Anson Cameron glares truculently out from the AGE Saturday opinion page (photo, sadly, not featured on this online version) and dishes it out to all those panty-waists, girly-men, Deltas, Gammas and drones “with fat voices” who would dare to suggest that bushwalking by yourself in a remote alpine area minus emergency beacon, crampons and other necessaries? Maybe not such a great idea.
It’s sad to live in a time when a man is slated for walking alone on a mountain. A cowardly age where the supine pontificate through a spray of Cheezels crumbs. Could John McDouall Stuart have foreseen a day when Australians upbraided one another for going close to the edge? Could Albert Jacka have imagined so many of his countrymen would come to believe mollycoddling themselves through their allotted span and dying amid a symphony of chirps and beeps given off by medical machines was a life lived? What might Nancy Bird have made of an age where her fellow Australians sit there and tut, immersed in disapproval, while stunning themselves with whatever calorific high their lapbands allow? How despondent would Sir John Monash be to see so many of his countrymen lost in a Bermuda triangle of couch, TV and fridge?
…etc. Yes, I think we get the idea.
Other people were more about the positives of the Minister’s solo walk and the spiritual high which such an experience can give. A climber called Andrew Ramsay described the Mount Feathertop experience as like “a drug”.
‘It’s really spiritual. It’s communing with nature in a way, well to me, it’s like no other.
”I’m sure it’s the way surfers talk about big waves and solitary beaches. They’ve got the danger of getting washed on to the rocks or shark attack and things, and they’re out there surfing on their own in wild seas.”
One reason Tim Holding came in for criticism was the cost of his rescue, which was considerable (involving helicopters, 50-plus volunteers – with the concomitant risk to their lives and safety – plus a Super Seekrit spy plane which the owners, the Federal Police, hadn’t even unveiled yet. So, again the question was asked, and again the debate came down on the side of the bushwalkers, the solo boaters, the kayakers, and all the followers of extreme solo sports. Because awww, what a blow it would be to the human psyche if we weren’t allowed to push ourselves to the limit like that, even if in rare cases someone needs an expensive emergency rescue? How can we allow filthy lucre to dictate the extent to which we extend help to those who are prepared to go further than the next person?
Meanwhile, a debate with a very different tone was going on over at Crikey and the newspapers over the Victorian changes to the rules for home birth midwives, which turned, of course, into a debate about the pros and cons of home birth. The consensus on home birth seems to be that it’s terribly dangerous (which I haven’t researched in depth but appears to be untrue for properly regulated systems like the one they have in Canada) but also that it will direct taxpayer’s funds to the selfish wants of selfish, middle class (boo!) women!
Commenter “Chris Johnson”:
Since when did insurance companies hand out life policies to tight-rope walkers? If you use an unlicensed tradesman to build the family home you pay for the fall-out. So isn’t this debate about much the same? Improving birth options within the health system for the majority of users shouldn’t be interpreted as cracking down on a handful of people who prefer in this case to birth outside it. No one is preventing births from taking place at home or in the backyard swimming pool as long as liability for the outcome is accepted by those seeking the alternative. Directing taxes towards improved birth facilities in public hospitals where most births take place and where there’s a concentrate of medical and allied health professionals seems more constructive than handing out Medicare rebates to a minority opting for makeshift delivery rooms. We’d all prefer to be tucked up in our own environment when in need of family support but if we can’t offer the luxury to millions of ageing Australians it seems a bit rich to pander to .22% of our population. Our health system is begging for a revolution but there’s a national budget that can only go so far. Using taxes to install and upgrade facilities for the majority of birth experiences seems more logical and realistic to me. Wingnuts or selfish sods – take your pick Bernard.
What’s the difference between the two? Is it that extreme sports and exploratory solo journeys, while not exclusively done by men, are still dude-approved activities, while home birth is not something that any dude is thinking of participating in? Let’s line them up and compare:
Mountaineering dude: Very expensive for taxpayers. But it would be an inestimable blow to the human psyche if we discouraged people from following their dreams and pitting themselves against the wilderness.
Homebirths: Seen as expensive for taxpayers, so forget it. Selfish women.
Mountaineering dude: As the search and rescue leader told us repeatedly, Mountaineering dude could be responsible for the deaths or disability of others if there were further accidents out there as a result of the search in the terrible weather conditions. However, no injunctions against going out on Silly Walks.
Homebirths: If something goes wrong, a transfer to hospital is in order. If everything possible goes pear-shaped, it is possible that someone could end up dead or disabled. (The idea that this happens in hospitals too is rarely mentioned.)
Mountaineering dude: It’s a drug, it’s a spiritual experience. I need it to get away from the humdrum existence and relieve the pressure of my responsibilities. Chance to get close to something that’s bigger than myself etc…
The Plain People of Australia: Right on!!! And that spy plane is way cool boy-toy!
Homebirths: The experience of birth in the home environment will be immeasurably better for me and for the baby, although I always keep my responsibilities in mind throughout.
The Plain People of Australia: I’m not going to let the Government spend MY TAXES just so you can have YOUR EXPERIENCE, Lady.
And just a hypothetical – although one of these examples is true:
Mountaineering dude: Describes the Mount Feathertop experience as “a drug”. Is interviewed respectfully.
Homebirth mum: Describes her home birth experience as “a drug”. Is held up as an example of these irrational hippie moonbats.
Interesting, isn’t it? Mountaineering Dude and Homebirther seem to be a bit of a wash, risk wise. I can only surmise that it’s part of the tangled web of gender expectation. Men take risk, good; it all fits with the manly character (and the idea of venture capitalism) and is necessary and good. Also, their experience matters; they should be allowed to enjoy risktaking behaviour without criticism or undue financial …err, risk! (Wait, what?)
Women take risk, bad: Should shut up and do what we tell them to do. And their experience is neither here nor there. If they want a spiritual high they can do the Dude-approved thing and climb a mountain; Home birth, being very much womens’ business, can’t possibly be accorded the dignity – and tax dollars – that we assign to recreational climbing.
An excellent post. Sorry to confound those who expect different from me, but I think Helen has hit on a truly unfair disparity in the treatment of men and women, and I thank her for bringing it to my attention, as I know almost nothing about the homebirth debate. If anything, the comparison is even worse than portrayed, as bushwalking is purely voluntary whereas giving birth (once sufficiently pregnant*) is mandatory.
Regarding dangerous bushwalking (or any equivalent recreational activity), perhaps compulsory insurance paid at the gate is in order, or a refundable deposit. I have no desire to stop people spending their time gallivanting around the countryside if they so wish, but the expectation of a ‘free’ rescue will, ceteris paribus, engender more risk-taking than is socially optimal.
Then again, I have a preference for costs to be borne by those benefiting or taking the risk. Some call it neoliberalism
* LOL. “A little bit pregnant” springs to mind.
As someone that thinks home births are not middle class,but, may have become middle class,then being a single male working class I think the problem remains as it were,that the middle class are the problem.Given all the expensive technology,[outside the range of the average middle class persons] in hospitals,as an accumulative cost in decades ,rather than a statistical comparison across income groups its sad that opinion seems a bit grubby to home birthers and perhaps mid wives.Hospital stays today carry a significant risk in itself,thankfully, one is allowed the embarassment of riches to be reported in the news, like last weeks story about if hospital staff just washed their hands more often and thoroughly less disease would be spread around.[makes me laugh and choke like a sense of something deja vu]I suppose all those lovely salaries that end up in the hands of hospital staff,are more attune to credit facilities at ATMs,and thus one really hasn’t got time to consider ones’ personal hygiene!? On running in Mountaintops or even just walking.What is this garbage,that says, this was a costly rescue..it wasn’t.Most of the government employees would of been paid anyway, they like this sort of work because it tests their skills and thus are hyped up for other rescues of less demanding form.Helicopter flights in a rescue,until the question is asked in an accounting sense at the end of a financial year, could only be a cost with a extra bump over a comparative time.Skill loss due to conditions being easy is another possible assessment,which could then mean that the skills have actually improved.Different people working together,could have all sorts of economic spin offs as friends mates companions and professional staff,in money saving both official and personal lives etc.The rescued Minister may feel very confident about his rescuers,and thus,vice versa, and then when a opinion is sort or gained,then individuals become more important.A gain for effective efficient democratic Government. And did they all wash their hands!?
What Jarrah said. I understand that in at least some national park systems around the world, there is a sliding scale of payments that can be made at the gate depending on the danger of the proposed activity. As someone who (through accident rather than design, perhaps) has always fallen on the ‘dude’ side of the equation and undertaken fairly dangerous activities (variations on the hunting theme), then I would have no trouble paying.
Not to mention that homebirth can require far less medical intervention – and thus be considerably cheaper – than giving birth in a hospital. Risk assessment already takes place. And don’t forget all the rural women who end up giving birth at home or on the road, or spending up to a week far from home because of the lack of obstetric services in the country. And I don’t just mean in extremely rural areas – places like Portland regularly go without obstetric services. Maybe it’s just too expensive to make sure all women get the level of care they require or request – and we should just lock pregnant women in the cities where there’s a concentrate of medical and allied health professionals? But adventuring in the bush is great! Manly! Tough! Expensive!
(Note – I have never given birth and don’t intend to. But I have been bushwalking on Mt Feathertop.)
I’ve given birth to two children at home (with midwives) …
What an interesting study in contrasts.
I was on Falls Creek on Saturday morning and as it was such horrible weather I left at 11:30. I was frozen by the driving sleet. The fog was so heavy I was surprised when the Police Station loomed out of the murk. I was surprised that Tim Holding left Falls Creek and then climbed up Bungalow Spur. I was shocked that TV footage shows his mother appears to be more important to him than his partner. I don’t want Peter Pan as premier of this state.
I was told that up until 1960 most babies born in the UK were born at home. The still born rate was higher than Europe so all births were moved to hospital. Hospital births reduced the stillborn rate however the rate of birth defects rose to be at the same level as European disability rates. The thought was that midwives weren’t allowing disabled babies to take their first breath. Nowadays hospitals can keep babies born at 24 weeks alive – a pity the babies often has severe disabilities [like blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, mental retardation] that cost the community a lot of money to educate and provide additional health care for. Hospitals can damage normal babies. Private hospitals consider maternity services to be a cash cow because they only deliver normal births and the happy family can afford to pay for hospital care.
Now that we live in a litigious society people are unwilling to accept that bad luck happens and look for someone else to blame and preferably sue. I wouldn’t be a home birth midwife without being able to get insurance or indemnity from sueing.
Note, I have enormous sympathy for the “let people take risks in the mountains” argument, as someone who likes to walk myself! I wouldn’t stop Tim from going up Mount Feathertop again. (Myself, I’d favour the three-person rule – I think that’s just good bushcraft but HMMV.)
Good post Helen. One quibble, however: I am by no means an expert on these matters, but I think that a considerable body of evidence suggests that homebirth is no more dangerous than hopsital birth, and is significantly cheaper. Thus, both the high risk and high cost objections are rather suspect in their factuality. I fear that a post comparing it to extreme sports might unintentionally reinforce that homebirth is risky and expensive.
Nevertheless, your analysis of the gender issues is apt.
Helen, I understand where you want to go with this and your points about gender, risk and the relative financial costs are not unreasonable. On one level I inclined not to argue with you having seen multiple births by several women attended only by a midwife (admittedly in a hospital) and I cannot understand the current phobia surrounding home birth. One woman I know confided to me after her second homebirth that the worst thing was cleaning up afterwards…
But there is something dismissive about your characterisation of the feelings one enjoys by being exposed to risk in so-called adventure sports which I think demeans your argument. And yes, I do almost all my bushwalking solo
Good point Fmark. I guess what I’m saying is that any human activity will have edge cases. I’m *probably* not going to end up like Tim on the mountain because my bushwalking activities are relatively minor. So I would probably represent the vast majority of labouring mums (and indeed bushwalking potterers) and Tim would represent the unusual case who has to be rushed to hospital.
If that makes sense!
What interests me is the way in which Western society views risk as something quite good sometimes – in a venture capitalist sort of way – think how we praise business people for assuming risk, taking on risk, remuneration may be higher because of perceived risk.
Well put.
On a related topic, has anyone else read The Birth Wars yet?
Heh, just read the Crikey piece, and couldn’t quite believe this line:
No words…
“think how we praise business people for assuming risk, taking on risk, remuneration may be higher because of perceived risk.”
Because ideally it’s their own money they’re risking. But because that ideal is often not reached, that’s when we start having moral hazard problems and golden parachutes for failed executives and financial meltdowns precipitated by too much risk-taking and ginormous bailouts by duped governments.
You really should compare the insurance premiums of remote area and extreme sport tour guides with those of midwives who are working outside the hospital system.
The discussion about the merits or otherwise of homebirths or remote area sports isn’t the point.
Midwives offer services to the public and so do tour guides in exchange for money .
Both need certification and suitable insurance.
If neither group can afford the insurance then their customers are alert to the risks of using their services while they aren’t covered for acts of negligence and have to act accordingly.
If tour guides weren’t able to get insurance for say overland skiing and camping in remote areas do they deserve subsidised insurance ? Adventurous persons can always go it alone and take the risks or go with another group which has arranged insurance .
How many of the active midwives are working without insurance – I understood that as long as they were associated with a hospital they were covered by it’s insurance?
Do a significant number of midwives resent the pressure to associate with a hospital? As the first port of call when there is a problem with a birth I would like an informed person to elaborate on why working with a hospital is viewed as being oppressive.
I am happy for the midwives etc to be covered by the state.
I am just as happy for the cost of rescuing the Minister to be borne by the state. I mean, that stuff always costs a fortune, so what, that’s part of being in society, we pay for other people’s misfortune and/or stupidity. They seemed to put in more resources than they usually would, which is wrong, but…
On the other hand, I was not happy that we paid to rebuild the houses of the people uninsured on Black Saturday. One house burns down in the city uninsured, tough, on the street with you! A hundred houses burn down, oh no! Little Aussie battlers!
Like Helen, I’m keen on consistency. Most aren’t, though.
Reckon there’s also an element of control in the tone of much of the homebirth debate. That disturbing expectation that women seem to want to control their child-bearing options. Whether it’s birth control, abortion or homebirth – a woman’s demand for choice becomes subversive if it so much as hints at a threat to the potential child.
And of course no one, but no one controls mountaineering dude.
Not long before my mother died, we were going through some of her papers which included her birth certificate. Reading it I asked if she’d be born at home, as it seemed to be suggesting. With great indignation “of course!” she replied, “only really poor people were born in hospital”. And it’s an interesting point that Billie raises – with the level of antenatal care most women access, I suspect figures for homebirth would mirror hospital births re stillbirths.
Well, Monash was a civil engineer whose greatest peacetime accomplishments were as head of the old State Electricity Commission, so I doubt he’d have begrudged us all having refrigerated food.
Since when did admiration for experiencing the outdoors become outright Luddism?
(Helen, this is why I think it’s wrongheaded to compare that Age article to the debate over homebirth. This Anson Cameron sounds like he’d opposes epidurals, not home birthing.)
It is very dangerous to start demanding that rescues be paid for by the rescued. The problem is that there are often situations where the sensible thing to do is sit. The other problem is that if someone has had a serious accident the best chance of success comes by starting the search effort as soon as it is realized that someone is late returning.
However, once you start telling people that they are going to have to pay serious money if someone decides to come searching there will be a temptation to keep going instead of doing something more sensible. Perhaps it worth asking how much a year is spent on rescues and how often an experienced walker like Holding gets into trouble. Rescues are news because they are so rare.
Fifty years ago society encouraged young men and women to be adventurous and get our kicks from bushwalking, caviing etc. Fifty years ago youths taking risks with illegal drugs was almost unheard of. Perhaps we should put the cotton wool away and go back to encouraging adventure.
“Fifty years ago youths taking risks with illegal drugs was almost unheard of.”
Apologies if I’m wrong, but I think I detect a generational bias. Also, newsflash – drug experimentation is as old as humankind. Maybe you simply didn’t know about your peers doing drugs because you weren’t invited to those kinds of parties
It is interesting to ponder how this period in our history will be remembered. I am an avid bushwalker and I mostly walk alone … but always with a compass.
We are become too fearfull as a society. And some of this is explained in a new documentary … more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/not-evil-just-wrong/
When you can’t bushwalk ’cause your water has broke,
And a babe will soon join your clan,
When you don’t want to trust in a medical bloke,
A GOOD MIDWIFE IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
Jennifer Marohasy re: pro-pollution-as-usual spam
Ms Marohasy — why are you spamming the blogosphere with this polluter-driven nonsense? Not content with running this on your own site, you’ve hit John Quiggin and Deltoid too.
Risk is a most interesting subject and how it is socially constructed is central to this – Helen’s post brings up some of the contradictions nicely.
One of the things that people do is equate hazard as risk. So if there is a hazard and a consequence, the risk is treated as if it is imminent. This construction is accentuated within litigious society, because of the way that risk is seen in courts – and is especially poorly managed in many cases. An identified hazard is treated as a risk because of the consequence if it ends up in court. Sensible mitigation and the confusion between risk minimisation and risk management is totally overlooked.
So the social constructions of the risk between MAN and NATURE, and women and the reproductive cycle are central to this debate and brought out nicely by Helen. In most of the debate she highlights the commenters are arguing from within their own construction and show no insight whatsoever.
As to Minister Tim, the central point should not be whether it was a good idea or not to go soloing on Mt Feathertop, but whether it was a good idea on that particular day. On one hand, he had sunk costs in making the time available and preparation and it would have been difficult to re-schedule, so would have been loath to pull out. On the other hand he was not totally prepared for the worst case, which was much likelier than normal and known because of forecast impending weather. For an authority on this type of situation, I defer to Pete Goss as the authority. I’m acquainted with him because he lived in Oz for a few years as a kid. His early yachting experience was on Lake Boga, which is now dry (global warming).
In all his trips (except the first when he was in the Navy and they suggested he enter a cross Atlantic race with little preparation), Pete and his team do full scenarios of what may go wrong, so when it does, they are prepared. Unlike Tim sliding down the ice, Pete will tell you that in all his experiences, like the Vendee Globe solo yacht race where he backtracked and picked up Raphaël Dinelli, he has not felt out of control. So a key part of risk management is how well the preparation has been and whether the risk taker can manage the range of plausible outcomes if they occur.
So the point is not about whether a solo hike on Feathertop is or is not a good idea, but whether it was at that particular time. It wasn’t, but Minister Tim was pretty well equipped except for a GPS beacon, which he should have had. For some time I have criticised the Minister, not for his ability to make decisions, but for the decisions he makes. I would argue that his official decisions cost the taxpayer more than his unofficial ones.
On the other hand, everyone owns the reproductive cycle except for the woman who happens to be pregnant. People feel justified in fondling the pregnant woman’s belly unasked, offer applied medical advice and provide unwanted insights from folk mythology.
But in home birthing, risk can be pretty well managed. Screening, as with birthing centres, is there to ensure that the birth is likely to be normal, and there are a range of triggers to ensure that medical assistance is available should anything go wrong. Anyone who has been in a hospital knows that it is not risk free, and if you’re waiting on an obstetrician … (and there are fewer of those than there should be because society cannot manage risk associated with the reproductive cycle).
Why would a woman want a home birth, or even access to a birthing centre? Both birth and death, the most important events in the human life-cycle, are poorly managed by society because we cannot handle the idea of either. Why should these events not be managed with dignity? It’s not as if the risk is unmanageable. Many women, given the choice, would not give birth in an environment of plastic, metal, hard surfaces and machines that go beep if there is a more humane alternative but access to all those things if they need it. And don’t get me started on the patriarchal and unscientific stances of the medical profession generally. Roxon is aiding and abetting this.
In both cases, the ability to choose whether to take the risk should be granted to the individual because the alternative, society controlling the risk in order to “minimise” it, does not adequately manage both risk and benefit. The difference is the risk in solo hiking is to the individual and the risk in birth is both to the individual and the child. The benefits in both cases are there if the risk is adequately managed. Cosmic experiences in the mountains in the first place and cosmic experiences in the home in the other – or birth with (messy) dignity at least. So the risk should be differently managed and in the case of home births is. In the first example, any dill can climb Feathertop, in the second, there is a whole list of requirements that need to be met before a home birth can happen.
I would love it if wider society could have serious and mature debates about how risk is socially constructed and managed, but can’t see it happening.
Death at birth is natures method for keeping the machinery of birth within working tolerances. As human populations have overflowed the confinement of tribes or villages the mixing of genes leads to impossible fits from a natural birthing point of view. That is the main issue with birth intervention, and should be a consideration for mothers making their birthing choices.
Frankly, I detest safety fetishism in all the forms that it takes. So having a home birth is fine for anyone who wants to do it that way (anti abortionists excluded), as is taking a solitary walk. And as far as my taxes are concerned I demand that services are available for rescues of the very small percentage that become misadventures.
Great comment Roger and fleshes out a part of the topic I didn’t cover (to avoid TL;DR factor
) The different definitions of risk taking in our different subcultures and the difference between uncontrolled and controlled risk taking. Commenter John D mentioned organisations like scouts which teach bushcraft and are now seen as a bit uncool (and gender segregated), we need to find a way to make bushcraft cooler to the younger ones. This is very good (made daughter do this, she was very unenthusiastic about outdoor stuff at first,but she went willingly, had a blast, and learned heaps. She had to camp in the snow not that far from where Holding was.)
Jem Casey @21: Heh!
Except in venture capitalism we seem to becoming risk adverse, where risk management is the fundamental concern. The corollary of risk seems to be security, do the proven safe things and avoid risk. Don’t walk alone and don’t give birth at home. Stuff that!
On the other hand
is contrary to the fact that almost all “risky” financial ventures involve getting someone else to underwrite the risk, GFC anyone? So we live in an age where personal risky activities are frowned upon, yet corporate risk is defended as essential. Pander to the .22% of the population? Which .22% are we really pandering to?
Hi Helen – it really is intersting and quite often contradictory how humans see risk. Bruce Shneier has some good writings on this at http://www.schneier.com.
(an unfortunate image aided and abetted by our tourism industry). This, despite (depending on the hike) home birth being quite often safer.
Home birth is probably perceived to be more risky as there is “blood” involved, whereas hiking is not because the image projected is the classic “standing-on-the-headland-in-full-hero-mode”
As someone who goes rock-climbing (lead, trad for preference) I find it difficult explaining how this sport has low-probability of accidents with a high-probability of serious injury (if something does happen). I have literally been at greater risk doing the drive up to the Blue Mountains on a weekend. I know my attitude towards risk has been coloured by hanging around hikers/climbers for many years, but it doesn’t change the fact that how people regard risk (especially in others) is strongly effected by what they see in the media (who rarely help).
What you said @25 about daughter is fantastic – we’ve taken out friends kids (top-rope) climbing and even if they don’t get to the top they seem to have fun.
What David H said @26 – exactly!
Crossing the road is risky. Going shopping is risky. Walking down a flight of stairs is risky. Even eating at KFC can be risky.
As someone else somewhere else said ,’What about the people who really take risks with their well-being – the smokers and the obese?’
I just dunno if you’re comparing apples with apples here Helen. As Anson says in his (excellent! – thanks for the link) article, Holding HAS been criticised for taking risk, which you describe as blokey risk.
The midwife problem is one of insurance as I understand it. A person’s life insurance premiums go up if they buy a motorcycle.
Holding will get an ambulance bill if he’s not covered.
If you drew a ven diagram of the people telling you it’s immoral to ride your motorcycle, solo mountaineer or have kids at home, I reckon you’d find they were often the very same whingey self righteous prat.
I’ve hiked solo a lot in the past and I think its reasonable to expect people who do so to carry an EPIRB has part of basic safety kit. They’re small, light and no longer prohibitively expensive compared to other hiking gear people commonly carry and wear. I’ve always carried an EPIRB since a friend pointed out crawling back to my car with a broken ankle would not be a very pleasant experience. I also think we should be charging people for entrance to these areas where it makes sense (eg overheads won’t be higher than the money you raise) and the money can go to park maintenance and rescues.
As others have pointed out I think the analogy breaks down in that its more like the government refusing to subsidise the insurance of a hiking guide rather than the hiker. There was never any question that the mother or their child would not be looked after by the medical system for the rest of their lives if the mother chose to home birth even if what the midwife would be doing would have have been illegal, or even if negligence by the midwife was the cause of serious injury.
In some countries you will get charged for rescues, though as John D points out it can be cheaper to not discourage people to call for help when they think they may need it and I think this is the approach the authorities in Australia have taken. It doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be strong social pressure for people to take basic precautions (such as carry an EPIRB) when hiking alone (or in groups smaller than 4).
Great post, Helen, though I’m so mesmerised by the shrill, nay, hysterical fat-hate in the Cameron article that it’s quite hard to think past it to the gender comparisons. I think someone has Iss-ews.
What gets me is the suggestion that mountain hike risk takers should be limited to those who can afford the fee to enter a public park and afford an EPIRB at around 500 bucks min.
Homebirth and hiking should not be out of the question if you are low on funds. Let’s not go further down the American path to exclusive clubs for rights so basic.
I’m one of the people who thought that Holding was stupid for bushwalking alone in that terrain at this time of year, and that given his age, he ought to have known better. I don’t care about the costs of rescuing people, as I see that as the price of being civilised — but he still made a stupid decision. His is the equivalent of having an unattended homebirth without backup plan, while knowing you were in a high risk category. So the difference in attitude to the two events is even more extreme than Helen suggests.
Murph @ 14, I suspect that the independent mws’ choice is coloured by personal experience. Some hospitals and obs are oppressive in their approach to women; others are not. For example, I discovered that late in my second (high-risk) pregnancy, “someone” had booked me in for an induction without telling me! But that was far below the standard of respect and care I usually received from hospital staff.
I had an induction for sound medical reasons 5 days later, as advised by an ob. During the induction and delivery I was attended by midwives, not obs — a mw called the anaesthetist, and called the ob to stitch me up. For a birth with interventions, it was pretty satisfying. But I had done my research and can advocate well for myself, and was dealing with a hospital which obviously focussed on midwifery over obstetrics.
Why not? Solo hiking’s a dangerous activity; it’s not just [ahem] a walk in the park—it should be quite out of the question for people who aren’t prepared with wet/cold weather gear, good maps, food and water, and other gear. And to continue Sean’s analogy, if you want to ride a motorbike in Australia, you’ve got to buy a helmet and CTP insurance, and probably a decent jacket, boots, and gloves. It’s not as if anyone has to do these things.
Helen’s post is about risk, not fairness. There’s no analogy between arguing against EPIRBs on equity grounds using homebirth as a comparison, unless there are women making health and birthing choices as recreation activities, or as some kind of extreme sport.
Another agreeing this is an excellent post.
You’re said what I’d want to say about the homebirthing argument at the moment, Helen, so I’m going to focus on the hiking-while-alone bit.
I used to hike a lot (bad knees limit me now) and I come from a state where bushwalking is a very vibrant and important part of the culture, including solo wilderness walking. I’ve got no in-principle objection to people walking alone, but I think it is reasonable given the considerable expense to the state and danger involved for rescue personnel to dictate that solo walkers take certain precautions.
For all those saying the costs of EPIRBs is prohibitive, well firstly I’d argue that if you can afford to kit yourself safely for solo walking you can afford an EPIRB, otherwise you are arguably making a subconscious decision that it’s reasonable for others to risk life and limb to find you (the most dangerous part of wilderness rescue) whereas you clearly didn’t think it was reasonable to head out without several thousand dollars of other equipment.
Secondly the argument is something of a furphy anyway because many camping stores will now hire you one, and in Tas the Parks and Wildlife service itself will hire you one at reasonable rates ($40 for each 7 days). And let’s face it of you are a regular multi-day or extreme single day bushwalkers, what are you doing without one? – at the very least they let your loved ones know you are more than likely still alive.
Secondly, I think it would be reasonable for the state to inform those who wish to walk in adverse conditions that a) they must have an EPIRB to go and b) if they walk & get in trouble and an investigation reveals they didn’t take reasonable steps to avoid the situation, they *could* be liable for some of the costs – not mandatorily or in blanket fashion but on a case by case basis. That might deter the Holdings of the world from setting off without an EPIRB in clearly adverse conditions, which are the only two things IMHO he did wrong.
I think it will take an incident such as those that have happened overseas for this to be done though. When I travelled in the USA I remember stopping in a town in the Grand Tetons, where in that town 6 people died in a helicopter, on a rescue mission to find a very ill-equipped group. That town now charges for rescue.
Although if we are going to go down this path of confusing risk and accessibility then I suggest we get a decent sponsorship deal and create the Red Bull Homebirth Challenge. With mothers delivering their babies by themselves, racing against the clock, while jumping dirtbikes from a ski ramp over a pit full of crocodiles on fire.
Will the mums or the crocs be on fire, Liam?
If you study the ancient dynasties,
Whether T’ang or Soong or Han,
You’ll find that most ev’ry sage agrees:
A GOOD MIDWIFE IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
She may come to your home in an air-balloon,
Or else drive to you in her van,
But no matter what, she will get there soon,
‘Cause A GOOD MIDWIFE IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
You can pay her in cash, you can pay in kind,
And sometimes in marzipan,
But no matter the dosh you will always find
A GOOD MIDWIFE IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
So come all you mothers of every race,
Whether black or white or tan,
D’ye agree with me as I state my case?
That A GOOD MIDWIFE IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
…Sorry, I had cornflakes and feathers for breakfast… as you were.
First one, then the other. And for the eliminations finals series, both.
Yes, I thought that was the case Liam
I was going to suggest hire as a solution for EPIRBs but I see it’s already being done as per previous comment.
I see you’ve put some thought into this! Although I think some flaming hoops are in order.
Pondering the news over my midmorning apple, I’m noticing another example of mismatched scrutiny of women’s choices – this survey about the reasons women (of sufficient wealth and education to be of interest to the media, natch) put off having children. Turns out the reasons are a) perceived cost b) perceived workload, c) perceived loss of career progression and personal space… wait a minute, those look like the same reasons anyone not-female might put off starting a family! Almost like women are people, how wierd is that?
‘course that little point doesn’t rate a mention. And not one of these articles can sign off without a good paragraph of condescending finger-wagging about fertility and age, plus a solid dose of “Generation Y are selfish and will ruin civilisation”.
I nearly bit right through the apple core after the third such article. I know mainstream media is bad for one’s health, but I never suspected it could give me cyanide poisoning.
I suggest the ski ramp be made of highly flammable material, to add an element of uncertainty. After all, dirt bikes and flaming crocodiles are just a bit {sigh} predictable are they not? At least that’s what the guys on the scorpion-and-redback sausage sizzle out the back in the Blokes’ Shed are sayin’
Ahsum
… wait a minute, those look like the same reasons anyone not-female might put off starting a family! Almost like women are people, how wierd is that?
Hammer, meet nail!
… And not one of these articles can sign off without a good paragraph of condescending finger-wagging about fertility and age, plus a solid dose of “Generation Y are selfish and will ruin civilisation”.
I’d say it was at least a change from baby boomers and women in general ruining civilisation, but yes I feel your pain. Turning the odium onto a different group is not the answer.
Predictable? You’re right. Bring on the flaming flying homebirth bus!
My ex-missus had our second child at home – we found a co-operative doctor in Bendigo (in 1978 – dunno how you’d go these days), and it was just about perfect. (He did whinge a bit about having been dragged away from the soccer on TV just as he was about to start on his first pint.) Unfortunately she needed a caesar for the third one, as he’d decided to sit in a pefect lotus, and there was no way he’d come out knees-first naturally.
I’ts all about sensible risk assessment, which is something most people are really bad at.
I think the main reason home birthers are labelled wingnuts is because they are taking on an extremely lucrative, greedy monopoly- the doctors.
With some obstetrcians now taking over two million dollars a year out of medicare alone, they will do anything in their book to keep lucrative medical practice to themselves. The same can be seen in the crazy reaction by doctors towards letting nurses write prescriptions for minor painkillers or physiotherapists write prescriptions for specialists.
Liam
that’s fantastic!! But I bet the scaredy-cats at Medicare won’t give the midwife any payment unless/because she’s wearing an asbestos-based tunic. How pathetically dull is that kind of attitude?
I blame Descartes.
Liam, I don’t actually think you should HAVE to wear a helmet (though I still would if you didn’t), as there’s no safety benefit to others. Free country supposedly and so on.
I hope to hell we don’t end up needing a licence and a kit check from The Bottom Inspectors before we’re **allowed** to go for *@%$ing walk!!
All good fun. But gee, isn’t there a third party involved that we’re ignoring? If Mountaineering Dude took his infant child on his hitherto-solo walk, doesn’t that kinda change the equation a bit?
I think Homebirth Mum has every right to take a bit of risk in search of a nice experience, just as Mountaineering Dude does. But neither has the right to risk their child’s life. If people could persuade me that homebirth is not risky to the child, fine – but insurance premiums, set by cold hard actuarial calculations, suggest this is not the case.
Which are themselves based on obstetricians insurance premiums and payouts. Nothing to do with the risks associated with homebirths at all. Homebirths are statistically safer than hospital births and involve less interventions meaning less $$ out of the public purse. Of course also less $$ in the doctors pockets.
dd @ 52, in countries which have a system that supports home birth (Canada, the Netherlands and the UK were the examples everyone used 30 years ago when I had a more direct interest in this), it is slightly safer for both mother and child than enforced hospital births.
Sean, the public policy argument in favour of helmet laws relates to the mortality rate it reduces, and the prevention of costs relating to permanently incapacitating injury (especially head, neck and spinal injury). I agree there’s no safety benefit to others, but I disagree that there’s freedom in passing on the consequences of unreasonable risk onto others.
Ambigulous, I blame the Swedes.
I still think it would be pretty sad if our national parks, which are supposed to be affordable for all, are made the province only of those with the fancy costume, flashing lights and an entry fee. By all means let’s be reasonably safe but do not make activities prohibitive because of high costs and yet another righteous fear campaign.
Just glad I’m not Swedish. “At the moment of sperm theft” is an immortal phrase.
When you blamed the Swedes, I though you meant the root vegetables. Fortunately it had nothing to do with roots (garden) and everything to do with science (or more particularly “bedroom science” as the boys in Stockholm so delicately phrase it).
You know, there are other possible reasons for the disparity… One point of difference between the two activities is that in one case you’re only risking one life. Or maybe it is the perception (not the reality, but the perception) that home births are middle class.
Also, Tim Holding did, as you observed, come in for criticism, so is the double standard is as widespread as you’re implying? I’m sure there have been a fair share of people who have said or thought “I’m not going to let the Government spend MY TAXES just so you can have YOUR EXPERIENCE, Tim.”
How many people come down in favour of the “mountaineering” argument? How many in favour of home birthing? If there’s a huge discrepency there, then we can start talking about why (and I don’t necessarily buy that it’s gender based).
Elegant solution:
Use the super-secret spy plane to surveille for home births that are going awry.
Chopper-borne SWAT teams can be on alert to abseil into the
combat zonebirthing pool at a moment’s notice.Gender balance restored.
National security underwritten.
Problem solved.
All good fun. But gee, isn’t there a third party involved that we’re ignoring? If Mountaineering Dude took his infant child on his hitherto-solo walk, doesn’t that kinda change the equation a bit?
DD, if you reread the OP you’ll find I did address this point. Both MD and HB carry a very small risk of death or harm to themselves, or other people. (Just as we do driving on the road, or going on holiday overseas, yada yada.) Tim Holding, as was pointed out to us repeatedly by the search and rescue people, was risking the lives of the searchers, many of whom were just as beloved to their families as the HB’s newborn. I know babies are cuter than fullgrown adults in polar fleeces and boots, but their families might find their loss equally tragic.
Joal – Yes there was a lot of criticism of Holding, just as Cameron said. But in general, bushwalking is a respectable pastime and its practicioners held in high esteem. While home birth advocates attract rudeness and over the top arguments based on some kind of kneejerk opinion that everybody’s going to die and it’s all going to be totally unregulated; and its practicioners attract all the misogynistic epithets – hysterical / emotional / hippy / etc.
On a not-entirely-unrelated topic, it’s about time the sale of pasteurised milk products was made legal… but I’m not sure that’s a gender issue either.
joe2 @ 56 – there’s a big difference between walking on well maintained and travelled hiking paths in good weather and walks off track or on poorly maintained tracks. People who do the latter should be strongly encouraged to take adequate safety equipment.
And those who can afford $20-$30 in petrol to get out to the start of walks can afford $5-$10 in park entrance fees. Where there are charges its pretty common to charge by the vehicle rather than the person (some just implement park charges by charging for car parks even though there is plenty of space) so both costs can be reduced by going in groups rather than solo walking.
Its generally not difficult to find bushwalking groups where you split the costs. Many groups have their own shared EPIRB, lots of people have GPSs, and if you’re lucky someone will remember to bring a map on the day.
Helen @ 60 – I think its more perception of risk again. Many people don’t think about the risk that the search and rescue people take. If Holding had say a very fit 10 year old child and taken them along, even very well equipped, he would have received a lot more criticism for putting someone else’s life at risk. If he’d taken an infant he would have been toasted
At 61 – are you considering the sale of pasteurised human milk or unpasteurised animal milk products? Pasteurised animal milk products are all that is sold currently ( in NSW at least).
Animal products are pasteurised to kill all manner of bacteria and other microorganisms to stop zoonotic infections and is for the benefit of the consuming public but this disqualifies the product from having an organic label.
Myriad @37: You say that
. My experience says that it is safe to bushwalk in most parts of Australia without special gear. I would agree that an EPIRB does make sense on a walk where you are to be out of contact for days but it is hardly essential for an easy walk on a well defined route where there there will be plenty of people.
A recent article in the Australain following a lost in the bush incident in the Blue Mountains started by recommending that 4 litres of water be carried for a day walk in July and then went on to say that trainers were not good enough. The problem with over the top advice like this is that it is too easy to reject the parts that really do make sense. There is also the risk of inexperienced people getting all the gear and then kidding themselves that they are safe.
The crucial thing is to be realistic about your skills and to have thought about what challenges might have to be faced before starting to walk.
I reckon the number of the unemployed is probably higher than the number of people who would choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, so no public problem there. Also saves in age pensions.
The cost of caring for the brain injured is a better argument, but in the end it’s still your head.
David Irving @54, I can give an example of a Canadian woman who had a child in the Netherlands, while her hubby was on assignment in Amsterdam. The situation relates to your comments, and to DD @52′s comments:
“If people could persuade me that homebirth is not risky to the child, fine – but insurance premiums, set by cold hard actuarial calculations, suggest this is not the case.”
The woman was in her late 30′s as I recall, and it was their first child, so she was strictly in a risk category of “elderly primagravida” as I understand it, by most developed countries’ standards. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway, despite Canadian “norms” for home birthing, and despite Netherlands “norms” for home birthing, this lady was uneasy about taking chances. She was newly in a foreign country, and didn’t want to be stuck trying to figure out a foreign medical system in an emergency. She was incidentally a former manager for a Canadian insurance company, so probably had a better idea than most about actuarial statistics.
After a lot of argument, she was finally granted a hospital bed. The Dutch are a stubborn lot, at times, and not as flexible as they fondly imagine. They knew best, and this foreign woman was being a wuss…
Permission for a hospital bed came just in time, as it happened, as she developed severe ?eclampsia? and the bub went into fetal distress (stopped breathing). It was an emergency delivery.
Elise, the odd anecdotal data point does not really trump many years of statistics. I agree that the particular woman you mention should certainly have had a hospital birth given her particular circumstances (first child, oldish, etc) but in general, unless there are contraindications, home births are just as safe and a damn sight more pleasant than hospital deliveries. As I said earlier my third son was delivered by caesarean (appropriately) despite our preference for home birth under better circumstances.
David @67, I presume you don’t mean the statistics for survival of mother or child from home births in the developing world? They aren’t real good, if you would care to look.
Those home births would be totally different, I suppose, being totally natural?
Don’t get me wrong, hospitals are not very family-friendly places, in general. However, feelings about an unattractive atmosphere should not be confused with survival data.
To draw a long bow, many of us don’t like the behaviour of banks these days, but that does not mean that we intend to keep our money at home under the mattress.
The hospitals with “birthing centres” are much better than regular hospital wards, according to friends who have used them. Perhaps there should be more effort to improve the hospitals, to make the birthing environment more inviting?
More funding for better and up to date signage at trail heads would I think help. Its easy for novices to misjudge the difficulty level of a walk. Even guidebooks can get woefully out of date pretty quickly resulting in what was formerly an easy walk to get quite a bit more difficult due to lack of trail maintenance.
Elise, a couple of points. The model that women advocating for home birth in Australia are not advocating for the developing world. That is really a ridiculous bow to draw, quite frankly. Secondly, the home birth model that would be in place here would involve the woman being transferred to hospital if a threatening condition such as preeclampsia develops – and there’s no one better than a trained midwife (with all the gear, remember, this is not the straw hut model) to diagnose such things. Much better than some poor little rushed intern in the hospital.
So your point was, “I don’t know much about home births but I know what I like”?
Sorry: Not advocating for the developing world: Should read, not advocating to returning to the level of medical attention in the developing world. (We should, naturally, be advocating for the developing world, but that’s another post.)
That was me @ d70 – I don’t know why the LP admin system wants me to be the Groke – I keep reverting to my real name but it keeps putting it back again. I think it likes it.
Helen, you are confusing risks. The two situations are not equal risks, although it suits some women to claim it is.
I was responding to David Irving’s emphatic claim “home births are just as safe”. He then contradicted himself by saying that “my third son was delivered by caesarean (appropriately)”. If home births were “just as safe” then his third child would have been born at home, right?
I would have thought it was bleeding obvious that home births are only safe BECAUSE you have a fallback position of hiking it to the hospital when things go pear-shaped. That is NOT “just as safe”.
Heaven help you if Plan B is executed in heavy traffic, with a road blockage, or no spare operating theatres in the nearby hospital, etc.
I think you’re completely confused as to what constitutes a home birth in Western society Elise. Transfer to hospital IF things don’t go as planned is part of the deal. This Canadian model doesn’t appear to be killing too many people.
It’s hypocritical that left-wingers are the first with their shrill calls to put controls on other people’s personal decisions in the interests of the ‘public good’, but cry blue murder when one of their sacred hippy cows is banned.
The best argument against home birth is that you are increasing the level of risk to the baby’s life and that’s a pretty good argument – you most definitely should have limitations placed on what risks you take with your child, regardless of what risks you choose for yourself.
Good enough to justify putting constraints on where and how a woman chooses to give birth? I don’t think so. But why don’t you lefties remember that when you decide that smoking is a far too risky choice for any individual to make, or someone wants to enjoy more than three standard drinks in a sitting? I can tolerate other people’s choices even though I went for the best professional medical care I could get for the births of my two children, and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. Next time, why don’t you lefty home birthers show a little tolerance to other people’s choices in other matters.
“Except in venture capitalism we seem to becoming risk adverse”
In my experience the corporate world is insanely risk averse. I recently worked on a project that spent large sums on avoiding risks that were so minuscule as to be beyond the duty of care of the prime contractor, but they still spent the cash. Corporates are not interested in taking risk, only avoiding it.
So you seem to agree with all positions Helen’s advocating regarding accessible safe medically-supervised homebirth, Michael. Am I wrong?
Having also had more than three standard drinks in one sitting I like the cut of your jib, agreeing more or less entirely but nevertheless wanting to argue with someone on the internet.
Fascist.
So you seem to agree with all positions Helen’s advocating regarding accessible safe medically-supervised homebirth, Michael. Am I wrong?
I think people should be able to choose a homebirth. I personally think the more private this option was the better. For example, I don’t think midwives should have insurance mandated in law but they should be able to have legal indemnity if agreed in contract, and I think if we’d let the insurance market function this type of insurance would be available anyway. I also don’t think the public system should judge people if they are received in hospital because of a complication from a home birth (not saying they do, just suspect they would).
Having also had more than three standard drinks in one sitting I like the cut of your jib, agreeing more or less entirely but nevertheless wanting to argue with someone on the internet.
Fascist.
Yes, whatever. I like rebutting left-wing hypocrisy and exposing the inherent contradictions in pretty much all left-wing positions. There’s so much of it out there, and it is to everyone’s detriment not just the left-wingers themselves, that I think it’s healthy to put up a post or two a few times a week. I think it does make a difference. I mean, you’ve thought about it and I’m pretty confident I know what side of the fence you’re from.
Heh. Good to know that you’re able to “tolerate other people’s choices” then.
There’s no analogy with smoking, by the way. No woman’s delivery of a child in any way affects my health or safety, certainly not in the same way as passive smoking in the workplace/pub/restaurant does; well unless she does it in the workplace/pub/restaurant and spatters amniotic fluid and sweat and blood across my keyboard/schooner/dinner.
When people can suffer long-term harmful effects from passive exposure to someone else’s birth canal, I’ll call for restrictions on homebirth in public. Ahem.
Heh. Good to know that you’re able to “tolerate other people’s choices” then.
See, you’re already producing left-wing contradiction and stupidity in abundance! Toleration of other people’s choices means those choices aren’t forced onto you. Toleration of other people’s choices means other people may pursue a lifestyle or take risks, and so long as it doesn’t affect me, I respect their right to be free and pursue those choices. Left-wingers tend to very interested in making choices for other people and removing that freedom, like whether they can smoke or not, and that’s not very tolerant.
No woman’s delivery of a child in any way affects my health or safety, certainly not in the same way as passive smoking in the workplace/pub/restaurant does;
Do you think her choice of location of delivery might affect the health of another third party in this situation? A party that does not have a say in the matter? Think hard now. Maybe have a few more drinks, they’d probably make you smarter!
I’m not advocating the right to inflict an involuntary party with passive smoke and you know it. If someone wants to smoke in their home, or the great outdoors, then that’s their business. Yet I here left-wingers call for the banning of cigarettes and, if not banning, the already extreme tax levels to be increased. Not very tolerant of other people’s choices. If someone owns a bar and wants to run a smoking venue on their own property then they should be able to so long as people make an informed consent as they enter. But of course, there’s no toleration from left for this either.
Then they crap on about the cost to the community and the net public good banning smokes brings, and the extra cost to the health system to look after old smokers. But when confronted with exactly the same arguments in terms of homebirths i.e. protect the health of a involuntary third party, net cost to the community, extra health costs when things go wrong etc they get affronted. But this would be illogical and contradictory, wouldn’t it?
You’re full of shite and you know it.
Yours is a very jejune argument MS.
Certainly, the doctrinaire libertarianism that you proclaim is virtually indistinguishable from hippie anarcho-libertarianism that had something of a vogue in the late 1960s.
The trouble is, there is no regime on earth that comes remotely close to your imagined utopia.
The Right that mainstream leftists reject isn’t your libertarianism. It is another version of rightist thinking that has actually wielded power and cultural authority for most of the modern era in western polities. This form of right wing thinking is an amalgam of religious shibboleths, sexist prescriptions that run directly counter to your libertarianism, and classist notions of property that legitimise violent seizure of other people’s property by calling it “terra nullius” or the like.
One of the favoured means used by this section of the Right to maintain their control is to hide behind rhetoric such as yours.
In other words, the important sector of the Right regards your very unimportant sector of the Right as useful idiots.
And they are correct.
Yours is a very jejune argument MS.
If nothing else it’s logical and your’s is illogical. The contradictions I’ve detailed above are explicit and for all to see. Your system is inherently contradictory, and furthermore, always descends into mediocrity and delivers sub-optimum outcomes. But that doesn’t stop the true believers.
Certainly, the doctrinaire libertarianism that you proclaim is virtually indistinguishable from hippie anarcho-libertarianism that had something of a vogue in the late 1960s.
Except that maybe I’m a bit bigger on property rights and a legitimate role for the state.
The trouble is, there is no regime on earth that comes remotely close to your imagined utopia.
Or yours. But when they’ve moved closer to mine they’ve got richer and freer. When they’ve moved closer to yours they’ve got worse off. In the 80′s you would have defended the USSR, and then you brush off the fact it collapsed, claiming it wasn’t really socialism in the true model. If Venezuela wasn’t exposed as a shithole, you would defend it. You probably do defend Cuba. You hold up your model but you can’t point anywhere where it’s working. And before you mention Sweden, let’s see what happens when the Swedish foreign investment policy runs out of things to sell. Let’s see if their human capital carries them through or they wind up looking like the UK or France with a similar standard of living. Let’s see what happens when Norway runs out of oil. Let’s watch western Europe fall into irrelevance this century. For me, on the other hand, the US is still the largest economy in the world, and still leads in innovation despite it’s current woes. Singapore got richer when it dropped it’s tax rates and freed up it’s economy. When I talk to Asian immigrants I work with, they tell me their first choice was the USA because it offers more opportunity, but they like Australia. As for the UK where a few of them studied, they’d only ever want to visit there, and I think that’s because they’re being polite.
This form of right wing thinking is an amalgam of religious shibboleths
The Right that mainstream leftists reject isn’t your libertarianism. It is another version of rightist thinking that has actually wielded power and cultural authority for most of the modern era in western polities.
……..
In other words, the important sector of the Right regards your very unimportant sector of the Right as useful idiots.
And they are correct.
You don’t need to tell me that what passes as ‘right’ is populist conservative statism – just look at the Liberal party, even I can’t say it represents my values, or their policies represent how I think a progressive society would be run. And I also believe there could be synergies between us that I would love to see get some political airtime. But you guys make it too hard. You want to enforce political correctness while trying to do the ‘common good’ through denying voluntary choice. You don’t like people earning too much money, when reward for productive work is the basis of any healthy society with a high standard of living. You don’t really support freedom of speech.
One of the favoured means used by this section of the Right to maintain their control is to hide behind rhetoric such as yours.
Not really, but I’ll divert to them before I’ll let the intolerant left get a foothold – now you’re claiming that’s not you, I think. And you’ll divert to the Greens before you’ll let the intolerant right ie. Libs get a foothold. And here we are.
The ball is on the left of the fence. Libertarians support a lot of issues you guys want to advance. Our philosophy is principled and you’ve already called it jejune, which I’ll take us simple Why not work with us – leave the option of choice in your policies, work towards your aims without increasing the size of government or the associated taxes, don’t mandate how other people have to live their lives.
You have no idea about my political and ethical principles, MS. Virtually everything you assert that I believe in is a major misrepresentation of my position.
Whereas your defence of “property rights” forces you to accede to past acts of violent expropriation and your embrace of “legitimate role of the state” shows that you have cold feet about the necessary consequences of libertarianism.
You have no idea about my political and ethical principles, MS. Virtually everything you assert that I believe in is a major misrepresentation of my position
Why don’t you enlighten me in detail?
Whereas your defence of “property rights” forces you to accede to past acts of violent expropriation
Sorry, I didn’t address your comments on our indigenous sisters and brothers. Firstly, property rights are inherent to any civilised society, starting with your own body (coincidently one of the reasons why women should be able to have home births if they choose.) However, tribal societies such as our native folk did not have property rights in this sense, they had tribal type rights as they did not mix their labour with the property (except for maybe their personal tools and utensils), and they did not occupy it in a property rights sense, but lived a nomadic existence. If you extrapolated it into modern terms you could say they homesteaded hunting rights over the property, or ‘free passage’ type rights like, for example, the later whiteys used on stock routes. So 200 years ago, when whitey first arrived, it would have appeared logical to them that no ownership in the sense of property rights occured, and they were right to occupy so long as the King’s protection was afforded to the natives. Which it was, reflected in things like the guilty verdict and subsequent execution of the murderers in the Myall creek massacre. However, later on we’ve sought to address this situation, because aboriginal people had a set of rights over the land that we did not have the means to deal with in detail. The most important aspect of this was the repeal of Terra Nullus. Now moving foward, we needed to further address this situation, and also deal with the fact that current white Australians didn’t make any of the decisions 200 years ago. This involve giving aboriginals true ownership over their property, through free hold title held by individuals or communities. And treating them equally under law as every other Australian. As only someone who wanted to keep a different class of citizen would advocate not giving them true ownership of their property, or having seperate laws for different people.
“legitimate role of the state” shows that you have cold feet about the necessary consequences of libertarianism.
No, wrong again. There are some things we can rationally determine that government does best. For example, there are some universal negative natural rights, being life, liberty and property. If we are ever going to have peace it stands to reason that we need to respect these rights to all members of society. Now I believe anarcho-capitalism will work if the morality of a given society is up to it, I’m also willing to bet that they’ll acknowledge these rights as universal and seek to elevate them through a form of government pretty quickly. Similarly, there is a role for government as ‘referee’. For example, if a judge is awarding a sentence we would probably argue over that sentence forever. We acknowledge that within certain rational bounds the judge uses his own judgement in deciding the exact sentence. The key is limiting government to these areas that we can rationally demonstrate it is appropriate to have government as the best solution. Lefties replace the idea of ‘rationally demonstrate it is appropriate’ with ‘hope and dream it is appropriate’.
What you’ve shown by this comment is that you do not understand libertarianism. Or what it takes for a peaceful, progressive society. And you’ve probably also given a bit of an indication why you don’t see contradictions in left-wing policy.
Just about sums up LP to a tee. Sometimes I think ‘Progressives’ are the new conservative.
You write as if Australian Aboriginal patterns of property were the only non-European model. In fact, Western patterns of expropriation were imposed on enormously stratified societies like the Maya, the Maori, the Zulu and others. To assert that violent expropriation destroyed these civilisations for the good of individuals in those civilisations was a self-serving lie.
There you go again. What is “rational” about legitimising acts of involuntary expropriation? For example, until the turn of the 20th century, women who married lost rights to their property. Until the 1970s in Australia it was legal to pay women much less for equal work. Many would argue that it is “rational” for the state to step in and to compensate members of groups discriminated against for the consequences of these policies. The word “rational” is nothing but a weasel word when you misuse it in that way.
Apparently, you don’t understand the distinction between the executive and the judiciary. When a judge passes a sentence she requires the executive to carry out her orders. Sometimes a judge tells a government that it is acting illegally and requires the government to desist.
More weasel words. Intelligent, well-meaning people have been arguing about the meaning of those words ever since John Locke conceived of the possibility of endless “progress”. There is less agreement about these matters today than ever. Are you saying that all who disagree about your prescriptions concerning the nature of “progress” are anti-progress?
This was the position of the Jacobins and the Girondins or the French Revolution. They invaded, purged and guillotined over the ownership of “progress”.
Are you a Jacobin or a Girondin?
Either way, you aren’t a true libertarian.
You write as if Australian Aboriginal patterns of property were the only non-European model. In fact, Western patterns of expropriation were imposed on enormously stratified societies like the Maya, the Maori, the Zulu and others. To assert that violent expropriation destroyed these civilisations for the good of individuals in those civilisations was a self-serving lie.
Property rights aren’t determined by culture, European or otherwise. They are determined by reason. What I’m saying is that the Europeans who colonised were acting to the best of the ethical ability for 200 years ago, where one of the most advanced cultures in the world met one of the most primitive for the first time. And you know what, some of the cultures that were disrupted weren’t really very just or civilised. I’m sure you refer to our indigenous brothers and sisters as a ‘beautiful and ancient culture’, which in some ways it may be, but it was still stoneage. Would you like some other examples from the Maori or Zulu? Furthermore, do you think either of them would have liberal democracy by now if there hadn’t been white settlement?
Either way, neither you or I or any living indigenous person was there at the time. We need to work out how we’re moving forward here and now, and I advocate equality under law and our common humanity (proven by the fact that a stoneage people were able to move into the modern world within a couple of generations, often not even that long) doing away with ideas such as race or class. What was your solution again: keep them as an underclass and highlight our differences?
What is “rational” about legitimising acts of involuntary expropriation?
See comment directly above and my post above this one, especially: ‘What I’m saying is that the Europeans who colonised were acting to the best of the ethical ability for 200 years ago, where one of the most advanced cultures in the world meeting one of the most primitive for the first time.’ and However, tribal societies such as our native folk did not have property rights in this sense, they had tribal type rights as they did not mix their labour with the property (except for maybe their personal tools and utensils), and they did not occupy it in a property rights sense, but lived a nomadic existence. If you extrapolated it into modern terms you could say they homesteaded hunting rights over the property, or ‘free passage’ type rights like, for example, the later whiteys used on stock routes. So 200 years ago, when whitey first arrived, it would have appeared logical to them that no ownership in the sense of property rights occured, and they were right to occupy so long as the King’s protection was afforded to the natives. Which it was, reflected in things like the guilty verdict and subsequent execution of the murderers in the Myall creek massacre. However, later on we’ve sought to address this situation…..<(end of my quote)
for example, until the turn of the 20th century, women who married lost rights to their property. Until the 1970s in Australia it was legal to pay women much less for equal work. Many would argue that it is “rational” for the state to step in and to compensate members of groups discriminated against for the consequences of these policies.
Who are you intending to compensate? And who has to work the extra hours to generate the extra wealth to pay this money? Can you determine this rationally, or is it just a little bit arbitrary? If someone owes you money then take them to court. However, I’ve got a strong feeling the work is going to be done by white males, and the compensation will go to everyone else. Am I right? Do you think we can move foward as a society with this thinking?
This is a further illustration that left-wing thought is fueled by hang ups and a personal sense of injustice because the world isn’t the way you’d like it, and it revolves around you.
The word “rational” is nothing but a weasel word when you misuse it in that way.
If you don’t think we should make rational decisions when deciding public policy, how do you think we should do it?
Apparently, you don’t understand the distinction between the executive and the judiciary. When a judge passes a sentence she requires the executive to carry out her orders. Sometimes a judge tells a government that it is acting illegally and requires the government to desist.
I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding of the separation of powers. Perhaps you could explain to me how this negates the Oakshottian position that one of the roles of government is to act as a referee?
More weasel words. Intelligent, well-meaning people have been arguing about the meaning of those words ever since John Locke conceived of the possibility of endless “progress”. There is less agreement about these matters today than ever. Are you saying that all who disagree about your prescriptions concerning the nature of “progress” are anti-progress?
True left-wing garbage. This is what lefties do when they’re losing an argument – they hold to the position that we can’t actually know anything, that there are no truths, or all truths are just relative, and therefore their position is not wrong.
I’m saying that the moment we deny reason as the primary way of making decisions we might as well start howling at the moon and sacrificing virgins to the volcano god, because the that’s the moral level we’ve descended to. If we can’t determine right from wrong, and all morality is simply relative, then what makes your concerns about equality morally valid?
Are you a Jacobin or a Girondin?
Obviously I consider the French Revolution to be an ongoing failure despite it’s good points like the establishment of a republic from a kingdom. But this offers no value to this argument unless you want to start arguing a definition of ‘progress’. How about this: progress is defined as the rate of increase in the quality of human life?
Either way, you aren’t a true libertarian.
True that some people would say this, not very many, but some. But they understand what libertarianism is. You don’t. They have a valid metaphysical system. You don’t They at least have a logical ethical system. You don’t. And your questioning of reason makes me a little hesitant on your epistemology. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t pay much attention to this comment.
Could you please move this argument between yourself and Katz to your own blog MS. It’s a derail and contravenes our comments policy. Shorter and more to-the-point and on topic comments are still welcome.
When libertarian tropes collide
Over what to allow or ban,
When beggars are flying and pigs can ride,
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
As Helen’s linked, the Canadian example puts the lie to the speculative-fact that homebirthing when it’s supervised and supported by qualified assistants is a dangerous hippie pastime. Your arguments in favour of home cigar-bars are therefore morbidly irrelevant; smoking has proven health risks both for passive bystanders and for populations as a whole, supervised homebirthing relatively few.
As to the Internet’s libertarianism’s position as modern hippie anarchism, I think Katz has it nailed. The vulgar libertarianism of modern internet commenters has all the philosophical depth of Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and all the valuable ethical lessons of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. With more funny-money schemes and goldbugging, of course, and carbon nanorods for all.
Sounds eerily materialist IMO for a libertarian definition of freedom. Leaving aside your positively pro-theft arguments that property rights can and should be based on expropriation of native title—where to freedom of conscience and personal liberty?
Ugh, too early to proofread. Errata: in my last paragraph for
Read
Ta
“How about this: progress is defined as…”
I’ve got a better idea. How about we stop using the word “progress” in a grand abstract airy fashion, untethered to specific concrete referents and antecedents.
Q: How’s the progress on that unmanned Mars probe?
A: We’ve received lots of useful data.
Q: How’s that social progress coming along?
A: Please speak in intelligible un-coded English.
And while we’re at it, can we also agree that the word “progressive” refers only to loopy 70s rock groups who like lots of key changes and strange time-signatures.
On the subject of the OP, I’m at a loss. Presumably both home birthing and bushwalking are long-established, venerable social practices. When either is undertaken in good faith with proper preparation and under reasonable (non-reckless) conditions, I don’t see why society shouldn’t back the folks up as a matter of course. If some folks complain about home birthing maybe they ought to just learn more about it. That would be a species of progress.
Sweet. You’re here,
GZAJPZ, we’ve already got Katz the Ghostface Kwibblah, all we need now is RZA Reynolds, Inspectah Winter, Fran Barloe-kwan and the Insane Clown.Yeah.
Spot on Liam.
The internet libertarian’s vision of “progress”
When either is undertaken in good faith with proper preparation and under reasonable (non-reckless) conditions, I don’t see why society shouldn’t back the folks up as a matter of course.
Look, if you’re going to go around saying sensible things like that, the whole tabloid and talkback industries could collapse.
The vulgar libertarianism of modern internet commenters has all the philosophical depth of Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and all the valuable ethical lessons of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull.
Don’t try to pin those books on me, they’re from your side of the fence. Can you imagine a libertarian conservative person reading them? 35 years ago they were left-wing bibles. As for that YouTube link, god knows what that’s supposed to mean.
You say my philosophy is vulgar, but even after all this time I can’t see a coherent left-wing philosophy here, just a hodge-podge of feel-good ideas, that if they were implemented would fail to achieve the desired outcomes and make things worse. I have never left this site feeling like I’ve learnt something, or someone has put up a good insightful argument. My philosophy is only vulgar to you because it is based in reality, and the reason you belong to this crowd is because you don’t have the moral courage to deal with the world as it is. I post here in detail with my arguments, and invite all of you to attack them over as long as you like, so I can be sure in my own mind that you’ve got nothing and the path I’m on is the correct one.
At Helen’s request at #87 I’ll leave it there.
Left-wing positions are internally contradictory while right-wing philosophies are inconsistent with reality. I’m not sure which is worse.
Since when was homebirthing left-wing, or wing-ed at all? Plenty of HB advocates are politically right-wing in the US.
And why am I suddenly being subjected to sophomoric bleatings on the place of man and his collection of shiny things in the universe in the middle of a thread about homebirthing?
I think I need another coffee.
It’s a question of home epistemology and home episiotomy, Grumphy. You shouldn’t try either without professional assistance.
j_p_z
A (Victorian) State Govt Minister went missing for a couple of days on the steep, icy slopes of Mount Feathertop in a National Park. Many folk in Melbourne were worried. Several have criticised his going alone, his equipment, and his decision to press ahead in poor weather.
Bushwalking is indeed honourable. Our rescuse services likewise.
In this case he slid down a slope and but didn’t perish by colliding with a large rock (which was one possible outcome).
derrida derider,
I think the problem is that insurance premiums are set by cold hard actuarial calculations based on financial risk, which is driven by legal risk. Assuming home births are actually as safe/safer than hospital births then the problem is the mismatch between legal risk and technical risk. From what I can piece together, the issue is that courts are more likely to assign blame to a midwife in a home birth than a doctor in a hospital when things do go badly. It’s also possible that it’s the uncertainty of this likelihood that is creating the risk and hence increased cost. Seems like another facet of the medical liability issue.
1. What fence MS? Your dualistic view of the world is barren.
In fact there are many fences enclosing many paddocks, many of which have stiles and flyover bridges connecting them. There is no single fence that separates right from left.
2. Oh, so now you’re a “libertarian conservative person”. Where did the “c” word pop from all of a sudden? Gosh! Another fence!
3. The Youtube link is about a wacky, dystopian, scientistic “future”. I’m not in the least surprised that MS didn’t get it.
To bring this comment on topic, the “conservative libertarian” (almost exclusively male, prairie-dog position) imagines the perfect birthing facility as an infinite number of machines that go “ping”.
Jem Casey’s poetry is intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to her literary journal.
[No one say that anyone is "back", you might ruin it]
There’s been a fair bit of commentary on risk and insurance. Fact is, there are no statistically reliable results on the relative risk of home birth. The Canadian study mentioned above suffers from selection bias and small sample size and its findings on perinatal death are not statistically significant. The Australian insurers contributing to the debate noted the lack of reliable data in the Senate hearings [read from page CA45 onwards].
The other complication for actuarial pricing noted by the insurers is that the pool of prospective insurance premia raised from homebirthing midwives is too small to sustain the underwriting risk. That is, while death or serious trauma in childbirth is relatively rare, such events can and often do result in catastrophic claims*, of a size that would wipe out the available premium pool, rendering the underwriting uneconomic. It’s also worth pointing out that medical insurance in Australia is dominated by mutual insurers, effectively owned by their customers – predominantly doctors – who don’t necessarily have an incentive to facilitate home birthing midwives.
* e.g. the Calandra Simpson claim, which cost > $13m in 2001.
I thought we’d established that informed viewpoints weren’t necessary or welcome here, Puff-Pagliaccio?
On risk, I should note that many States have approached similar problems in balooning deficts and liabilities in workers compensation insurance by limiting workers’ rights to access common law, and setting up WorkCover-style authorities to manage disputes outside the courtroom. The unions hate them because they limit payouts and there are compliance problems, and employers hate it because it’s fucking communism, but everyone gets covered.
Decisions based on cold hard actuarial assessment and financial risk are always made in the environment of public policymaking.
Ambi — well at least the Vic guy was out doing what he *said* he was doing, not having a ludicrous midlife crisis in Argentina like Mark Sanford.
Sean — sorry to disappoint, but Jem Casey (for purposes here anyway) was me. It’s a bad-literary thang, not a contempo ref.
Liam — WTF? I don’t get to be Chuck D?! Or at least Eric B and Rakim?
…So, a leftist, a neo-con, and a libertarian all walk into a bar… And then everybody else slams the door behind them and welds it shut, then blasts the three of them out of the airlock and into outer space. Happily ever after.
Aye, and a fine ref it were, japerz.
Mate, ask nicely and I’ll promote you to Jam Master JPZ.
You know, I’ve always wondered whether you are not, in fact, Russell Simmons. Care to confirm or deny?
Well I for one would be pleased if you stopped using my moniker. For one thing you are just not as glamorous as me so it doesn’t work. Just cause I pissed off on a jet stream of “I am so over this, youse are all insane” – doesn’t mean you get to incorporate my moniker like some crazy land grab out there in them californian goldfields. I am a person who lives and breathes and spent many years pretending to be a dead cat that commented here. I have a reputation that sometimes approaches Philip Travers proportions. And then you come along with that el crappo poetry and tarnish me??? I still read here you know. Nobody else better be taking my moniker again or it will be swords at dawn, or maybe a beer at lunch, but either way, someone will pay.
Ambi — well at least the Vic guy was out doing what he *said* he was doing, not having a ludicrous midlife crisis in Argentina like Mark Sanford.
How do you know there isn’t some woman giving birth on top of Mt Feathertop even as we speak?
And yes, thanks for the Flann O’Brien reference, which is always a good thing.
Liam @104 – something I’ve been meaning to do another post about. For instance, I have a couple of proundly disabled relatives with enormously high needs, but they didn’t get that way through anyone’s fault, so they don’t get the astronomical payouts that your accident or negligence victims get. Yet their needs are just as high. It’s a real anomaly.
…And that’s a vision of socialism I can believe in.
“How do you know there isn’t some woman giving birth on top of Mt Feathertop even as we speak?”
And so “extreme childbirth” was born after it was suggested on an internet website.
Let me recommend you Talina Drabsch’s briefing paper from a couple of years ago, Helen.
I vaguely got the reference by dim memory, and still approve of your beer policy, but colour me Max Harris anyway.
Helen: universal coverage is better for all concerned. One of the problems with reliance on the common law of negligence is that, when you read some of the cases, “negligent” often seems to mean “the best insured person in any way associated with the accident or even illness”. Otherwise the disabled person is condemned to horrible poverty.
… the leftist says, “Who’s paying?”
The neocon says, “You already have.”
The libertarian says, “I glad that’s been settled. What is that sound of rushing air?”
Helen @73, I will try one more time to explain relative risks versus outcomes. They are not the same, although some people can’t tell the difference.
You may well have a similar success rate of home births to hospital births (a moot point). However, you have removed from the pool of candidates all those which would have make the data look worse. For example:
- people who knew their health was poor, and CHOSE a hospital birth
- people whose doctor advised them that they were a high risk case, and therefore booked into hospital
- people who started as a home birth and then had complications, so were transferred to hospital for an emergency procedure.
What you have left are successful home births. That is not the full sample of deliveries, and it is a poor argument to claim equal risk on this basis.
We might as well argue that 100% of people who didn’t die of a heart attack, survived the attack. Well der…
You say that you have a jar of ONLY red jelly beans. I say that it was mixed, but you ate all the other colours.
Elise, before criticising a study’s methodology, you should probably read what it was. From Helen’s linked paper:
When someone provides you with a reference, you can feel free to ignore it. But you can’t go dicussing it when you haven’t read it.
“However, you have removed from the pool of candidates all those which would have make the data look worse.”
Elise remember also that by staying away from the hospital the homebirthers may have helped other data look better. Avoiding overworked doctors strung out on caffeine etc and out of control diseases has it advantages!
Yes, thank you FDB. Elise, yes, that is what happens with homebirth. The idea is to weed out someone who’ll never make it. You seem to be hell bent on tilting at some straw figure of a presumed home birth system which you have constructed for maximum failure just to make a point.
(Yes, I know there a minority of “freebirthers” but that’s not what we’re talking about. Again we can draw the parallel: there are vastly more people who choose to do scuba diving than deep-sea freediving.)
Nice complete misrepresentation of what I said, Elise @ 68 and 72.
Please try rereading what I said, only this time for comprehension of my (obvious, I would have thought) meaning.
Nice complete misrepresentation of what I said, Elise @ 68 and 72.
Please try rereading what I said, only this time for comprehension of my (obvious, I would have thought) meaning.
Helen of Feathertop : heh !
The extreme home birth that Launched a Thousand Copycats…
plenty of other Caseys round these parts… you cain’t copyright a family name, Casey.
“The extreme home birth that Launched a Thousand Copycats…”
The babies descend as snowballs.
Sorry about the duplication. The
proxypoxy server at my place of employment is having a conniption.Give it up. Casey, give it up.
Elise @68, “David @67, I presume you don’t mean the statistics for survival of mother or child from home births in the developing world? They aren’t real good, if you would care to look.
Those home births would be totally different, I suppose, being totally natural?”
Yes, actually, they would be totally different. Women in the developed world haven’t usually been subjected to genital mutilation, which is one of the biggest causes of problems with birth in the developing world (pretty hard to get a baby out when your vagina’s been sewn shut) and we’re generally well nourished, which is the other major cause of problems in women who aren’t (a deformed pelvis due to rickets is just one possible scenario in which malnourished women have problems birthing their babies).
What with that, and your comment @115, you’ve fairly comprehensively demonstrated that you’re sounding off about a topic about which you know nothing.
Rebekka @126: “genital mutilation, which is one of the biggest causes of problems with birth in the developing world (pretty hard to get a baby out when your vagina’s been sewn shut)”
What a load of bull. Where is your data that sewn-shut vagina’s are a dominating cause of maternal death?
If genital mutilation and malnorishment are the main causes of death, then we would not be needing any maternity wards in the developed world, would we?
Well, go on. Talk about sounding off. Tell us that you know it all, there are never any problems in childbirth, and gynecologists are totally unnecessary.
a) that’s not what Rebekka said or claimed, and b) bacterial infection during childbirth is a leading cause of maternal mortiality in developing countries, Elise. This is not a fact under dispute, and large gaping wounds around the birth canal are where bacterial infections happen.
The point is that there is little practical similarity between first and third world homebirths and that attempting to equate the two is an act of either supreme ignorance or desperation. Go find some real arguments as to why western midwives shouldn’t be insured, will you?
Don’t be ridiculous, Elise, I never suggested maternity wards or medical care are unnecessary. They are very necessary, for the small percentage of well-nourished western women who have or who develop complications. And they are even more necessary for the third-world women who are not well-nourished and who are far more likely to experience complications.
If you want data, I suggest searching Pub Med for malnourished and maternal death. Or if you want some really upsetting data, try searching genital mutilation and maternal death.
Or you could continue being ignorant and angry. Whatevs.
Rebekka, try the mirror dear.
I have no cause for anger. I have no emotional axes to grind on the topic of childbirth. Some of my friends certainly do, including Susan – the one with the difficult birth in the Netherlands.
My concern is with overstated claims that situations involve no risk, when they clearly DO involve risk.
People should properly evaluate the risks they take, and take appropriate mitigating actions, whether they are trekking to the South Pole, climbing Mt Feathertop, or having a baby.
Having a hospital on standby is a mitigating action – it is, as such, a recognition of the potential risks involved in childbirth. Anything less would be like climbing Mt Feathertop in bad weather, alone, without an EPIRB. Bloody stupid.
Some people may get away with taking such risks, more by luck and the help of others, than good judgement or planning on their own part.
Both issues are worth discussion, however I feel Helen is drawing rather a long bow here in tying the two together.
The cost of walkers, climbers, canoeists and other adventurers coming to grief and needing rescue is one that alpine communities and the like the world over have always been willing to bear since they are part of tourism and the local economy. Huge efforts are made to ensure that people are well informed around safety, equipment and training issues to minimise risk and cost. Accidents and freak conditions still arise, and community facilities are there ready to be used. As skepticlawyer pointed out there is no reason why fees can’t be charged in national parks to meet some of these costs. As a walker and one time avid trekker insurance was always an accepted cost and extra fees for national parks would have seemed reasonable to me. Bush walking, trekking and even mountaineering are actitivities hugely popular with women by the way.
The home births issue is quite different and with political ramifications well beyond the cost of insurance. We could solve much of our soaring health costs and hospital bed situation if childbirth were less medicalised and home birthing became the norm again. Training of midwives is already so much more stringent than in the past and liaison and transfer services in the event of rare emergencies more streamlined.
I hope that Nicola Roxon takes the insurance guaruntee for midwives beyond the current two year commitment. Perhaps, given time and with doctors already overloaded and over expensive to boot, we can hope for a move back to home deliveries and yes, medically supervised if necessary. Perhaps what we need is the sort of fashionable rage that occurred with the Lamaze natural childbirth movement of the post-war era. I’m not sure that discussing home birthing within the topic of risk helps to generate the common-sense acceptance of home-birthing as the norm that healthy women should opt for.
Having a hospital on standby is a mitigating action – it is, as such, a recognition of the potential risks involved in childbirth.
And, Elise, for the second or third time, this. is part. of. a. normal. homebirth. plan, to have a hospital on standby. You seem to be saying that anything short of a “freebirth” isn’t a homebirth. But that’s not what midwives who are advocating home birth are advocating. Your argument is solipsistic.
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong
Can you tell me which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish this song?
“Go find some real arguments as to why western midwives shouldn’t be insured, will you?”
Can’t think of any except that HIH collapsed and they were the company which had previously underwritten the policies for professional indemnity.
Why the federal or each state administration can’t support a system seems strange -we are in the era of cranking up the printing presses so we can stay in the same situation economically and it is a good way to support a group of citizens.Not just the midwives but also the people selecting to have a homebirth and their children.
Not only overworked doctors but also midwives. When my wife was in labour in the hospital and she needed something I had to go around looking for them as they were nearly always off somewhere else busy assisting in another birth or deeply engrossed with their paperwork. At least with a home birth you’d have their exclusive attention (which may be one reason you see benefits).
Elise no vested interests here; no kids, not planning to have any.
“My concern is with overstated claims that situations involve no risk, when they clearly DO involve risk.”
Concern troll is concerned.
Another thing you ignored Elise @ 115 is that the Canadian study compared outcomes for planned homebirth vs. planned hospital birth, so outcomes for those 21.2% of homebirthers who transferred to hospital during labour were included in the planned homebirth group.
Not all hospital transfers are for emergency procedures as you suggest – in the Canadian study 89.9% of the planned homebirth group managed spontaneous vaginal delivery, 3% assisted vaginal delivery and 7.2% caesarean.
I planned a homebirth but transferred to hospital during labour at the advice of my midwives – it certainly wasn’t an emergency, merely a precaution. As Helen has said, a back up hospital is standard procedure for homebirth attended by registered midwives.