The main advances for women came from replacing midwives with doctors, better food and better sanitation.

Better food and better sanitation also significantly reduced child mortality rates, together with immunisation programs.

Noted that the majority of this can be attributed to the actions of men, with basically nothing attributed to feminists.

Birth has become so highly medicalised it's costing the healthcare system far in excess of what it should with no demonstrational advantages over past 20 - 30 years.

It earns Doctors, particularly Obstetricians, Medical Imaging and Laboratory businesses big bucks.

Examples: Ultrasound - deemed safe though never actually proven. Some researchers are looking for possible links with increasing prevalence of autism, behavioural disorders and severe allergy. 30 years ago ultrasound was used to investigate suspected abnormality or multiple pregnancy. Now 3 over course of 'normal' pregnancy is routine. Is this necessary? NO! Profitable? YES!

Laboratory Work: It's become routine to test for glucose intolerence, not just women identified or deemed at risk of gestational diabetes. Necessary? NO! Profitable? YES!

The contentious increasing C-section prevalence: Until last 15 years or so breech babies, in otherwise healthy pregnancy were commonly delivered vaginally especially if mother had sucessfully birthed previous infant/s. Nowadays caesarean is the only choice offered by most Obstetricians. Ditto twin pregnancies. Necessary? In many cases, NO! Profitable? YES!

There are other issues. Who pays? We all do through taxes and ever increasing private medical insurance.

Good Dr Linda has written a very biased article which doesn't mention incidence of maternal/neonate death or damage in hospitals. I suggest the horrendous insurance premiums for Obstetricians reflects frequency of such events.

Example: 6 years ago, cousin, late 30s, fourth pregnancy, informed she needed c-section for breech presentation - despite 3 previous deliveries, second also breech. She protested but informed by Obstetrician he didn't deliver breech vaginally. Not a 'pushy' woman, she accepted and had c-section. On the 4th day pronounced 'fit' and discharged. 48 hrs later - readmitted with massive life threatening post-op infection. Outcome: 2 weeks hospitalised, separation from infant daughter, impaired bonding, inability to breastfeed, protracted recovery, depression requiring medication and ugly scarring.

I suggest a more 'natural' or back-to-basics approach would be beneficial for everyone bar "vested interests". Midwives should be the general custodians of normal pregnancy and delivery with Obstetricians backing up and caring for high risk patients.

As a midwife, I have only ever worked in hospital obstetric wards.
However, I have delivered, or been in the delivery suite when a Doctor delivered, pregnant women who have come into hospital after trying to have a home birth.

All these experiences were awful for all involved. The parents were disappointed the home birth 'experience' didn't work out, and then there was guilt for having deliberately put themselves and their babies at risk. Not all those babies came out alive or 'normal'.

The thing to remember is, NO birth is guaranteed to be 'normal'!
Things can and do go awfully wrong, awfully quickly.

Back in the olden days when most women birthed at home, mortality was high for both babies and mums. Hospital births became preferable if you wanted more of chance to have a good outcome.

In Australia, many pregnant women live too far away from any real medical help if something should go wrong. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't (and didn't) like to take any chances with anything going wrong with me or my baby, just so I could feel more 'comfortable' or 'natural' by birthing my baby at home.

And I made this decision, despite being a midwife, and having many midwife friends who would have been happy to help me at home.

I wouldn't want to stop anyone else doing so though, even though I believe they are playing Russian roulette...

Suzeonline - I did not infer by 'natural' or 'back-to-basics' that mothers and midwives should suddenly be delivering the majority of babies at home. While I support the right of any healthy mother with no history of problems to date to choose a planned homebirth with assistance from a well trained attendent, it is most likely the marjority will choose hospital. Experienced Midwives working within the hospital system are the best attendants for women having normal uncomplicated labours and Doctors/Obstetricians for anything else.

You should surely identify with that and also be very cognisant of the issues and examples I raised.

Australia has an enviable record internationally when it comes to maternal safety and infant mortality but there are quite a few things which need improving - and some of these entail a 'backward step'.

I'm pleased you pointed out that no birth is 'risk free' - women and babies die during and soon after hospital birthing. It is rare - as are deaths during well planned home births, but they do happen. For anyone interested check out ABS (statistics).

Dear Divine_msn:

"I support the right of any healthy mother with no history of problems to date to choose a planned homebirth with assistance from a well trained attendent"

- It goes without saying, but why all those caveats?

How could it be anyone else's business whether I am healthy or not and who (if any) I employ to attend me when I give birth?

Incarceration of people in hospitals is not on, nor has anyone the right to tell me who my friends are and who are not. Whether I live or die (and whether my baby lives or dies) is none of the government's business. Just because they fancy maintaining an enviable international record of maternity safety and infant mortality, gives them no rights over my body.

I do of course respect Houellebecq's and Suzeonline's choice to use the hospital system and conventional doctors. I expect the same in return.

Dear Yuyutsu

I could hardly say I support the right of any pregnant woman regardless of serious health issues and/or complications of pregnancy which would almost certainly result in death of mother, baby or both without expert medical & hospital care to give birth at home - it would be highly irresponsible. Then again -'right' is perhaps the wrong word and should have been 'decision'.

In the Nanny State, you may land in a spot of bother if you act in such a way to have failed, in the eyes of the law, to exercise due care with a resulting stillbirth or neonate death. That's because the State considers the welfare of children a social responsibility. If you die instead of or as well as the baby - no probs I guess.

I have some empathy for your obvious dislike/fear of hospitals - not overly keen on them myself. However unless you are an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act of the State in which you reside, hospitals are not places of 'incarceration'. Please feel free to walk out whenever you like.