "This is not good news, because fertility levels change for women in their mid-30s and for men after 40, so you are going to have a lot of people pushing it to have more than two children."
Seriously, the boring adage that women's reproductive capacities completely deteriorate at 35 is so ridiculous and only reinforces the nature/culture binary which has plagued the representation of women's bodies in medicine for the last century. If women's bodies are positioned as unruly and chaotic, it is so much easier to justify that the minute a woman is 'old' she is no longer useful and this become a perfect means of social control. It's like 'Have a baby before 35 or else you will dry up, like the useless vessel that you are'.
I don't think any woman over 35 is not blinded by the cultural 'ticking' of her 'biological clock' . But if it means that more women can have full lives by waiting to become mothers (especially young women) then that seems like a great trade off to me. IVF has not become a default mechanism for late parenthood. IVF is so expensive it is definitely not as popular or easily accessible as the media would like us to believe. Women are not selfishly waiting to become mothers to screw over the nation; they are selfishly choosing to put themselves first, a rarity indeed.
Sources: http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/baby-boom-for-thirtysomethings/2007/10/29/1193618837109.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/median-age-for-mums-now-308/2007/10/29/1193618797586.html
breastfeeding still a big no-no
'Workplaces 'not breastfeeding-friendly' http://au.news.yahoo.com/070507/2/13dgp.html:
'Australian mothers are forced to wean their babies off breast milk too early because workplaces are not "breastfeeding-friendly", a public inquiry has been told'.
Ya think? As if this is really a surprise to anyone but the Howard government.....
'Australian mothers are forced to wean their babies off breast milk too early because workplaces are not "breastfeeding-friendly", a public inquiry has been told'.
Ya think? As if this is really a surprise to anyone but the Howard government.....
australian homebirth
There was an interesting debate sparked about Australian homebirth on Sunrise (Channel 7) last week and, as a result, Marie Claire (the women's mag) has developed a forum for readers to leave comments about homebirth and their experiences thereof. I imagine all of these comments will develop into some sort of article for a forthcoming issue.
This is the description from Marie Claire's website:
"The UK government has recently announced plans to encourage more women to have home births, saying that expectant mothers should have greater choices over where they give birth. The proposal has been welcomed by midwives, but met with concern by some groups who say there are safety issues involved. In Australia, about one per cent of all babies are delivered in home births. The issue was debated by Channel Seven's Sunrise panel, which included marie claire editor Jackie Frank".
Post your thoughts on the Marie Claire website:
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/marie-claire/964/home-birth-debate/
This is the description from Marie Claire's website:
"The UK government has recently announced plans to encourage more women to have home births, saying that expectant mothers should have greater choices over where they give birth. The proposal has been welcomed by midwives, but met with concern by some groups who say there are safety issues involved. In Australia, about one per cent of all babies are delivered in home births. The issue was debated by Channel Seven's Sunrise panel, which included marie claire editor Jackie Frank".
Post your thoughts on the Marie Claire website:
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/marie-claire/964/home-birth-debate/
look who's on TODAY!
Pretend this a conversation between the two of us:
Me: Hey! Guess what?
You: What?
Me: You'll never believe what I'm doing this Monday?
You: Tell me!
Me: I'm going to be on the Today show talking about The Baby Bump Project.
You: No way!
Me: Way!
You: What time?
Me: Around 8:10
You: What channel?
Me: Channel 9!
That was blatant self-promotion for my next Australian media appearance. For those of you who want to actually hear my voice, make sure to tune in on Monday for a segment about fatness and body image in pregnancy! I'll be sure to post it on YouTube for anyone that misses it!
Me: Hey! Guess what?
You: What?
Me: You'll never believe what I'm doing this Monday?
You: Tell me!
Me: I'm going to be on the Today show talking about The Baby Bump Project.
You: No way!
Me: Way!
You: What time?
Me: Around 8:10
You: What channel?
Me: Channel 9!
That was blatant self-promotion for my next Australian media appearance. For those of you who want to actually hear my voice, make sure to tune in on Monday for a segment about fatness and body image in pregnancy! I'll be sure to post it on YouTube for anyone that misses it!
new elective caesar policy
This article is causing some profoundly mixed emotions for me. On one hand, it's truly fantastic that the NSW government (that's New South Wales, the most populous state of Australia for non-Australian readers) has acknowledged that not only is the rate of elective caesareans increasing but that it is also possibly endangering the lives of women who are uneducated about the procedure.
However, I have strong feelings about taking women's responsibility for their own bodies away from them and giving control over to the government to decide what is best for birth. Clearly, major abdominal surgery is a significant leap from vaginal delivery but is it really fair to insist that women must not have a technologised or interventionist birth if that is what they really want? Sure, some of you might say 'Well, how does she know what she wants if she doesn't know the risks?' That goes without saying but adult decision making is kind of like that. We make decisions about lots of things without knowing all of the associated risks. With birth, it seems like everyone seems to know what's best for pregnant women except women themselves.
We dont have to agree with the choices other women make but I think we need to respect them. I might not choose to have an elective caesar but I don't think my choice not to have one should prevent another woman from having one if that is what she feels comfortable doing. I think it would be a completely different story if for instance, the NSW government decided to ban women from having pain-reducing drugs during labour because pain relief is non-surgical. All of the most common pain killing drugs have side effects and there is plenty of research to support that. Hell, epidurals are injected into the spine. That's a major risk; but women who want to have less pain in labour should never be forced to 'suffer' needlessly and many women are willing to take a risk to be comfortable. I think this is the same issue. Maybe it seems a little strange to some of us that a woman would rather have surgery than give birth vaginally but in my own work, I have interviewed a number of women who have had elective caesars for various reasons. Fear of pain is a primary reason and who can really fault them for that? It's not my place to do so and it's not the government's place either. Women need to make up their own minds about how they have their babies. Caesareans should remain an 'option' because women should have every opportunity available to them to have a comfortable birth and if that means being cut open, who am I to judge?
Caesars can either serve or impair women's agency not so much by the inherent character of the procedure (in terms of obvious physical risks), but in how the politics surrounding elective caesareans coalesces with the needs of variously situated women (economically and politically and also varying by race, class, and sexuality). What is 'good' for some women is not necessarily appropriate for all women.
NSW hospitals move to block caesarean option
7 April 2007, The Age
WOMEN will not be allowed to insist on caesarean deliveries in NSW public hospitals without a medical reason, under a new health department policy. Under the new rules, women must be told in detail about "the benefits and risks of caesarean section compared with vaginal birth specific to the woman and her pregnancy". The policy cites a US study of more than 5 million births, which found that babies born by medically unnecessary caesarean were three times as likely to die in the newborn period as those born vaginally.The new policy also obliges health professionals to advise women about the implications for subsequent pregnancies. A 2005 study of 136,000 second pregnancies across NSW found those women who had had a caesarean first delivery were at much greater danger of a ruptured uterus, hysterectomy orinfection, while their babies were more likely to be premature, have serious breathing problems or need intensive care. Elective caesareans have increased by 25 per cent since 2001, and now account for one in six births. Many of these are for medical reasons, but doctors say more women are opting for caesareans from preference. Andrew Child, a member of the NSW Health Maternal and Perinatal Committee,which drafted the directive, said that while first caesareans were generally safe, dangers escalated steeply with subsequent births. Hannah Dahlen, secretary of the NSW Midwives Association, said: "People are... thinking of it as just another option for birth, rather than major abdominal surgery."JULIE ROBOTHAM
However, I have strong feelings about taking women's responsibility for their own bodies away from them and giving control over to the government to decide what is best for birth. Clearly, major abdominal surgery is a significant leap from vaginal delivery but is it really fair to insist that women must not have a technologised or interventionist birth if that is what they really want? Sure, some of you might say 'Well, how does she know what she wants if she doesn't know the risks?' That goes without saying but adult decision making is kind of like that. We make decisions about lots of things without knowing all of the associated risks. With birth, it seems like everyone seems to know what's best for pregnant women except women themselves.
We dont have to agree with the choices other women make but I think we need to respect them. I might not choose to have an elective caesar but I don't think my choice not to have one should prevent another woman from having one if that is what she feels comfortable doing. I think it would be a completely different story if for instance, the NSW government decided to ban women from having pain-reducing drugs during labour because pain relief is non-surgical. All of the most common pain killing drugs have side effects and there is plenty of research to support that. Hell, epidurals are injected into the spine. That's a major risk; but women who want to have less pain in labour should never be forced to 'suffer' needlessly and many women are willing to take a risk to be comfortable. I think this is the same issue. Maybe it seems a little strange to some of us that a woman would rather have surgery than give birth vaginally but in my own work, I have interviewed a number of women who have had elective caesars for various reasons. Fear of pain is a primary reason and who can really fault them for that? It's not my place to do so and it's not the government's place either. Women need to make up their own minds about how they have their babies. Caesareans should remain an 'option' because women should have every opportunity available to them to have a comfortable birth and if that means being cut open, who am I to judge?
Caesars can either serve or impair women's agency not so much by the inherent character of the procedure (in terms of obvious physical risks), but in how the politics surrounding elective caesareans coalesces with the needs of variously situated women (economically and politically and also varying by race, class, and sexuality). What is 'good' for some women is not necessarily appropriate for all women.
NSW hospitals move to block caesarean option
7 April 2007, The Age
WOMEN will not be allowed to insist on caesarean deliveries in NSW public hospitals without a medical reason, under a new health department policy. Under the new rules, women must be told in detail about "the benefits and risks of caesarean section compared with vaginal birth specific to the woman and her pregnancy". The policy cites a US study of more than 5 million births, which found that babies born by medically unnecessary caesarean were three times as likely to die in the newborn period as those born vaginally.The new policy also obliges health professionals to advise women about the implications for subsequent pregnancies. A 2005 study of 136,000 second pregnancies across NSW found those women who had had a caesarean first delivery were at much greater danger of a ruptured uterus, hysterectomy orinfection, while their babies were more likely to be premature, have serious breathing problems or need intensive care. Elective caesareans have increased by 25 per cent since 2001, and now account for one in six births. Many of these are for medical reasons, but doctors say more women are opting for caesareans from preference. Andrew Child, a member of the NSW Health Maternal and Perinatal Committee,which drafted the directive, said that while first caesareans were generally safe, dangers escalated steeply with subsequent births. Hannah Dahlen, secretary of the NSW Midwives Association, said: "People are... thinking of it as just another option for birth, rather than major abdominal surgery."JULIE ROBOTHAM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)