FROM: Anni Plummer, retired midwife
SUBJECT: Should fathers be present at the birth?
EMAIL:
ann.plummer1@btinternet.com
Dear editorI would like to comment about the ‘In focus’ article in the December/January issue of
Midwives and Michel Odent’s ‘about turn’ on whether fathers should be present at the birth.
I say 'about turn' as I and perhaps many older midwives can remember him expanding with gusto on the use of a birthing pool for pain relief in labour and water birthing. This occurred in the 1980s when he encouraged men to support their partners, including being in the pool during the birth. Many of the changes he, and like-minded midwives of the time, brought about are considered 'normal' practice today. I understood at the time that Michel Odent was not a qualified obstetrician when his articles first appeared.
In his 'new' theory, he suggests banning men from supporting their partners during labour and birth, but I think perhaps this is a better choice then being left alone? Mr Odent has not explained why he has 'backtracked' nor offered an apology to the countless number of men who were and still are traumatised by the experience. Women have also stated they were too concerned about 'him' to worry about themselves.
Michel Odent helped instigate this practice as well as the midwives, which brings me to point two… Traditionally there was a 'lying in' period of ten days. This was considered irrelevant, as it was not classed as research based and healthy mothers did not need it. At the time, Michel Odent became a spokesperson for alternative birthing methods. Some midwives in the UK were very vocal in their support and took it a step further. They stated that 'western birthing methods' had been hijacked by the medical profession. In many developing countries, women gave birth more naturally and after a short rest, continued working. Over time, this changed the 'mind set' of both the midwifery profession and the women. Now the same midwives are advocating that women who have recently given birth do and should have a ten-day recuperation period. This is being hailed as a new discovery – the adage that everything goes round in a circle appears correct!
I wonder what will be the next discovery, perhaps highlighting the increase in third and fourth degree tears and their long-term effect on morbidity – something that a generation ago was seen as a shameful practice. There appears to be a link between this increase and the aimed government-requested reduction in caesareans (as there is pressure to delay/rethink the need for a caesarean), episiotomies (tears are seen as a better choice of injury and less skilled midwives have little or no experience in judging the need for one), and promoting the 'hands off' approach to birth (which does not allow the midwife to assess the need for an episiotomy nor control the flexion).
