With a Caesarian Section rate of 58% in our low risk anglosaxan women last week I am so glad to find a polictical party who is willing to try and place some sense into birthing services in Australia. As one antenate said to me I was made to feel that I was placing my baby at risk because I wanted to have a natural birth. Overservicing is costing our country a fortune. It disempowers mothers and leaves them with limited confidence to birth, feed and mother their children.

Mr Vernon,

In reply I would to clarify that I was not threatening litigation. My only intention was to point out that freedom of speech is still subject to restriction by the law and that unsubstantiated political rhetoric is vulnerable to civil action when it slanders or defames a person, organisation or group of people without credible cause. Secondly, I would like to reassert that although What Women Want Australia Party is a new minor party, it is still naive to believe that broad position statements can replace critically constructed policy when faced with a pending election. Policy is not constructed as a measure of a parties ability to govern. It is a substantive, detailed critic on the merits of the parties position on individual issues. A metaphorical measuring stick by which the electorate can judge the value and intent of a party against competing interests. Before I rebut the major point of your previous blog, please allow me to explain, that I do not disagree with the majority of What Women Want Australia Party’s position statements, but it does scare me that a political party with extremely vague ideological grounds could gain a seat in the Senate for the next 6 years. This is incredibly unlikely, but it is the sole reason I am raising my concerns.

In Rebuttal:.

The socialisation of services to provide quality essentials for all people in society, regardless of class or social status, remains a high priority in Australia within both sociological and political debate. In order to determine the impact of the health policies enacted in this socialisation process, it is essential to remember that the public health system exists to provide basic level health care to an extreme number of recipients, with a wide range of conditions, all of which vary greatly in the severity. The emergence of the Alternative, or Natural Birthing Movement is of considerable concern, not only for the individuals receiving these services, but also for the wider community who will eventually sacrifice other essential services if these fringe techniques gain excessive public funding.

Beckett and Hoffman (2005) when discussing the challenge by the Alternative Birth Movement to the authority of modern, scientific medical professionals argued that our belief in the western way of birth is “embedded in a modernist epistemological framework that conceives of the body in mechanistic terms and seeks to eliminate risk through the application of science, professional expertise and technology.”. The primary objective of the medical approach to birthing, being to eliminate risk at the greatest levels possible, by the application of the aggregate of societies knowledge and technology. Whilst extensive testing and intervention may appear to be utilised primarily to avoid litigation, the use of these procedures in fact ensures that every possible precaution is taken as opposed to merely providing all testing that the doctor feels is necessary. No litigation would be possible if our courts had not deemed it professionally negligent to fail to take all available precautions when dealing with a person’s life. Reference to statistical associations between maternal morbidity and obstetric intervention are highly inconclusive as the data does not allow for variation in the risk levels of cases referred to medical birthing units as opposed to alternative birthing units. This unfortunate misrepresentation of data, whilst confirming that for a completely healthy women with no complications, alternative birthing can be as safe as medical birthing, it also clarifies that the objection to the high rate of obstetric intervention in Australia is potentially unfounded. It appears quite contradictory that organisations that feel it is essential that a women be given the right to chose to abort or not to abort their unborn child, baulk at the statistical representation of women being given comprehensive medical treatment and the choice of access to pharmacological pain relief and other forms of minor and major obstetric intervention. Whilst other alternatives may be more psychologically supportive of the women in a birthing situation, the public health system allows for a complete spectrum of hospitalised care and further research needs to be conducted into the social and cultural factors present in society that contribute to medical treatment causing dissatisfaction with the birthing process.

The National Maternity Action Plan (MC, 2002) articulates significant perceived benefits of a Community Midwife Program. However, at no stage in this article does the author demonstrate greater community value in the application of a socialised Midwife program and essential feasibility factors such as initial infrastructure costs, increased strain on the Emergency Services due to higher levels of patients needing to travel to hospital during labour and the management of a staff of Midwives large enough to allow face to face contact with each woman who requires their services. These factors are also made more difficult in suburban and metropolitan areas. The figures cite in the aforementioned article claim that $29,000 per 100 women could be saved by introducing publicly funded alternate birthing (MC, 2002). However, the initial infrastructure costs alone of a plan on this scale could perceivably run into the tens of billions and would cripple an already fragile public health system. The maternity policy of the public health system is not in fact broken, nor is it perfect, but if we are tempted to socialise unnecessary fringe services then this situation could rapidly worsen. Community Midwifery is a valid consumer based product that should feel perfectly at home in the private hospital system.

In a study on the decision making process of women choosing different models of health care in Tunisa (Auerbach, 1982), it can be determined that the less qualified the attending midwife is, the more likely hospitalisation will be required. For women in Tunisa there are three kinds of health care available; lay midwives called qable, nurse midwives called sage femme and hospital based medical practitioners. In a table in Auerbach’s (1982) article 28% of the qable’s patients also require hospitalisation and 9.4% of the sage femme’s patients require hospitalisation. This raise’s a valid argument against the practice of unsupervised midwifery as a substitute for medical treatment. Impartial and impersonal medical supervision should not be viewed as contradicting the process of having access to a midwife in a public hospital. This is the best of both worlds as the system allows for the experiance of the midwife to make the women’s as comfortable and safe as possible, whilst allowing the doctor to take over if something were to go wrong. This is the current policy in many if not all NSW’s hospitals and whilst the finer details may vary from doctor to doctor, the same can be said for any profession.

In summation, the socialisation of Alternative birthing techniques has the ability to undermine proven safe alternatives and the true cost could devastate the public health system. However there is a place for alternative birthing as a consumer health service in the private sector. In our society you have a right to medical care, but the public should not have to fund programs with limited or no substantial benefits at the detriment of other essential health services. The National Maternity Action Plan proposed funding levels and referred to the multiple billions that would be required to implement the program as “seeding” (MC, 2002) money. No responsible government could consider introducing a program of such high cost with such limited returns. Do you believe the Electorate will not realise that?

"As editor of the book "Men at Birth" I have spoken with many, many men and know how our current maternity services are letting men down (as well as their partners and babies). Our maternity services are not based upon scientific evidence and the care and concern for child and parental health, but on maintaining the status quo for a small group of highly paid doctors and avoiding litigation at all costs."

Thanks for speaking for all of us (not). My partner and our children were supported by brilliant midwives and obstetricians in a public hospital - the commentary you make deriding those who work in birthing services in hospitals is pathetic and shows no respect for those dedicated professionals let alone for the families that choose to use those services.

Mr Vernon,

I have no idea what your comments about the 35 year old footballer mean. They bear no relation to the facts mate.

To pluck out of the air some vague blame on some diagnostics for maternity aspreventing other surgery is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

The hospital system of Australia is under such stress for one reason. Under funding by government's. That's it.

You might as well blame all cancer sufferers for delays as maternity cases.

Don't know which rock you came out from under but I'd prefer you turned turtle and stayed there.

Could I ask you to be more specific about your vague comments on this issue please as what you have written makes as much sense as Howard's refusal to even consider withdrawal from Iraq. No sense at all.

Mr Vernon,

If only the political skill of What Women Want Australia Party matched the obvious passion they appear to hold towards their issues. Every political party, no matter how distasteful their ideas, issue’s and ideology are; should be allowed to participate in the democratic process. However membership should always be based on these ideologies and not on a phenotypical or gender related basis. The launch press releases proclaimed What Women Want Australia Party as a women’s only political party and in this era of assumed equality, this idea goes against the very fabric of liberal society. It is most concerning that you speak of conservative government with such distain and yet the party that you are writing in support of push beyond conservatism into the territory of a reactionary political party with their gender entry policy. Change the name of the party to What Men Want Australia Party, go back in time 40 to 50 years and social conservatives would be gearing up behind you all. What Women Want are no different to how the organisations that they are criticising were in the past.

Furthermore, no policy that has been discussed or supported on this website is based on fact or reality. It is purely the result of one sided propaganda and rhetoric. To demonstrate this take the blog that you have written.

Firstly, you attribute the extended waiting time of the “35 year old ex-amateur football player” for knee surgery to expensive ultra sounds and diagnostic testing involved in antenatal care. Please tell me you regretted pressing the submit button after writing that. The public health system in Australia is incredibly complex, owning to numerous factors, not limited to but including, the provision of a near universal health care system, increased technology (allowing more and better treatments and therefore a greater workload for the system to handle because you now don’t just die when you get really sick), the ageing population, increased litigation, increasing population and also the ever increasing cost of security around hospitals caused by other social problems. These are the realities of our health care system. The end result being that people sometimes have to wait too long for different procedures and I agree that this is a problem. However as a father of two, I believe blaming ultrasounds and diagnostic testing, as major contributing factors to this problem is as irresponsible as it is false and if you have any scruples as a writing you should retract that comment immediately.

Secondly, you wrote “Our maternity services are not based upon scientific evidence and the care and concern for child and parental health, but on maintaining the status quo for a small group of highly paid doctors and avoiding litigation at all costs.” Whilst after the first comment you should probably feel silly, this comment is disgusting and is the unavoidable plague on free speech. The entire medical profession is based on sound and scientific evidence. The professionals who invest their time and money in learning this area of expertise are the “small group of highly paid doctors” who you attacked. Myself being a father who does not like the medical profession very much, let me tell you, that you do not hold any concern for their high pay when they wheel that Neonatal Intensive Care Unit trolley into the room because something has gone wrong! Midwives are great a their jobs, but please do not ever slander the credibility of the current medical profession in a public forum to gain cheap political support. Do not steal that trust from parents! Also, welcome to the litigation age. If you continue writing in the manner displayed in your blog you may just find yourself on the wrong side of some litigation

In summation, the Australian Electorate are well experienced at seeing through the rhetoric of professional political parties, therefore a group that also has the additional flaw mentioned in my first paragraph will be justifiably destroyed by the democratic process. For those who like this party on the surface, please look into a little further and fully understand who in fact you are supporting. Without holding any opposing ideology or political interest, I ask all viewers of this website to demonstrate that the electorate will not support What Women Want Australia Party, no mater how catchy their name or how fluffy or nice their policies sound.

Regards,
Mark Boxsell