Home Birthing in Australia - Coursework Example

Home Birthing in Australia The issue of whether hospital birthing is more advantageous than home birthing with midwife assistance is still on debate in Australia. According to Anderson & Stone, (2012, 54) some women prefer one way while others favor the other. There are several advantages that a woman can get when she gives birth in a hospital. In case of complications and emergencies, the woman undergoing the birthing process is always taken care of. The issue of hospital birthing has been supported by many governments around the world. However, Teijlingen, Lowis & McCaffery (2004, 34) argue that times are changing and hospitals are no longer fashionable for some expectant mothers. They claim that giving birth at home has its advantages and that it is as good as a hospital birth if professional midwives are involved and all requirements are met. Home birthing in Australia is not as risky as it is made to look especially when the woman is healthy. The level of safety in home births for healthy women is equal to that of hospital birthing for healthy women. Women should therefore be allowed the freedom to choose whether they want to give birth at home or go to hospital. This essay will argue that home birthing when done under optimum circumstances is a safe alternative to hospital birthing. Pregnant women in Australia have few choices to make when their day of delivery is near because legislation does not grant them the freedom to have midwives attending to them at home, and the facilities for home birthing such as birth centers are missing (Selin 2009 p 90). Hospital birthing is recommended both by law and medical practitioners as the best method for delivery. However, there are cases of women who would not want to go to hospital because they prefer home birthing. This group of women in growing by the day and home birthing is becoming very important in Australia. Governments in New Zealand, Europe, United Kingdom and Scandinavia give support and employment to homebirth midwives (Pairman, Tracy and Thorogood 2011p54). In the Netherlands, where more of than 30 percent women deliver through home birthing with the help of a midwife, over 500,000 births indicated that the location of the birth has no effect on neonatal results. Natural birth is the way to go and many women would find home birthing welcome and safe. Those who support natural birth state that between 90 and 95 percent of women can give birth by natural means when provided with the best conditions. The maternity system in Australia today is outdated because no considerable changes are made to go with the changing times and wishes of mothers and healthcare givers (Page, Percival 2000, 115). The country should move forward by building birthing centers. It should also create a homebirth midwives system endorsed by the government for those women with pregnancies that have a low risk (Page, Percival 2000, 115). A huge percentage of women seeking to have home births are running away from the traumatic birth experiences they have had in hospitals in the past. Some of them complain of insensitivity in obstetric services and the inflexibility of maternity services that are not capable of satisfying their needs (Barnes and Rowe, 2008 p77). A study done in 2008 on 2, 792 mothers and reported on the Fairfax Essential Baby Website showed that women with hospital birth histories have had traumatic experiences and unsatisfactory services because of the overstretched system (De Costa 2008 p53). For example, women have complained of the maternity clothes famously known as “one size fits all” which are seen not to be taking care of the needs of specific women. Women are of different sizes and cannot be expected to fit in one size of garment for all of them. The maternity service in Australia is also reported to have conflicting counsel and information that comes from the organization of staff where by a known care giver is not secured at the time a woman receives admission into a hospital (Fahy et al., 2008, 63).Certain caregivers tend to undermine the confidence that people have in the services they get and the decisions arrived at. Chances of women dying in child birth are very low in Australia (Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, 2012). Pregnant women have a lot of fear for the process of giving birth today than ever. Fear remains among pregnant women because they have a perception that their birth processes can be risky especially if they go to hospital. This risk is real because each pregnancy is treated with a lot of suspicion in the maternity services. The media in Australia have even described the process as an “antenatal scare.” A study done by Broom & Adams (2012, 67) on women who had given birth in hospital showed that most of the interventions they got at the hospital were not as a result of need. Some of them had problems because of surgeries that were unwarranted (Gurevich, and Perkins, 2012). Whenever guidelines meant to ensure homebirth safety are ignored, problems normally arise. The guidelines prohibit homebirths where women get twins or have a breech baby away from hospital. Unfortunately, the above circumstances have caused infant deaths in home births and a lot of publicity has been given to these deaths. Many parents who have lost their children confirm that the loss of their babies was tragic whether it happened at home or in the hospital and that hospital birth does not give one a guarantee for the life of her baby. A study done by Nolan (2010, 67) on 50 women that had received their babies through home births showed that the mothers and their babies got the best chance of a healthy birth without any intervention. Such women remained strong and vibrant and were ready to take on the role of mothering their children. Responding to the 832 submissions made by women, major stake holders, health services and maternity care professionals to the National Review of Maternity Services, the federal government made an announcement of a huge reform program (Nolan 2010, 70). This government program highlighted the need for a balance between the improvement of the birthing experience of women and their safety. Expectant women are advised on government run websites to choose rationally when it comes to maternity services. These women are however regarded by maternity care professionals as untrusting or difficult whenever they attempt to seek for clarification about the decisions the maternity professionals are making for them. Those that opt to have more control over the birth process or opt for natural births are demonized (Davis-Floyd, Barclay and Tritten 2009, 113). According to McMurray and Clendon (2010, 80) International evidence is available in sufficient quantities to prove that healthy mothers giving birth at home and those going through hospital birth do not have any difference in their safety levels especially when they are cared for by qualified midwives operating under clear guidelines. There are very good safety outcomes for those women who go through home birth processes. However, misleading debates continue to spread fear and reduce confidence. Stakeholders in Australia have differing opinions on how safe home births are, even when planned (De Costa, 2008). Research evidence shows that care led by midwives and home births give better results for mothers and babies, give women better satisfaction and do not cost the government a lot (Kennare, Keirse, Tucker, and Chan, 2010).Those supporting the right of pregnant women to deliver at home see it as a normal and natural happening and that most women would give birth safely with no need for intervention. Those who support hospital birth on the other hand see it as safe since the birth process is full of danger and risks (Tiffen and Gittins (2004). The federal government and the health care professionals do not favor home births. They see them as unsafe and not necessary even when safety is guaranteed through qualified midwives. Midwives need to be assisted by the government for home births so that they can be able to pay the professional indemnity insurance. It is clear that tax payers in Australia helped obstetricians to pay their insurance premiums with an amount of $ 54 million from 2002 to 2006 (Fahy, Foureur and Hastie, 2008). Australia does not provide women with many options for home birthing. Only a small number of women choose to have a home birth under the care of a midwife with good qualification or under the care of a recognized midwife in a hospital or birth centre. There are no more than three homebirth services working together with public hospitals in New South Wales and about forty independent midwives operating in the entire state (Davis-Floyd, Barclay and Tritten, 2009). The federal government of Australia has in the past indicated that it could pass legislation that would deny pregnant women the choice to give birth at home with a midwife present (Broom & Adams 2012, 65). This is a gesture of limiting the choices that pregnant women have since the only remaining option would be hospital birth. Statistics show that only 3 percent of pregnant women in Australia give birth with the help of a midwife and not more than one percent gets babies through home births. Australia lags behind other developed nations when it comes to giving women the freedom of choice on matters of home birthing. In the UK for example, over 65 percent of pregnant women get midwives to be lead care givers while 2 percent get home births. In New Zealand, more than 76 percent of expectant women get mid wives to provide lead care while those going for home births are 6 percent. Mid wives attend to 46 percent of pregnant women in Netherlands while those taking home births are 30 percent. Australia remains behind other developed countries in health care provision for pregnant women as long as it restricts home birthing. Home birthing is publicized in the negative although healthy mothers going through the process have no complications. These statistics are however ignored for favor of stereotypes. The Australian federal government should remove all resistance against home birthing and allow women to choose where they want to give birth from. Mid wives should be assisted to pay indemnity insurance, and more birth centers should be built to serve those women with a fear for hospitals. Birthing in hospital has overwhelming support because the country is a no risk society. Good care is believed to be one that is technology intensive and that it is the best preferred for babies and mothers. In this kind of a society a parent is only responsible if she recognizes that a baby that has perfect health is more valuable than a perfect birthing process. They put their trust in those people taking care of them for their safety and willingly do that which they believe can help them have healthy babies at birth. Although hospital birthing is being promoted at the expense of home birthing, it is not the most suitable for all women. Some women desire to be allowed to make their own choices because they fear the traumatic experience of hospital delivery (Kitzinger, May, 1991). Some pregnant women hate the feeling of going to deliver in hospital because they see the hospital services as of low standard. They would rather they stay at home and have a midwife come there (Liamputtong 2007). Women prefer home birthing to hospital birthing because at home they remain in comfort and familiar surroundings and can dress whichever way they prefer. The woman controls all things and no violation of her wishes can be allowed. There is normal progress of labor with no intervention and infection risk is lower. In home birthing intervention can only be done when absolutely necessary as opposed to hospitals where surgeries are recommended even when the mother does not have any complication. Home birthing is as good as hospital birthing for a healthy woman. Therefore, it is necessary that women in Australia be given freedom of choice on whether they want to go to hospital for delivery or remain at home (Lúanaigh and Carlson 2005). Bibliography Anderson, B., Stone, S. 2012. Best Practices in Midwifery: Using the Evidence to Implement Change. Springer Publishing Company New York City. Barnes, M., Rowe, J. 2008. Child, Youth and Family Health: Strengthening Communities. Elsevier Australia. Broom, A., Adams, J. 2012. Evidence-Based healthcare in context: Critical Social Science Perspectives. Ashgate New York city . Broom, A., Adams, J. 2012. Evidence-Based Healthcare in Context: Critical Social Science Perspectives. Ashgate Publishing.Australia. Davis-Floyd, R., Barclay, L., Tritten, J. 2009. Birth Models that Work. University of California Press. Califonia. De Costa, C., 2008. Hail Caesar. Boolarong Press.Texas Fahy, K., Foureur, M., Hastie, C. 2008. Birth Territory and Midwifery Guardianship: Theory for Practice and education. Elsevier Health Siences. Cambridge . Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, 2012. Birthing Options. Available at http://www.health.wa.gov.au/havingababy/birth/options.cfm, Retrieved 7 November 2012. Gurevich, R., Perkins, S. 2012. Birth Plans for Dummies. John Wiley. Netherlands Kennare, R., Keirse, M., Tucker, G., and Chan, A., August 2010. Planned Home and Hospital Births in South Australia, 1991-2006: differences in Outcomes. The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol.192 (2): 76-80. Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/2/planned-home-and-hospital-births-south-australia- 1991-2006-differences-outcomes, Retrieved 7 November 2012. Kitzinger, S., May, M. 1991. Home birth: The Essential Guide to Giving Birth at Home. Dorling Kindersley. Netherlands Liamputtong, P. 2007. Reproduction, Child Bearing and Motherhood A cross cultural Perspective. Nova Publishers. Netherlands Lúanaigh, P., Carlson, C. 2005. Midwifery and Public Health: Future Directions, New Opportunities. Elsevier Health Sciences. Netherlands Mathews, C. 2004. Healthy Children: A guide for Healthcare. Elsevier Australia. McMurray, A., Clendon, J. 2010. Community Health and Wellness: Primary Healthcare In Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.New York City Nolan, M. 2010. Home birth: The Politics of Difficult Choices. Taylor & Francis. Australia Page, L., Percival, P. 2000. The New Midwifery: Science and Sensitivity in Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences. Netherlands  Pairman, S., Tracy, S., Thorogood, C. 2010. Midwifery: Preparation for Practice. Ashgate Publishing.Australia Selin, H. 2009. Child birth Across Cultures: Ideas and Practices of Pregnancy and Childbirth. Springer. Netherlands Teijlingen, E., Lowis, G., McCaffery, P. 2004. Midewifery and the Medicalization of Childbirth: Comparative Perspectives. Nova Publishers.Texas. Tiffen, R., Gittins, R. 2004. How Australia Compares. Cambridge University Press. New York City. Read More