Unassisted childbirth: why mothers are leaving the system

Unassisted childbirth is a topical subject that has sparked ethical and legal debate. Although there are little data surrounding unassisted birthing practice, concerns over consent, procedural intervention and loss of the birthing experience may be driving women away from formal healthcare. The healthcare system needs to work toward understanding this practice and, perhaps with the support of legislation, address the concerns of mothers in order to ensure optimal childbirth outcomes.

[Elective cesarean section on maternal request--what's new?]

Elective cesarean section on maternal request is a debatable issue with regard to all of its aspects. Current literature discusses topics such as its prevalence, risks and benefits in comparison with vaginal delivery, as well as ethical, judicial and economical questions regarding its execution. We reviewed the relevant literature from the last decade. There are no clear research findings which indicate that overall, elective cesarean section on maternal request is better, or alternatively, more perilous, in comparison with vaginal delivery, from both maternal and fetal or neonatal aspects. Due to its prevalence, there is a need for the obstetric establishment in Israel to make a formal statement regarding its attitude towards this issue.

Improving patient-doctor communication about risk and choice in obstetrics and gynecology through medical education: a call for action

The authors suggest that three articles published in the Fall 2013 issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics could be used in graduate medical education to help students be more prepared to address differences in professional opinion and improve their skills in patient-doctor communication.

Moral science: ethical argument and the production of knowledge about place of birth

Ethical arguments about caregiver responsibility and the limits of client autonomy rely on best evidence about the risks and benefits of medical interventions. But when the evidence is unclear, or when the peer-reviewed literature presents conflicting accounts of the evidence, how are clinicians and their clients to recommend or decide the best course of action? Conflicting evidence about the outcomes of home and hospital birth in the peer-reviewed literature offers an opportunity to explore this question. We present the contrary evidence and describe the social and cultural elements that influence the production of the science of birth, including professional, publication, and critical bias. We then consider how the science of birth has been used an misused in making ethical arguments about preferred place of birth. We conclude with a number of recommendations about the responsible use of the evidence, arguing for an "ethics of information" that can be drawn on to guide caregivers and clients in the use of evidence for clinical decision making.

Revisiting "The maximin strategy in modern obstetrics"

Published in 1981, "The Maximin Strategy in Modern Obstetrics" offered two claims: first, that obstetrical interventions ought to be assessed not singly, but rather as packages of interconnected measures that could cumulatively increase risks of harm; and second, that many of these interventions, considered either singly or as a package, lacked a sound evidence base. The first claim has been well supported by later literature, although the term "cascade effect" has proven a more felicitous descriptor for the phenomenon of interventions that trigger the use of other interventions to monitor, prevent, or treat possible side-effects. The second claim was initially supported in a very inadequate way, since the "Maximin" article appeared before an understanding of the methods of systematic reviews of medical evidence had been widely promulgated. Despite these defects, subsequent, rigorously conducted systematic reviews have tended to confirm the impression first offered in 1981, that practices that support physiologic childbearing and the innate, hormonally driven capacities of childbearing women and their fetuses/newborns are much more in keeping with the available evidence than practices involving common or routine high-technology interference with physiologic processes. Harm may occur either directly, through high-technology interventions, or when such procedures distract attention and resources from safe, effective biological processes and lower-technology measures. Surveys indicate a lack of knowledge of this evidence among childbearing women, signaling a serious ethical deficiency in shared decision-making processes and perhaps the skills and knowledge of maternity care clinicians.

Ethics and the architecture of choice for home and hospital birth

In this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, we offer a variety of perspectives on the moral and medical responsibilities of professionals with regard to a woman's choice of where she will birth her baby. The articles in this special issue focus on place of birth, but they have larger resonance for clinicians whose decisions about providing the best possible care require them to sort through evidence, consider their own possible biases and the limitations of their training, and balance the wishes of their patients with the demands of colleagues, hospitals, and insurers. The articles published in this special issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics will help those who wrestle with such dilemmas in everyday clinical decision making.

Seeking an alternative baseline for birth

Birth is a spiritual experience for mother and baby. Women need information and psychological preparation before birth, and a knowledgeable companion during birth. Unless medical intervention is needed, medical personnel should step back and stay out of the way.

Planned home birth in the United States and professionalism: a critical assessment

Planned home birth has been considered by some to be consistent with professional responsibility in patient care. This article critically assesses the ethical and scientific justification for this view and shows it to be unjustified. We critically assess recent statements by professional associations of obstetricians, one that sanctions and one that endorses planned home birth. We base our critical appraisal on the professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics, which is based on the ethical concept of medicine from the Scottish and English Enlightenments of the 18th century. Our critical assessment supports the following conclusions. Because of its significantly increased, preventable perinatal risks, planned home birth in the United States is not clinically or ethically benign. Attending planned home birth, no matter one's training or experience, is not acting in a professional capacity, because this role preventably results in clinically unnecessary and therefore clinically unacceptable perinatal risk. It is therefore not consistent with the ethical concept of medicine as a profession for any attendant to planned home birth to represent himself or herself as a "professional." Obstetric healthcare associations should neither sanction nor endorse planned home birth. Instead, these associations should recommend against planned home birth. Obstetric healthcare professionals should respond to expressions of interest in planned home birth by pregnant women by informing them that it incurs significantly increased, preventable perinatal risks, by recommending strongly against planned home birth, and by recommending strongly for planned hospital birth. Obstetric healthcare professionals should routinely provide excellent obstetric care to all women transferred to the hospital from a planned home birth.The professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics requires obstetricians to address and remedy legitimate dissatisfaction with some hospital settings and address patients' concerns about excessive interventions. Creating a sustained culture of comprehensive safety, which cannot be achieved in planned home birth, informed by compassionate and respectful treatment of pregnant women, should be a primary focus of professional obstetric responsibility.

When a mother wants to deliver with a midwife at home

In this special issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, different views on both the ethical desirability of women delivering in hospitals or at home with midwives are discussed. What careproviders, including midwives, should recommend to mothers in regard to the place of giving birth is considered. Emotional concerns likely to be of importance to mothers, fathers, midwives, and doctors are also presented. Finally, possible optimal approaches at the levels of both policy and the bedside are suggested.

A reconsideration of home birth in the United States

Home births continue to constitute only a small percentage of all deliveries in the United States, in part because of concerns about their safety. While the literature is decidedly mixed in regard to the degree of risk, there are several studies that report that home birth may at times entail a small absolute increase in perinatal risks in circumstances that cannot always be anticipated prior to the onset of labor. While the definition of "small" will vary between individuals, and publications vary in the level of risk they ascribe to birth at home, studies with the least methodological flaws and with adequate power often cite an excess death rate in the range of one per thousand. Home birth is, in that regard, but one example of patients' choices and plans that sometimes carry increased risk or include alternatives that individual physicians feel uncomfortable supporting or recommending. Our intention in this opinion piece is not to advocate for or against home birth. Rather, we recognize that home birth is but one example of a patient choice that might differ from what a provider feels is in a woman's best interests. In this article we will discuss ethical considerations in such circumstances using home birth as an example. We consider in this article how the ethical principles of respect for autonomy and non-maleficence can be balanced using, among other examples, the choice by some for a home birth. We discuss how absolute rather than relative risk should guide individuals' evaluation of patient choices. We also consider how in some circumstances, the value and safety added by a physician's participation may outweigh a potentially small increment in absolute risk that might result from a patient's decision to deliver at home because of a perceived physician endorsement. We recognize, however, that doctors and midwives participating in choices they have not recommended, or may even believe will lead to or increase risk for adverse outcomes, presents dilemmas and raises important questions. When does respect for patient choice and autonomy become support for poor decision making? When is participation not respectful but enabling? Finally we discuss the role and responsibility of organized medicine in making all births as safe as possible.