Cognition in pregnancy and motherhood: prospective cohort study -- Christensen et al. 196 (2): 126 -- The British Journal of Psychiatry

Cognition in pregnancy and motherhood: prospective cohort study -- Christensen et al. 196 (2): 126 -- The British Journal of Psychiatry

Background
Research has reported that pregnant women and mothers become forgetful. However, in these studies, women are not recruited prior to pregnancy, samples are not representative and studies are underpowered.
Aims
The current study sought to determine whether pregnancy and motherhood are associated with brief or long-term cognitive deterioration using a representative sample and measuring cognition during and before the onset of pregnancy and motherhood.
Method
Women aged 20–24 years were recruited prospectively and assessed in 1999, 2003 and 2007. Seventy-six women were pregnant at follow-up assessments, 188 became mothers between study waves and 542 remained nulliparous.
Results
No significant differences in cognitive change were found as a function of pregnancy or motherhood, although late pregnancy was associated with deterioration on one of four tests of memory and cognition.
Conclusions
The hypothesis that pregnancy and motherhood are associated with persistent cognitive deterioration was not supported. Previous negative findings may be a result of biased sampling.


This study is interesting on many points. One interesting point is the way the researchers concluded their paper by stating:

"Obstetricians, general family doctors and midwives may need to use the findings from this study to promote the view that ‘placenta brain’ is not inevitable, and that perceptions of impairment may reflect emotional or other unknown factors. Not so long ago pregnancy was ‘confinement’ and motherhood meant the end of career aspirations. Our results challenge the view that mothers are anything other than the intellectual peers of their contemporaries".

 An important point to make!

 The researchers state that:

"one of the weaknesses of our study was our inability to link cognitive change with biological changes associated with pregnancy"

What would have been really interesting is to see the neurological changes that were taking place in women's brains as they were questioned by the researchers.  Emerging insights from neuroscience indicate that different attentional networks are operating, depending upon the task at hand.  Different attentional networks trigger different autonomic nervous system 'states' with correspondingly different biochemical responses and levels.

Pregnant women do not suffer cognitive 'impairment' that much the research has demonstrated, however, the researchers dismisses the fact that many women do forget things in pregnancy, relegating the 'forgetting phenomenon' to the basket of emotionally related factors.  Dismissing women's experience as merely emotionally driven is, in my view, dangerous thinking.

Emotions are powerful chemicals for one thing and have a great deal to do with day to day health and long term wellbeing for both mother and baby.

A far better conclusion is that the pregnant woman's body and subconscious processes are very busy building a baby.  Our innate intelligence has a way of rerouting attention from less important to more important activities. Nothing, in terms of nature's agenda (healthy reproduction) is more important than building a healthy baby.

With an understanding of neuroscience and attentional networks, the fact that a pregnant woman becomes forgetful about 'boring' tasks and 'work' related activities is perfectly understandable and has nothing to do with her intellectual ability and cognition. When a woman's attentional networks are triggered to pay attention, she will, demonstrating, as this study shows that her intellectual ability is 'normal'.

Pregnant women can be assured that forgetting mundane, wordly things is actually very normal and very understandable. Their body intelligence is very consumed in growing a baby and is not bothered or very interested in outside worldly pursuits.

Sweet! -- sugar plays key role in cell division

Scientists seeking to understand the complex interactions involving hundreds of proteins that enables a human cell to split into two, have found a layer of regulation, that up until now has been invisible, although they were aware in 2005 that sugar helped to control cell division.

http://www.physorg.com/news6643.html

A sugar-based signaling pathway has been found that works independently and seems to be the trigger for the phosphorylation signaling system, which has always been thought to be 'the' pathway that underpinned human cell division processes

Sweet! -- sugar plays key role in cell division

Ant feeding on sugar crystal Wikipedia

The discovery of the sweet switch is considered to be "paradigm-shifting in terms of signaling. Signaling is how a cell perceives its environment, and how it regulates its machinery in response to stimuli. The new sugar switches reveal that the cellular circuitry is much more complex than previously thought".

Ah yes, our biology, physiology and entire being is fascinating! Layers upon layers of interaction are being discovered - we are not a 'done deal' by any means.

To the scientists:

"Because these previously unrecognized sugar switches are so abundant and potential targets of manipulation by drugs, the discovery of their role has implications for new treatments for a number of diseases, including cancer".

However, what about the role of something incredibly simple, like good low GI (glucose index) nutrition to prevent the signaling switch being corrupted in the first place?

Low GI foods

 

Recipes

http://www.lowcarbiseasy.com/aboutlowcarb.htm#why

 This information is vitally important for couples wanting to have a baby. Nutrition in one of the key environmental contributors to a healthy pregnancy that couples can take control of before they get pregnant. We know how vitally important optimal sugar control is to a healthy baby's anatomy and development.

Medical News: SMFM: Gene Variants Linked to Preterm Labor - in Meeting Coverage, SMFM from MedPage Today

Fascinating article

Medical News: SMFM: Gene Variants Linked to Preterm Labor - in Meeting Coverage, SMFM from MedPage Today

"Some women and fetuses carry gene variants that predispose them to the early onset of labor," Romero said.

The question we need to be asking is "what turns these gene variants 'on'?" and how can we keep them turned 'off'.

My hunch is that CRH is key to the inflammatory processes that do things to genetic switches.

What gets CRH fired up?

Embodied reactions (both conscious and other than conscious) to environmental stressors!

Hmm. Ina May Gaskin's Farm statistics are interesting and I had to put this article here to illustrate my thinking explained below.

Ina May Gaskin, Bonny Reid and her son

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/26/natural-birth-expert

My theory and I know there is a lot of work to be done to 'prove' this 'scientifically', is that this is where one to one midwifery work is so beneficial. Authentic midwifery care, such as provided by midwives like Ina May Gaskin is an 'anxiolytic'. The kindly, loving relationship with a midwife the woman knows and trusts, helps a woman to stay calm, relaxed and feeling loved and through conversations and information sharing encourages the woman to eat well, exercise appropriately and minimise environmental toxins of all kinds - all of which serves to keep CRH stable and therefore physiology stable for optimal growth and functioning. My take on why the incidence of all that plagues pregnant women and their childbearing experience, such as preterm labour, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, desultory labour etc ad infinitum, is lessened with good, one to one midwifery care.

YouTube - matronas

Midwives and Matronas


YouTube - matronas

Delightful!

Healthy soil, truly nutritious food and profitable, sustainable farming: Key to health

This man is worth listening to:

"In 1999, Jerry was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and given as little as six months to live without aggressive chemotherapy. He instead chose a holistic path of nutrition, detoxification and immune modulation and applied his vast experience with farming and animal nutrition to his own health. The links between healthy soil, truly nutritious food and profitable, sustainable farming are clearly evident in his personal and professional experiences and his skill for communicating this to people has won him extensive praise from holistic health professionals, sustainable farming organizations and many farmers and consumers".

Agri Dynamics Homepage

Jerry is interviewed here by Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau on The Kathleen Show

http://thekathleenshow.typepad.com/blog/2009/12/kicking-cancers-butt-with-natural-remedies.html

Ethics, AMA and that South Australian Homebirth 'study'

Barbara Katz Rothman, Ph.D,  Professor Department of Sociology,  City University of New York, is the author of fabulous books such as The Tentative Pregnancy and In Labour: Women and Power in the Birthplace. W.W. Norton and Company, 1982, now updated as Laboring On: Birth in Transition in the United States, With Wendy Simonds and Bari Meltzer Norman. Routledge, 2007.

Professor Katz Rothman famously said "Birth is not only about making babies. Birth is about making mothers - strong, competent, capable mothers who trust themselves and know their inner strength".

Barbara Katz Rothman made another great comment about how whenever there is a move to return power to women, patriarchal interests rise up in protest to reclaim their position. I haven't got the exact quote, but something along that line.

What is particularly interesting right now is that the negative voice of reproductive medicine headed by their president, is growing louder and louder, warning everyone that birth is dangerous!  The voice is getting louder, telling women and the community that birth at  home is dangerous, just as the Federal Government begins to move to increase women's birth choices and position midwifery as the health care profession most suitable and appropriate to provide primary health care for childbearing women.

Coincidentally, a report on homebirth in South Australia was published recently in the AMA medical journal.

Medical Journal of Australia article on SA homebirth

The president of the AMA Dr Andrew Pesce, wrote the editorial of the issue of the AMJ which published the 'study'. He listed his competing interests this way

"I am President of the Australian Medical Association, which is opposed to home birth in Australia".

The title of Dr Pesce's editorial is "Planned home birth in Australia: politics or science?"

Dr Andrew Pesce (Dr 3am)'s Editorial in the MJA

Good question, Dr Pesche, all looks good and transparent on the surface so far!

Dr Pesche discussed the controversy surrounding homebirth and midwifery practice and quoted the following 'facts' from the 'study' of SA homebirth statistics:

"planned home birth was associated with a sevenfold increase in risk of intrapartum perinatal mortality compared with planned hospital birth, and a 27-fold higher risk of death due to intrapartum asphyxia.6 These differences were significant despite a sample size of only 1141 home births. Overall perinatal mortality standardised for gestation and birthweight was more than double that of planned hospital births, but because of low numbers these differences were not statistically significant. Of course, not all severe adverse perinatal outcomes in labour can be avoided, but they are better avoided, statistically speaking, when birth is planned to take place in a hospital birth unit".

Deeper analysis of the 'data' reveals the statistics are somewhat skewed. I have written else where about the results of this 'study'.  As the old truism goes there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics' - it requires enormous rigor and willingness to look at one's blind spots when interpreting statisics.  One of the ways to assist with blind spot removal is to have independant reviewers go over the results of data interpretation. Everyone would presume the AMJ would do that to maintain credibility and transparency. A reasonable assumption given that the Journal’s website links to the World Association of Medical Editors Position Statement on “Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals”: http://www.wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals

However, following various online articles debunking the analysis of the statistics, including an article by Melissa Sweet at Crikey.com  Don't believe the homebirth horror headlines galvanised Dr Pesche and the AMA to seek a right of reply.

In his reply to the criticism of both the article and his editorial, Dr Pesce said

"My editorial was primarily about the politics of home birth.  Most neutral commentators have commended me on the balance of the editorial".

As Croakey comments "Dr Andrew Pesce, for those who haven’t been following the story thus far, is the president of the AMA (which opposes homebirth), an obestetrician and gynaecologist, one of the reviewers of the new study, and also the author of the MJA editorial on the study".

Now wait a minute! Dr Pesce was one of the reviewers of the new study? Hmmmm  and wasn't Dr Mark Keirse, an obstetrician,  one of the authors of the discredited Bastion study also cited by Pesce as evidence of the dangerous nature of birth at home?

Uh oh.  Excuse me,  the bias is showing.

I'd love to know who the 'neutral commentators' were!

Using 'science' to back up biased opinions is hardly new or unique to this particular study and the rhetoric which surrounds it.  However, frightening childbearing women and the community about the safety of birth in any context is unethical, given what we know about the way that the hormones of fear impact upon both the fetus and the woman.

Dr Pesce also asks the reader

"...to be fair, my editorial did mention the lower intervention rates, the similar rate of post partum haemorrhage and other favourable outcomes of home births found in the study".

Dr Pesce needs to listen to the despairing voices of midwives and student midwives who struggle daily with the way that medicine interferes, disrupts and pushes the birthing process into places that women are not ready to go with disabling consequences.

for example

"So, after watching BOBB (The Business of Being Born) and doing my current reading about the history of midwifery/hospitals/medicine, my eyes have been opened, yet again (still!) as to how harmful the hospital environment can be towards childbirth and women.

Yes, hospitals, medicine and nursing care can save lives. However, ever notice the trickle down effect of us *causing* some of the problems in the first place?"

Some self loathing, some guilt, and a whole lot of venting

It's time Dr Pesce to stand back and look at who's interests are being served in this 'debate' and controversy?  This 'shroud waving' and 'spin doctoring' of facts is an 'emperor has no clothes' kind of situation. What do we make of it in light of the fact that over $2.11 million dollars of tax payer's 'safety net' money has been siphoned off into the pockets of some doctors?

Changes to obstetric safety net are fair, despite foul cries – Croakey

The big question is how do we get to work together so that the woman is in control of her body and reproductive process and we as health care professionals are there to support and encourage every woman to feel safe in her own body and respected for her evidence informed choices?  There are some great doctors who really respect women and believe that the natural brilliance of the birth process works well when women are informed and supported to labour and birth undisturbed in the place of her choosing. These doctors are there, respectfully supportive for the rare occasion when some kind of intervention is warranted.


Birth is as safe as life gets Dr Pesce.  The therapeutic use of self as a health care practitioner is what makes both life and birth safer. As Barbara Katz Rothman says "birth is about making strong and capable mothers". Time to stop pulling the rug from under women's sense of self with all this 'turf war' rhetoric!

What to do about the top 15 chemical additives in your food and other hazards

I found the article  Top 15 chemical additives in your food informative and concerning. We are the product of what we eat and we are affected by all the chemicals in our environment.  For pregnant women, what they eat today, walks and talks tomorrow - to borrow and adapt the advertising tagline of a bread manufacturer.

Some additives are said to enhance the nutritive value of the food. More information about what is safe and what is unsafe is available here http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm

Over 86,000 man made chemicals are now found in our environment, the number of synthetic chemicals has grown exponentially in 100 years. There were a little over 100 at the beginning of the 1900's. Our bodies are truly amazing that we maintain our health as well as we do, given the number of synthetic substances that our bodies process. Here's a report by the CDC on the measurements of 212 of these chemicals in human blood or urine

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/

Many of the synthetic chemicals are hazardous to human health. One of the ways our bodies cope with toxic chemicals is to sequester them within fat cells. Chemical toxicity is said to be one of the components of the obesity epidemic. Obesity itself is associated with a burgeoning disease rate in the population. More worrying still is that up to 232 toxic chemicals have been detected in newborn cord blood (please see link below for report on umbilical cord blood report)

EWG Minority Cord Blood Report Executive Summary | Environmental Working Group

Even 'healthy' processed foods are suspect. Bonsoy, a popular soy milk drink was recalled in late December 2009 because of unsafe levels of iodine which caused illness in a cluster of people in NSW. Although iodine is necessary for optimal health, too much or too little is dangerous. Ironically , the Australian government was concerned with the drop in the use of iodised salt and has recently legislated for bread makers to add iodine to bread! Only organic bread is exempt.

http://www.recalls.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/971373

What can we do to minimise the effects of these synthetic and natural chemicals?

For a start, eliminate and avoid the synthetic ones and ensure the right intake of naturally occurring vitamins and minerals. To do so makes sense from a biological and ecological perspective.

Some suggestions include:

1. If you smoke, stop!

2. Drink lots of purified water - get a good purifier one that also removes 'bugs' - if you want to know a good one, contact me for a recommendation

3. Avoid processed food

4. take high quality, natural, organic supplements, including Omega 3's and antioxidants. Contact me if you want the best brand

5. Eat whole foods - buy locally grown

  Recipes

6. Avoid out of season whole foods - transportation involves time and chemical preservatives

7. Eat fresh foods - lots of salads

  Recipes

8. When you cook, cook slowly - avoid microwaves - keep veges crisp - do not use bicarb to keep greens 'green' - cook for a short time only

9. Reduce calories

10. Reduce salt intake

11. Reduce sugar intake

12. Drink green tea - antioxidant

13. Avoid transfats

14. Reduce your dependence on plastics of all kinds - bisphenol A is proving to be a real menace

15. Reduce pesticide use - go for the natural ways as much as possible

16. Grow your own veges and companion plant them

Sustainable Gardening Australia

Companion planting guide

 
17. When you grow your own veges, use natural fertilisers, not chemicals.


18. Don't use talcum powder - irritates mucous membranes and is associated with lung and ovarian cancer

19. Don't burn incense - the smoke is an irritant, as menacing as tobacco smoke

20. Get regular, brisk exercise every day for at least 30 minutes - helps the lymph system move toxins along and out - along with all the other benefits of walking

Birth at home Safer than at Hospital: eMJA: Planned home birth in Australia: politics or science?

Good news from the latest review of homebirth statistics. Despite the fact that the AMA can't read research, and then go on to make gooses out of themselves by quoting incorrect statistics to frighten people about birth, the news for women who want to have their babies at home is very good.

The correct information is this:

1. The rate of perinatal mortality for the period under examination (1991-2006) was 8.2 per 1000 births for planned hospital births; for infants born at home 2.5 per 1000 births.

According to the reviewers, one of the two infants who died after being born at home

"had congenital anomalies suspected on ultrasound; the parents declined further investigation, and the infant had palliative care and died from lethal anomalies. The other was a fresh stillbirth from a water birth. Although birth under water was thought not to have contributed to the death, closer monitoring during labour may have changed the outcome.

The evidence clearly shows that birth at home is safer than birth in hospital!

Image from Wikipedia

The reviewers said:

Although it is not anticipated that large numbers of women will opt for home birth, women’s autonomy in choosing reproductive behaviour is a fundamental human right enshrined in Australian law.4 Respecting their choices and achieving the best outcome for all concerned is likely to remain a challenge that will require more light and less heat than it has received thus far.

A pity that the AMA has chosen the route of "Lies, damned lies and statistics" to further their 'shroud waving' agenda to frighten women and their families about birth.

Image from http://www.mothersbliss.com/nine/birth/hospital.asp

eMJA: Planned home birth in Australia: politics or science?

The really important point amidst all this stupid shroud waving and fear mongering on behalf of the AMA is that women do best where they feel safest. Our jobs as health professionals is to be supportive of women's choices and provide an environment where women feel supported and cared about and to intervene appropriately. That's it.

Sadly, the AMA has forgotten about the therapeutic use of self. Using fear to coerce women into submission to fit the 9-5 agenda is not kind, good or ethical.

Overdue NSW woman gets police check up | News.com.au

A New South Wales woman, Rochelle Allan and her partner Daniel Jones, have been seeing their private midwife throughout her pregnancy and attending the local hospital for the screening tests that are routine in pregnancy. Rochelle and Daniel's intention was to have their second baby at home with a midwife they knew and trusted.

Rochelle and Daniel, looking forward to their new baby (from News.com.au)

"Ms Allan said that she had decided on having a home birth after a "horrific experience" at the same hospital two years ago when their son Bailey was born. I was induced and I spent 48 hours in labour," she said. "I don't want to go through with that again."

Ms Rochelle Allan was twelve days overdue and attended the hospital for a routine,  "CTG" a monitoring process, that records the fetus's heart rate and the woman's uterine activity together. The idea of this test, is to pick up any signs of fetal distress. The CTG is a useful tool, but no guarantee. The best way to ensure a fetus is well and happy is to ensure the woman feels relaxed, connected with her baby, well supported and knows her baby's movements - the mother is often able to detect if things are not 'right' and contact her caregiver for a check up. The CTG was normal and reassuring, however the doctors decided that Rochelle needed to be induced because she was 12 days overdue (not even two weeks overdue!) and booked her for induction the next day. Rochelle declined to be induced and told the hospital staff that and reminded them that she was giving birth at home with her midwife. Ms Allan rang the hospital and told them the next day that labour was beginning and she wouldn't be coming in.

The hospital staff sent the police around to 'check up' on Rochelle.

"I couldn't believe it when I saw the police officers at my door," Ms Allan said. "They told me they had been asked by the hospital to check on my welfare because I had not attended".
"The hospital knew I did not want to be induced and they gave me no medical reason why I should be."
Throughout her pregnancy, Ms Allan and her partner Daniel Jones have been regularly attending the hospital's antenatal clinic for mandatory tests and scans to monitor the baby's progress. A hospital spokeswoman confirmed police were sent to Ms Allan's house to conduct a "welfare check".

http://www.news.com.au/national/overdue-pregnant-nsw-woman-gets-police-check-up/story-e6frfkvr-1225820277538


Now, I didn't know that NSW was a police state! I live here and I didn't know that.  Well, clearly the decision to send the police around was made in error, because the next day, the following headline appeared in the 'news'.


Home birth mum receives apology

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/home-birth-mum-receives-apology/story-e6frfku0-1225820359124

The report says:

The Greater Western Area Health Service today offered Ms Allan an apology for the unexpected police visit, saying they just wanted to check she was alright.

"We are sorry if it ... caused her any distress but our intention was to check on her welfare," area health spokeswoman Sue-Anne Redmond told ABC Radio today.

The health service denied it was trying to pressure Ms Allan into being induced.

Sure sounds like 'pressure' to me!

Sending the police to get people to comply in a health related matter like this is 'bullying' and as such, is against the law. We all know what bullying does to a person's physiology! What an outrageous thing to happen to a pregnant woman, especially at this stage of her pregnancy, when peace, calmness and support are the ideal environmental conditions for a happy labour and birth.

There is a very happy ending to this story, as well as the very welcome news that the health service very sensibly apologised, as they should, for their heavy handed tactics with this young woman.

Rochelle gave birth to her beautiful baby this morning, in the peace and quiet of her own home, with her husband and her midwife. Her midwife drove three hours to be with Rochelle and her partner for the birth! Well done team!

  Welcome to your new baby Rochelle and Daniel. I bet Bailey is thrilled.

Stress triggers tumor formation, researchers find

Stress triggers tumor formation, researchers find

January 13, 2010

Stress induces signals that cause cells to develop into tumors, Yale researchers have discovered. The research, published online Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, describes a novel way cancer takes hold in the body and suggests new ways to attack the deadly disease.

Stress is a biological term which refers to the consequences of the failure of a human or animal to respond appropriately to emotional or physical threats to the organism, whether actual or imagined. It includes a state of alarm and adrenaline production, short-term resistance as a coping mechanism, and exhaustion. Common stress symptoms include irritability, muscular tension, inability to concentrate and a variety of physical reactions, such as headaches and elevated heart rate.

For more information about Stress (biological), read the full article at Wikipedia.
This text uses material from Wikipedia and is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Stress triggers tumor formation, researchers find

"A lot of different conditions can trigger stress signaling: physical stress, emotional stress, infections, inflammation - all these things. Another bad news for cancer" Xu said.

The researchers studied the activity of two genes known to be involved in development of human cancers: a gene called RAS that has been implicated in 30 percent of cancers, and a tumor-suppressing gene called scribble, which contributes to tumor development when mutated. Neither of these mutant genes cause cancer on their own, it's when they are together in the same or adjacent cells that the problem begins. A signaling process called JNK, is activated by environmental stress conditions leading to the aberrant behaviour of the two genes.

Short term stress is managed generally, well by the homeostatic mechanisms of the person's physiology. Chronic, unremitting reaction to environmental stressors is where the real problem lies - more and more evidence is showing that inflammatory processes are a big issue. The challenge is for us, especially in the modern fast paced world, to slow down, relax more, switch on the parasympathetic aspect of our nervous systems. We need to chill out,'smell the roses', have massages, walk along the beach, marvel at natuare, eat good food slowly, exercise, take time for fun and good things in our lives. The most powerful stress reduction activity is to surround ourselves with people who love us. Social support is the key to a healthy, happy, joyous life.

Of course, I have to relate this information to childbearing women!

Knowledge about the effects of environmental stress on our physiology is growing exponentially. The effect of stress on childbearing women is becoming more widely known. Stress reduction strategies for childbearing women are a must for healthy happy mothers and babies. One strategy that has immense value is one to one midwifery care. We know how effective social support is to human wellbeing. Midwifery support is an exponential increase in support for childbearing women because one to one midwifery care provides social and professional support, helping women to create an environment within which they feel safe, loved and respected and in control of their bodies and their decisions.

As researchers learn more and more about genetic behaviour; how genes are modified in response to environmental conditions; how what used to be called 'junk DNA' is now recognised as the extraordinary, complicated multifactorial process of RNA transcription and methylation that gives us all our unique aspects, the vitally and crucial need to take real care of childbearing women will become more and more apparent.

peaceful parenting: Breastfeeding Baby Jesus

This video shows religious art - images of Mary breastfeeding baby Jesus. What the images reveal is the societal attitude towards breastfeeding at the time the art work was created.

Note the hand positions of Mary and the age of the various representations of baby Jesus. 

A wonderful compilation from Danelle Frisbie at Peaceful Parenting. Danelle has a wonderful blog. http://www.drmomma.org/




peaceful parenting: Breastfeeding Baby Jesus

The most natural thing in the world!

The street were I live is on a little peninsula, boarded by a river on one side and a lake on the other. At the end of the street is a walking track through the bush to the end of the peninsula where the river meets the lake. The track is about a kilometre long.

looking out along the track

I have been writing a chapter on the birth environment in a new book by Lorna Davis called "Sustainability, Midwifery and Birth", the focus of which is reducing the carbon footprint of maternity care and the midwife's role in that. I took time out from the final edits and rejigging of the content yesterday evening to go for a walk. As I was walking back from the end of the track, musing about the chapter,  a young couple holding hands were walking towards me.

The father was 'wearing' a baby in a carrier produced by the Australian Breastfeeding Association. I stopped and said hello, congratulating them and commenting on the lovely baby to be told the baby was born the night before last. As we chatted, they told me they had their baby at home - 'in the water', said the proud grinning father as he gently stroked his daughter's hair. The mother was smiling with that look that new mothers who feel fabulous and proud of themselves do. Their conversation about their birth experience was calm, relaxed and full of a sense of joy. The young woman told me her sister is a midwife (who I know) and that the experience had been wonderful. Her confidence was palpable. Being in their presence was such a gift.

I left that couple and their new baby and walked back home, thinking about their experience. That woman's labour and birth was a perfect example of how birth, when women feel good and in control and surrounded by people who love and support her and her process, is a sustainable, eco-friendly human activity.

If ever anyone needs a reason to protect, promote and support normal natural birth, that woman and her experience provides a shining example of how birth is meant to be.

The most natural thing in the world...

Changes to obstetric safety net are fair, despite foul cries – Croakey

Dr Hilary Joyce, President of the National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (NASOG), wants to work with the Federal Government early next year to find an alternative solution to lessen the financial impact on mothers-to-be. NASOG is concerned that pregnant women are in for a New Year shock as the Government's budget cuts to the antenatal safety net package takes affect. NASOG distributed a media release about their concerns.

http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/documents/news/15970/NASOG%2004.01.10.pdf

Dr Sally K Tracy is Professor of Midwifery at the University of Sydney. Professor Tracy admits she has a vested interest. Her vested interest, as stated on the Crikey blog, is in encouraging the Commonwealth government to increase accessibility to midwifery care for all women; and fully supports the Commonwealth government’s initiatives under the maternity services reform package. A pretty good vested interest to have as the evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that childbearing women and their babies are safer with midwifery care.

Professor Tracy: "thought a little historical context might give readers a deeper understanding of the issues involved, and reassure women that the reform is aimed at creating a fairer system".

and explained

“The Medicare Safety Net was aimed at protecting all Australians from high out-of-pocket costs for medical services provided outside hospital.
In March 2004 the Howard Government changed the Medicare Safety Net to allow for an unlimited, non means tested increase in the supplement payable for Medicare benefits for these charges over and above a threshold set by the government each year.
The inherent risks in introducing an unlimited benefit were soon realised when it was discovered that the safety net was not necessarily benefiting those with a low to middle income or who were sickest in the community, despite the existence of a lower threshold making it easier for them to qualify.
The people who really benefited were the providers themselves. It was found that some doctors were cleverly taking advantage of the safety net to increase their fees with the knowledge that the majority of the cost would be refunded by the government. In 2008 this cost Medicare (and the taxpayer) the sum of $211.3 million.
In fact in the five years since the introduction of the new safety net, fees charged by private obstetricians for in-hospital services reduced by six per cent, whilst the fees charged for out of hospital expenses such as the ‘antenatal care package’ increased by 267 per cent".

Now, who is it that has vested self- interests? How interesting is it that the original intent of the safety net was to help the public, but the doctors found a loophole and benefited themselves to the tune of $211.3 million of tax payers money.
read more here

Changes to obstetric safety net are fair, despite foul cries – Croakey

BBC News - Dopamine levels in brain 'influence decision making'

Dopamine, a chemical with a key role in setting people's moods, could have a much wider-ranging impact on their everyday lives, research suggests.

Experiments show that altering levels of the chemical in the brain influences the decisions people make.
Professor John Maule, an expert in decision making, at Leeds University Business School, said that in recent years people had begun to realise emotional or "gut instinct" decision making was just as important in human choices as analytical decision making.

BBC News - Dopamine levels in brain 'influence decision making'