Head in the sand: Contemporary Australian attitudes towards induction of labour.

Ambivalence in Australian thought on induction of labour, despite recent evidence, stands out in contrast to ever-increasing rates of this intervention. As consent obligations on information provision have crystallised in maternity care, this article examines whether consumer-led expectations and legal obligations may precipitate change to end the cultural stigma around induction of labour.

Have we lost sight of the women? An observational study about normality-centred care in Australian maternity services.

BACKGROUND: Prioritising normal birth has led to harm in some instances in the United Kingdom. While Australian organisations also promote normal birth, its negative impact is less well understood here. AIMS: This study explores the problems that may arise from the promotion of normal birth and the quality of clinical incident investigations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study uses a survey-based research design and has received 1278 responses. The main outcome measures include perceptions on bias against interventions, delays in interventions, systemic attempts to reduce caesarean rates, and clinical incident investigations. RESULTS: The perception among both obstetric and midwifery cohorts is that the promotion of normal birth may sometimes or frequently lead to bias against intervention for women (93.8% vs 63.2%), bias against intervention for clinicians (81.1% vs 53.1%), delays in interventions (86.8% vs 37.4%), maternal request caesarean sections being discouraged (81.2% vs 66.9%), an increased emphasis on vaginal birth after caesarean (88.1% vs 69.3%), and a culture of vaginal births 'at all costs' leading to poor outcomes for mothers and babies (79.5% vs 24.7%). Respondents believe clinical incident investigations to be 'frequently' independent (48% vs 48.2%) but engagement of women in these processes is often missing or 'rarely' seen (46.6% vs 51.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that Australian maternity healthcare providers believe institutional encouragement of normal birth has created work practices in maternity care that compromise patient safety and reduce the agency of the woman in the choices she makes. Current regulatory standards must change to reflect core ethical and legal obligations around informed consent.

Can We Deliver Better?

Human childbirth has been described as an "obstetrical dilemma". Evolution favours enlargement of the foetal brain, whilst bipedal locomotion demands a reduction in pelvic breadth for improvements in biomechanical efficiency. The result of this conflict is a human pelvis incongruous with the dynamics of childbirth. Acute genital distortion at delivery can inflict lasting damage to female pelvic function. Pelvic organ prolapse, urinary, faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction are long-term sequelae rarely discussed at antenatal care, impacting upon the expectant mother's ability to make an informed decision. The alternative option is the elective caesarean section, an abdominal incision bypassing the maladies of a vaginal delivery, although not without complications of its own. Childbirth remains an emotive event where evidence-based medicine can be disempowered, and the rising trend to "normalise" birth can disrupt care of the woman. This needs to be maintained in a healthy balance to best provide competent and safe care for women.