The death of premature twins in Byron Bay in an apparent “wild birth”, or free birth, last week has prompted fresh concerns about giving birth without a midwife or medical assistance.

This follows another case from Victoria this year, where a baby was born in a critical condition following a reported free birth.

It’s unclear how common free birthing is, as data is not collected, but there is some evidence free births increased during the COVID pandemic.

Planned home births also became more popular during the pandemic, as women preferred to stay away from hospitals and wanted their support people with them.

But while free births and home births might sound similar, they are a very different practice, with free births much riskier. So what’s the difference, and why might people opt for a free birth?

What are home births?

Planned home births involve care from midwives, who are registered experts in childbirth, in a woman’s home.

These registered midwives work privately, or are part of around 20 publicly funded home birth programs nationally that are attached to hospitals.

They provide care during the pregnancy, labour and birth, and in the first six weeks following the birth.

The research shows that for women with low risk pregnancies, planned home births attended by competent midwives (with links to a responsive mainstream maternity system) are safe.

Home births result in less intervention than hospital births and women perceive their experience more positively.

What are free births?

A free birth is when a woman chooses to have a baby, usually at home, without a registered health professional such as a midwife or doctor in attendance.

Different terms such as unassisted birth or wild pregnancy or birth are also used to refer to free birth.

The parents may hire an unregulated birth worker or doula to be a support at the birth but they do not have the training or medical equipment needed to manage emergencies.

Women may have limited or no health care antenatally, meaning risk factors such as twins and breech presentations (the baby coming bottom first) are not detected beforehand and given the right kind of specialist care.

Why do some people choose to free birth?

We have been studying the reasons women and their partners choose to free birth for more than a decade. We found a previous traumatic birth and/or feeling coerced into choices that are not what the woman wants were the main drivers for avoiding mainstream maternity care.

Australia’s childbirth intervention rates – for induction or augmentation of labour, episiotomy (cutting the tissue between the vaginal opening and the anus) and caesarean section – are comparatively high.

One in ten women report disrespectful or abusive care in childbirth and some decide to make different choices for future births.

Lack of options for a natural birth and birth choices such as home birth or birth centre birth also played a major role in women’s decision to free birth.

Publicly funded home birth programs have very strict criteria around who can be accepted into the program, excluding many women.

In other countries such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands and New Zealand, publicly funded home births are easier to access.

Only around 200 midwives provide private midwifery services for home births nationally. Private midwives are yet to obtain insurance for home births, which means they are risking their livelihoods if something goes wrong and they are sued.

The cost of a home birth with a private midwife is not covered by Medicare and only some health funds rebate some of the cost. This means women can be out of pocket A$6-8,000.

Access to home birth is an even greater issue in rural and remote Australia.

How to make mainstream care more inclusive

Many women feel constrained by their birth choices in Australia. After years of research and listening to thousands of women, it’s clear more can be done to reduce the desire to free birth.

As my co-authors and I outline in our book, Birthing Outside the System: The Canary in the Coal Mine, this can be achieved by:

• making respectful care a reality so women aren’t traumatised and alienated by maternity care and want to engage with it
• supporting midwifery care. Women are seeking more physiological and social ways of birthing, minimising birth interventions, and midwives are the experts in this space
• supporting women’s access to their chosen place of birth and model of care and not limiting choice with high out-of-pocket expenses
• providing more flexible, acceptable options for women experiencing risk factors during pregnancy and/or birth, such as having a previous caesarean birth, having twins or having a baby in breech position. Women experiencing these complications experience pressure to have a caesarean section
• getting the framework right with policies, guidelines, education, research, regulation and professional leadership.

Ensuring women’s rights and choices are informed and respected means they’re less likely to feel they’re left with no other option.

Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Oral retinoids are a type of medicine used to treat severe acne. They’re sold under the brand name Roaccutane, among others.

While oral retinoids are very effective, they can have harmful effects if taken during pregnancy. These medicines can cause miscarriages and major congenital abnormalities (harm to unborn babies) including in the brain, heart and face. At least 30% of children exposed to oral retinoids in pregnancy have severe congenital abnormalities.

Neurodevelopmental problems (in learning, reading, social skills, memory and attention) are also common.

Because of these risks, the Australasian College of Dermatologists advises oral retinoids should not be prescribed a month before or during pregnancy under any circumstances. Dermatologists are instructed to make sure a woman isn’t pregnant before starting this treatment, and discuss the risks with women of childbearing age.

But despite this, and warnings on the medicines’ packaging, pregnancies exposed to oral retinoids continue to be reported in Australia and around the world.

In a study published this month, we wanted to find out what proportion of Australian women of reproductive age were taking oral retinoids, and how many of these women were using contraception.

Our results suggest a high proportion of women are not using effective contraception while on these drugs, indicating Australia needs a strategy to reduce the risk oral retinoids pose to unborn babies.

Contraception options

Using birth control to avoid pregnancy during oral retinoid treatment is essential for women who are sexually active. Some contraception methods, however, are more reliable than others.

Long-acting-reversible contraceptives include intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted into the womb (such as Mirena, Kyleena, or copper devices) and implants under the skin (such as Implanon). These “set and forget” methods are more than 99% effective.

The effectiveness of oral contraceptive pills among “perfect” users (following the directions, with no missed or late pills) is similarly more than 99%. But in typical users, this can fall as low as 91%.

Condoms, when used as the sole method of contraception, have higher failure rates. Their effectiveness can be as low as 82% in typical users.

Oral retinoid use over time

For our study, we analysed medicine dispensing data among women aged 15–44 from Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) between 2013 and 2021.

We found the dispensing rate for oral retinoids doubled from one in every 71 women in 2013, to one in every 36 in 2021. The increase occurred across all ages but was most notable in young women.

Most women were not dispensed contraception at the same time they were using the oral retinoids. To be sure we weren’t missing any contraception that was supplied before the oral retinoids, we looked back in the data. For example, for an IUD that lasts five years, we looked back five years before the oral retinoid prescription.

Our analysis showed only one in four women provided oral retinoids were dispensed contraception simultaneously. This was even lower for 15- to 19-year-olds, where only about one in eight women who filled a prescription for oral retinoids were dispensed contraception.

A recent study found 43% of Australian year 10 and 69% of year 12 students are sexually active, so we can’t assume this younger age group largely had no need for contraception.

One limitation of our study is that it may underestimate contraception coverage, because not all contraceptive options are listed on the PBS. Those options not listed include male and female sterilisation, contraceptive rings, condoms, copper IUDs, and certain oral contraceptive pills.

But even if we presume some of the women in our study were using forms of contraception not listed on the PBS, we’re still left with a significant portion without evidence of contraception.

What are the solutions?

Other countries such as the United States and countries in Europe have pregnancy prevention programs for women taking oral retinoids. These programs include contraception requirements, risk acknowledgement forms and regular pregnancy tests. Despite these programs, unintended pregnancies among women using oral retinoids still occur in these countries.

But Australia has no official strategy for preventing pregnancies exposed to oral retinoids. Currently oral retinoids are prescribed by dermatologists, and most contraception is prescribed by GPs. Women therefore need to see two different doctors, which adds costs and burden.

Rather than a single fix, there are likely to be multiple solutions to this problem. Some dermatologists may not feel confident discussing sex or contraception with patients, so educating dermatologists about contraception is important. Education for women is equally important.

A clinical pathway is needed for reproductive-aged women to obtain both oral retinoids and effective contraception. Options may include GPs prescribing both medications, or dermatologists only prescribing oral retinoids when there’s a contraception plan already in place.

Some women may initially not be sexually active, but change their sexual behaviour while taking oral retinoids, so constant reminders and education are likely to be required.

Further, contraception access needs to be improved in Australia. Teenagers and young women in particular face barriers to accessing contraception, including costs, stigma and lack of knowledge.

Many doctors and women are doing the right thing. But every woman should have an effective contraception plan in place well before starting oral retinoids. Only if this happens can we reduce unintended pregnancies among women taking these medicines, and thereby reduce the risk of harm to unborn babies.

Dr Laura Gerhardy from NSW Health contributed to this article.

Antonia Shand, Research Fellow, Obstetrician, University of Sydney and Natasha Nassar, Professor of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology and Chair in Translational Childhood Medicine, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.