Do you want a perfect antipodean illustration of why a state monopoly on healthcare is bad thing?
As we already know, the government has its own ideas about what is acceptable for us, whether we like it or not. It's for our own good. Education. Welfare. Paediatrics. Mental health. Obstetrics:
A HOSPITAL that wants a mother to have her baby induced sent police to her home after she failed to keep an appointment yesterday.
Rochelle Allan, who is reluctant to be induced even though her baby is 12 days overdue, was told by the hospital they intended to go ahead with the procedure when she came in.
But after speaking to her midwife following a visit to the hospital the day before, and being assured her baby was fine, she decided not to attend the hospital the next day.
Dating can be an inaccurate science and many pregnancies exceed 40 weeks. A "normal" pregnancy lasts anywhere between 37 and 42 weeks, although some women regularly exceed 42 weeks.
Wanting a home birth, Ms Allan, 24, has been under the care of a
private midwife and had been attending the hospital daily to monitor
the baby's health.
"I couldn't believe it when I saw the police officers at my door," Ms Allan said.
"They told me they had been asked by the hospital to check on my welfare because I had not attended.
"The hospital knew I did not want to be induced and they gave me no medical reason why I should be."
This woman had made her own private arrangements for the birth. She had refused the hospital's automatic offer of an induction, as many women do. Taking all possible (and many would argue unnecessary) precautions, she had attended the hospital daily for monitoring. As the baby was safe and well, there was no possible reason for her to accept an offer of intervention that she deemed unnecessary.
But Rochelle Allan had gone against the system. So they sent the police round to her home.
Throughout her pregnancy, Ms Allan and her partner Daniel Jones have been regularly attending the hospital's antenatal clinic for mandatory tests and scans to monitor the baby's progress. A hospital spokeswoman confirmed police were sent to Ms Allan's house to conduct a "welfare check".
The spokeswoman said doctors were worried about the mother as she had previously complied with all appointments.
Ms Allan said that she had decided on having a home birth after a "horrific experience" at the same hospital two years ago when their son Bailey was born.
"I was induced and I spent 48 hours in labour," she said. "I don't want to go through with that again.".
Indeed. And as this spokeswoman demonstrates, it is a BAD IDEA to even enter into such a system (mandatory tests and scans? Not for me, thank you. I prefer to choose) if you want to be certain of retaining your autonomy and receiving what you deem to be good quality care. Women who elect to have their babies at home or in private facilities know this for sure. Perhaps Myleene Klass now feels similarly after being reprimanded by police for attempting to protect herself and her child in their own home.
Ms Allan is not against medical intervention and said she would not hesitate to deliver at the hospital if her baby's life was threatened.
"If they had told me that my baby was in danger then I would have the baby in hospital," she said.
"But they could give me no reason and all the tests show that there are no problems."
As almost every woman would,
if it was necessary. We are hardwired to protect our children. And is it then a surprise, when state provision is often so barbaric, that so many women are unwilling or unable to produce their babies under the hospital spotlights and require mechanical or surgical intervention they would rather have avoided?
By late yesterday, Ms Allan had started labour at home and was in the care of her midwife.
Excellent.
This afternoon (AEDT), Ms Allan received an apology from The Greater Western Area Health Service for the unexpected police visit, saying they just wanted to check she was alright.
"We are sorry if it ... caused her any distress but our intention was to check on her welfare," area health spokeswoman Sue-Anne Redmond told ABC Radio today.
The health service denied it was trying to pressure Ms Allan into being induced.
An apology was forthcoming after this woman continued to say NO and made this harrassment a public matter. The spokeswoman's explanation is absolute nonsense. How could sending police round to a heavily pregnant woman because she chose not to attend a hospital appointment be anything other than an attempt to terrify her into submission?
And, more to the point, what has it got to do with them?
Hannah Darlene from the Australian College of Midwives said calling on police to check on patients was not "common practice".
"It doesn't sound like someone who was shunning care in any way and under those circumstances it's certainly not common practice," Ms Darlene told ABC radio.
Indeed. It shouldn't be practice, full stop, regardless of the circumstances. This is what happens when healthcare becomes a "right". You will not be permitted to "shun" it.
The incident comes as the debate over the safety of homebirths continues, with the Federal Government under pressure to change the law to allow midwives insurance if they attend a home birth.
The Federal Government should not be dictating who may and may not
seek insurance; neither should they be attempting to control the ins
and outs of private arrangements between consenting individuals.
I cannot speak for Australia, but here in 21st century Britain there is no debate over the safety of home births. Women are safest birthing wherever and however they feel most comfortable. Comparatively speaking, the outcomes of elective home birth blow the outcomes of standard NHS hospital birth out of the water. Many women don't choose hospital in the way that some women choose to avoid it. They end up there, because everybody else does. That's not to deny that some women have good experiences, of course they do - but the figures speak for themselves. Does anybody ever wonder why episiotomy, assisted delivery and emergency c-section rates are often witheld on that mid-pregnancy tour of the maternity ward?
Homebirths Australia secretary Justine Caines said the case demonstrated how women "are too often treated during pregnancy and birth very poorly".
Irdial made the point here that men would never stand to be treated in the way that pregnant and labouring women routinely are.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists president Dr Ted Weaver said women were usually induced 14 days after their due date.
It would nice to know that usually, women chose to be induced 14 days after their (arbitrary, one-size-does-not-fit-all) estimated "due" date. And why, then, were they already harassing this woman who was only 12 days post-dates? I wonder if the weekend was approaching? Ah yes, it was.
"If the mum did not want to be induced after 14 days then you would conduct extra tests," he said.
Which the woman had already opted for, of her own accord.
"The reason people get worried about going overdue is because there's a slight chance that the baby could die suddenly in utero for no reason."
Throughout a woman's pregnancy there is always "a slight chance that the baby could die suddenly in utero". The chance of a baby dying may increase slightly if a woman passes 42 weeks, which Rochelle Allan had not, but it's simply not a straightforward correlation. And to say that death can occur "for no reason" is utterly disingenous not to mention idiotic: There is always a reason, whether an obstetrician can figure it out or not. But it is pointless to expect honest representation and a sensible, rational debate about causality from anybody who is desperate enough to feather his own professional nest by attempting to defend the indefensible.
It's all an irrelevance, anyhow. The only problem here is that one woman decided that she owned her body and her baby and she said NO - and that was sufficient reason for the state to spit its dummy out and attempt to stake its claim. Happily, she was not the vulnerable pushover they had imagined.
**Coming to this country soon: Will you be investigated by police for possession of child pornography after taking photographs of your baby breastfeeding?**
Bring it on, you bastards. Let's see how far you get.
