Homebirths forced to go underground

If an Australian woman wanting give birth at home is Little Red Riding Hood, then the Rudd government is the Big Bad Wolf.

Under the draft Health Practitioner Regulation Law released last week, homebirths will effectively become illegal.

How does it work?

According to the new law, all health practitioners (such as midwives) must hold indemnity insurance in order to legally practise. Considering the government and insurance companies have thus far been unwilling to include homebirth in the indemnity scheme, therefore, any midwife that attends a homebirth (even if qualified) will be subject to a fine of AU$30,000.

Homebirths will now be forced to go underground as Australian women are being stripped of their choices in childbirth. Now, it seems that a hospital is the only sanctioned venue for birth to occur.

Australian College of Midwives executive officer Dr Barbara Vernon said the Government's intentions were obvious.

"Even though only less than half a per cent of women have home births, they should have the same rights as a woman who chooses to have a caesarean," she said. "Home births won't stop."

Vernon touches on an important contradiction. Why is that women can still elect to have caesarean births which arguably carries much risk and the small proportion of women (about 2%) who want to give birth at home cannot do so even if the birth is attended by a qualified health professional?

I think unfortunately, the tragic death of Joyous Birth founder, Janet Fraser's baby in April during a homebirth has unfairly placed the blame on the venue of birth rather than any other medical factors that could have been integral to her baby's death. It is not clear how Janet's baby died other than it suffered from cardiac arrest and could not be revived.

The small proportion of instances where homebirth goes horribly wrong pale in comparison to the staggering complication and caesarean rates that women in the developed world are continually subject to as a result of needless intervention in hospital.

Seriously, K. Rudd. Leave the business of birth to women.

On that note check this uplifting tale of homebirth...

Insurance companies are evil

Again, sorry. I'm not normally this slack with my blogging. I do feel like I'm heavily pregnant with this damn thesis. I'm about 7 weeks from my due date and it's getting pretty hard to do anything these days without thinking about the birth. My head, hands and feet are swollen with visions of edited chapters, all of the typos still to correct and the insane amount of formatting still left to do.

Anyway, I've been wanting to write about this for awhile but couldn't find the time until now.

Apparently, the push (to not push) for caesarean births has finally come to a head. As impatient obstetricians continue to corral pregnant women into operating theatres, it seems that some American insurance companies are actually refusing to cover women with a history of caesarean births. As we all know, insurance companies will not come near anyone with anything remotely recognisable as a 'preexisting condition', it seems that given the impressive list of health risks associated with caesareans, insurance companies are keeping their hands off.

Women who had had caesars are being charged higher premiums or being denied insurance altogther. This covers both elective and emergency caesars. Given that the caesar rate is at an all time high--31% (eek!)---it is women who are suffering now. That doctors overuse the surgery and often do not allow women who have had previous caesareans to deliver vaginally (VBAC), women are now being labelled as undesirable insurance candidates by no fault of their own.

Some insurance companies have not excluded the procedure from coverage completely: One insurance company, Golden Rule, said they would pay for a caesar only if they would not have to cover another one for at least three years. Similarly, Blue Cross Blue Shield said they would cover caesars but only at the cost of a 25% increase in premiums for the next 5 years.

Nevertheless, in being denied medical insurance women and their babies are being placed at enormous danger. After all, it is only recently that the rates of maternal and infant mortality have increased since 2005 and the US has the second worst rate for newborn deaths of industrialised nations.

Does anyone have any experience with this? Have you been denied insurance?

Sources: http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=11061

Insure your pregnancy

It was only a matter of time before some forward thinking (read: money hungry) insurance company decided to swoop down on pregnant women as 'valued customers' in order to "keep pace with social trends and advances in medical technology".



ING has recently announced it it's new 'baby cover' as a way for pregnant women to 'insure' their pregnancies in the face of medical complication. Basically, women who have an ectopic pregnancy or eclampsia will get a $50,000 lump sum, while stillbirths qualify for a $10,000 payout (you would think it would be the other way around?!). As you might already have gathered, the insurance policy is aimed at 'older' mothers who are 'high risk' and the most inclined to be freaking out about their 'risk' constantly and therefore would be more willing to shell out money for insurance. As your age rises, so does your premium.


This makes me so insanely angry. Pregnant women are freaked out enough as it is. With all of the rules about everything from food to the kind of clothing you're 'allowed' to wear when you're pregnant, the idea that women need another institution telling them that they need to protect the lives of their unborn with the prospect of a massive financial pay out is ridiculous. The conditions that are covered under the policy are very rare and most women are very unlikely to develop them. Yet, now that the policy exists, more women will think that they have to insure themselves.

This is such a blatant money grab and ING does not provide incidence rates so women can assess whether they fall into a 'risk' category.

Sources: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/insurer-to-cover-birth-defects/2008/04/26/1208743326626.html