Related Articles

5 Comments

  1. 1

    Venise Alstergren

    Why, in the name of god did scientists and inventors labour so hard and so long, with bugger all in the way of renumeration to invent anaesthesia ; one of the main beneficiaries being women undergoing childbirth and doing it in something less than total agony, only to have it all flung back in their, fortunately, no longer existent faces by mindless females who, quiver, quiver, see the whole sordid process as being semi-divine?
    If it was a semi-divine process how come the world’s population at about 6.5billion people arrived at this number so readily?

    Reply
  2. 2

    Decider

    why in the name of god you ask. Well, anaesthesia is fine for those who need it due to being in agony, but some people would prefer to use pain relief that doesn’t actually drug the baby. Drugging the baby means they have trouble attaching to the breast in those first vital moments of bonding.

    Feeling safe and supported inhibits adrenaline and lets the endorphins flow. Endorphins are powerful pain relievers that don’t damage the baby. Instead of just jumping straight to the man made drugs some people would try to use nature’s design first. Most women who feel safe and are surrounded by supportive birth attendants and who are able to birth in the way that is their first choice don’t describe giving birth as being in “agony” anyway. These women are usually very happy with their birthing experience, have more success at breastfeeding therefore produce healthier offspring, and have less post natal depression.

    Its not a matter of being semi-divine, its actually what the majority of women actually want for their birth experience. Those who don’t are very well catered for but they are actually the minority.

    If its not hurting anyone, and if its attended by a trained midwife with back up available in the case of transfer being needed, then of course it isn’t hurting anyone, then women’s choices should be respected. Its actually none of anyone elses business, whether they are a scientist or not.

    Reply
  3. 3

    doxie

    I think most people see this as dangeres because they don’t understand what a midwife is and what there potential they really have they see them as a glorified attendant to the doctor.
    now I come from a family of medical people grandmother mother all midwife RN and to put it blindly the only reason any of us (the children ) needed to go to the doctor was for broken bones (which there were quite a few) and non over the counter medicine like antibiotics.
    I have complete faith in a midwife assisted birth because most of the births in hospitals never see a doctor

    Reply
  4. 4

    Greg Weeks

    Surely all of this is beside the point. This is a debate about insurance, not freedom of choice. As I understand it, there is nothing in the legislation preventing women from giving birth at home or anywhere else. It simply requires that attending midwives have appropriate insurance coverage. That this is offered to midwives operating in the controlled confines of a hospital is readily understandable. That insurance companies baulk at providing this coverage at the same rate to midwives attending home births – inherently uncontrolled situations – is, I submit with respect, equally understandable. This does not prevent people who want their children born at home from obtaining that outcome, it simply means that it is a choice that comes at a greater cost.
    Far from opposing midwives assisting in childbirth, my reading of this legislation is that it gives them overwhelming support. This is to be applauded. Both of my children were born (in hospital) with midwives but not doctors attending. The midwives in each case did sterling work. For reasons beyond this debate, my wife and I were nonetheless very glad to be in a hospital on each occasion.
    I suspect that much of the debate (not necessarily the comments above) on this issue is somewhat uninformed, some to the point of hysteria. The simple facts are that it makes sense to have midwives attend births where specialist medical assistance (ie from doctors) is not required but that if they are to do so, they should have insurance coverage as other professionals are required to do. The availability of insurance, or lack thereof, for certain situations is a fact of life – but hardly the fault of Nicola Roxon.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Zippy

    It is interesting to look at the UK experience of mid-wife lead home births.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey