. . .


 Why PHB studies confirm
PHB safe as hosp birth in Canada
but NOT in US







Guideline for discussing choice of birthplace with clients: Methodology and review of evidence

 Original report & background material
for the consumer version above


Assoc. Ontario Midwives’
Clinical Practice guideline #14:

Vaginal Birth After Previous Low-segment Cesarean Section

OB/GYN’s Beautiful Hypnobabies Waterbirth!

Re-posted from –> https://www.hypnobabies.com/obgyns-beautiful-hypnobabies-waterbirth/



photo of birth at home in deep water tub

Thanks to Hypnobabies Instructor Julie Byers and Hypno-Mom Georgia for sharing this inspiring birth story with us.

“I listened to the scripts when I was on call and to the affirmations every morning. I loved the affirmations. They were exactly what I needed to get a positive mindset for the pregnancy.”

Looking to connect with other Hypno-Moms? Have some questions you would like to ask? Please join our Hypnobabies Forum HERE.

A familiar feelings swells inside. A wave? Yes, and then another. They are close, but mild. I am on the phone with my mother who laughs with excitement. Finally! Five days, one membrane sweep and acupuncture treatment later than expected. I hang up to tell my husband. Another wave. The chaos of our house becomes louder. “Mom, can you check my homework?” Number one. “Not right now, darling.” The TV is on, but not the right channel. Another wave. “Mom, I don’t want to watch this!” Number two. “Ok,” I say, as I lean onto the kitchen counter, swaying back and forth. “Mommy, what you doing?” Number three. Another wave. “What can I do?” my mother in law asks. Another wave. “I think we need to leave,” I tell my husband.

The chaos of our house becomes louder. “Mom, can you check my homework?” Number one. “Not right now, darling.” The TV is on, but not the right channel. Another wave. “Mom, I don’t want to watch this!” Number two. “Ok,” I say, as I lean onto the kitchen counter, swaying back and forth. “Mommy, what you doing?” Number three. Another wave. “What can I do?” my mother in law asks. Another wave. “I think we need to leave,” I tell my husband.

We were done having kids. I told my parents we were done just days before I found out I was pregnant. The youngest of my three boys had just weaned. I had not forgotten the “joys” of pregnancy or the “ring of fire” I had felt with each of my previous births. I was looking forward to having my body back, no expanding belly, no more leaky boobs. I could have a normal wardrobe again!

“I have something to tell you,” I said as I held up the ultrasound picture. “Hi Daddy!” He, like me, was less than enthusiastic. “I don’t want another baby!” he said, laughing. I was dreading pregnancy and delivery, while he was dreading the sleepless nights of a newborn. Whether we liked it or not, it was happening.

I needed something to get me into a more positive mindset regarding pregnancy, so I signed up for a Hypnobabies class. Yes, I am an OB/GYN, and yes, it was my fourth pregnancy, but since I thought we were done having babies, this was kind of like starting all over again, right?

Attending the classes once a week was nice, away from the kids, almost like a date night. Most of the information was review, so we focused on the scripts at the end of class and our “home play.” Once the giggles died down, John would read the assigned hypnosis script, and I would focus on relaxing, usually falling asleep. I listened to the scripts when I was on call and to the affirmations every morning. I loved the affirmations. They were exactly what I needed to get a positive mindset for the pregnancy.

Since it was my fourth baby, I was sure I would deliver well before my New Year’s due date. Yes, a Christmas baby was in my future. I started my maternity leave and my parents visited for the holidays…and Christmas came and went. No baby. No sign of birthing time, no birthing waves, not even a ripple. To pass the time, I would crochet. Since we didn’t know the gender, I made two of everything. A pink hat and a blue hat. Pink booties and blue booties. A pink and blue blanket. Still no baby.

New Year’s came complete with fireworks and sparklers…and no baby. To say I was impatient is an understatement. I listened to the “Come Out, Baby” script and tried prenatal massage and acupressure. Every morning I woke up and thought, “Ugh. Still pregnant.” And our visitors reminded me often. “No movement yet? When are you gonna have this baby? Don’t you know how to get things going?” Of course I knew. I was induced with my last baby, but I wanted to avoid all that this time around.

The holidays were over and my husband went back to work. I had a prenatal appointment five days past my “guess date”, and I finally agreed to membrane sweeping. And it hurt. A lot. I didn’t prepare or flip any hypnosis switches, but I wish I had. I generally love my OB, but in that moment, we were not friends. I called my husband after my appointment, crying. “It really hurt. I don’t want to hurt anymore.” I had been so uncomfortable at the end of the pregnancy and all the feelings of fear and dread that I felt when I found out I was pregnant again came rushing back. My wonderful hubby reassured me and met me at an acupuncture appointment.

I relaxed during my treatment, still feeling no pressure waves. As I drove home from the appointment, I called my mother. “Don’t get excited. This isn’t it,” I told her as she answered the phone. As we chatted, I had a pressure wave…and then another three minutes later. And then another came and I knew. My birthing time had finally begun.

The sounds of my three children fade away as we load the car. I listen and relax on the way to the hospital.Phone calls are made. The waves are regular, but there is no pain. I worry that it is too soon, that I’ve called them all in for nothing. The room is waiting; they all are waiting. What if this isn’t it? It’s too early. They’ll be waiting all night. They’re ready. I’m ready. The baby’s heartbeat gallops on the monitor. I pace. I go to the bathroom. I rock on a ball. I breathe, I lean, I sway. I pace. I go to the bathroom. I am still relaxed and peaceful and there is still no pain.

Pacing has me tired. I lay in the bed and the wave rises. My eyes are closed, and I can hear myself moan as it peaks and falls. My husband notices the change. “That sounded like a big one.” I open my eyes. “Maybe I should get in the tub.”

The tub is warm and wonderful. The roar of the running water drowns out my sounds. The waves keep coming, but never seem to intensify. I can’t hear the heartbeat but I can feel movement. I’m not worried.

I get out of the tub to be monitored. The galloping continues unchanged. I debate being checked and breaking water. “I can’t decide if I want to get things moving or enjoy the pace of labor.” “Who enjoys labor?” my husband asks.

“Don’t tell me,” I tell my OB. He checks me and breaks my water. I’ve waited forty weeks and five days for this baby and I am impatient. I peek as he holds up seven fingers to the nurse. The waves come but there is no pain. I get up to go to the bathroom and the water flows out. I laugh as we try to keep the floor clean. I get back in the tub. I know it won’t be long now.

I feel as if I am on a roller coaster, slowly moving up the tallest hill. The anticipation is great. It’s coming; when is it coming? I feel another pressure wave rise and fall. That wasn’t it, but it is close. I know it’s coming. I can’t relax. My body braces. Another wave. This one brings me to the top, to the edge of hill. Wait. I’m not ready.

“Ohgodohgodohgod…” I grip my husband’s hand tightly, to steady myself against the force. I am not ready for another wave but it comes anyway. I know I should be doing something. I should relax; I should be saying “ahhh..” or sliding down the slide. But I’m not. I can’t. The pressure is too much. The intensity is too much. It comes and it is loud and it is forceful. And I am flying, rushing down the hill. It is happening without me. I am simply holding on while this ride pushes down. Down and through and out. And I feel it, pressing through and slowly out. I feel a head, round and warm and hot. Small at first and then more and more and more until it is small again. The

The intensity is too much. It comes and it is loud and it is forceful. And I am flying, rushing down the hill. It is happening without me. I am simply holding on while this ride pushes down. Down and through and out. And I feel it, pressing through and slowly out. I feel a head, round and warm and hot. Small at first and then more and more and more until it is small again. The

ride isn’t over. The pushing down and through and out isn’t over. “Get it out!” I want off the ride. “Push, Georgia.” The bottom of the hill is near. A breath is pulled in and pushed down, and finally, out. Shoulders and arms and chest and belly and little legs and feet out. The roller coaster sinks as it hits the bottom of the hill. My stomach drops and the euphoria begins. I did it! Wasn’t it fun? My once clenched eyes are now open, searching for my little one. I pull up a wet, wrinkled body.

“I’m so glad you’re here!” I squeeze tight, close to my chest. “What are you?” I can’t see in the darkness of the water. I reach between two chubby legs and feel. “You’re a boy! Oh, thank God you’re a boy!” I am so happy. He is big, eight pounds two ounces of perfect. He looks like his brother. He lets out a cry that is powerful and piercing. And I am in love yet again.


~ Obstetrical Care Consensus Series ~ Joint undertaking by ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM)

Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery

Number 1, March 2014 (Reaffirmed 2016)

This is a really rich resource for references that relate to reducing CS, increasing NSVD, and a great many unanswered questions such as effects of induction, epidural, abnormal EFM, anmio-infusions, and many others to long to list.

Each reference has a working link for sure to the abstract and sometimes to the full article.



  1. Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-2011. Pediatrics 2013;131:548–58. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  2. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol 2012;29:7–18. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  3. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.191. AHRQ Publication No. 10-E003. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. Available at:  http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/vbacup-evidence-report.pdf. Retrieved November 7, 2013. 
  4. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:36.e1-36.e5; discussion 91–2. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  5. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, Chalmers B, Kung R, Willan A, et al. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Term Breech Trial 3-Month Follow-up Collaborative Group. JAMA 2002;287:1822–31. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  6. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:917–27. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  7. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ 2007;176:455–60. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  8. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226–32. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  9. Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:262.e1–262.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  10. Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003;362:1779–84. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  11. Solheim KN, Esakoff TF, Little SE, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:1341–6. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  12. Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff 2013;32:527–35. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  13. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002. Am J Public Health 2006;96:867–72. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  14. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991-2001: cross-sectional analysis. BMJ 2005;330:71–2. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  15. Rhodes JC, Schoendorf KC, Parker JD. Contribution of excess weight gain during pregnancy and macrosomia to the cesarean delivery rate, 1990-2000. Pediatrics 2003;111:1181–5. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  16. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:29–38. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  17. Friedman EA. An objective approach to the diagnosis and management of abnormal labor. Bull N Y Acad Med 1972; 48:842–58.[PubMed] [Full Text] 
  18. Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR. Amniotomy and the course of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1963;22:755–70. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  19. Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954;68:1568–75. [PubMed] 
  20. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Consortium on Safe Labor. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1281–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  21. Arulkumaran S, Koh CH, Ingemarsson I, Ratnam SS. Augmentation of labour—mode of delivery related to cervimetric progress. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;27: 304–8. [PubMed] 
  22. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Active-phase labor arrest: oxytocin augmentation for at least 4 hours. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:323–8.[PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  23. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Savage KG, Hauth JC. Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2-hour minimum. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:550–4.[PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  24. Henry DE, Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Kaimal AJ, Bianco K, Caughey AB. Perinatal outcomes in the setting of active phase arrest of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1109–15. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  25. Rouse DJ, Landon M, Leveno KJ, Leindecker S, Varner MW, Caritis SN, et al. The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units cesarean registry: chorioamnionitis at term and its duration-relationship to outcomes. National Institute of Child Health And Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:211–6. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  26. Piper JM, Bolling DR, Newton ER. The second stage of labor: factors influencing duration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:976–9.[PubMed] 
  27. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:357. e1–357.e7. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  28. Le Ray C, Audibert F, Goffinet F, Fraser W. When to stop pushing: effects of duration of second-stage expulsion efforts on maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:361.e1–361.e7.[PubMed] [Full Text] 
  29. Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. How long is too long: Does a prolonged second stage of labor in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:933–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  30. Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Laros RK,Jr, Caughey AB. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:585.e1–585.e6. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  31. Allen VM, Baskett TF, O’Connell CM, McKeen D, Allen AC. Maternal and perinatal outcomes with increasing duration of the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1248–58. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  32. Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Bianco K, Caughey AB. Timing of operative vaginal delivery and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:692–7. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  33. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1181–93. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  34. Srinivas SK, Epstein AJ, Nicholson S, Herrin J, Asch DA. Improvements in US maternal obstetrical outcomes from 1992 to 2006. Med Care 2010;48:487–93. [PubMed] 
  35. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1709–14. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  36. Werner EF, Janevic TM, Illuzzi J, Funai EF, Savitz DA, Lipkind HS. Mode of delivery in nulliparous women and neonatal intracranial injury. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1239–46. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  37. O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD005455. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  38. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin 17. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000. 
  39. Powell J, Gilo N, Foote M, Gil K, Lavin JP. Vacuum and forceps training in residency: experience and self-reported competency. J Perinatol 2007;27:343–6. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  40. Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. Forceps delivery: potential benefits and a call for continued training. J Perinatol 2007;27:327–8. [PubMed][Full Text] 
  41. Cheng YW, Hubbard A, Caughey AB, Tager IB. The association between persistent fetal occiput posterior position and perinatal outcomes: an example of propensity score and covariate distance matching. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:656–63. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  42. Lieberman E, Davidson K, Lee-Parritz A, Shearer E. Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:974–82. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  43. Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas JE, Caughey AB. Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:65–72. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  44. Le Ray C, Serres P, Schmitz T, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Manual rotation in occiput posterior or transverse positions: risk factors and consequences on the cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:873–9. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  45. Cargill YM, MacKinnon CJ, Arsenault MY, Bartellas E, Daniels S, Gleason T, et al. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee. J Obstet Gynaecol can 2004;26:747–61. [PubMed] 
  46. Reichman O, Gdansky E, Latinsky B, Labi S, Samueloff A. Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;136:25–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  47. Chou MR, Kreiser D, Taslimi MM, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:521–4. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  48. Management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Practice Bulletin No. 116. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1232–40. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  49. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:192–202. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  50. Larma JD, Silva AM, Holcroft CJ, Thompson RE, Donohue PK, Graham EM. Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and the identification of metabolic acidosis and hypoxicischemic encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:301.e1–301.e8. [PubMed][Full Text] 
  51. Sameshima H, Ikenoue T. Predictive value of late decelerations for fetal acidemia in unselective low-risk pregnancies. Am J Perinatol 2005;22:19–23. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  52. Sameshima H, Ikenoue T, Ikeda T, Kamitomo M, Ibara S. Unselected low-risk pregnancies and the effect of continuous intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring on umbilical blood gases and cerebral palsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:118–23. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  53. Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. Fetal heart rate response to scalp blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:706–8.[PubMed] 
  54. Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. The scalp stimulation test: a clinical alternative to fetal scalp blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:274–7. [PubMed] 
  55. Cahill AG, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Macones GA. Association and prediction of neonatal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:206.e1–206.e8.[PubMed] [Full Text] 
  56. Elimian A, Figueroa R, Tejani N. Intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being: a comparison of scalp stimulation with scalp blood pH sampling. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:373–6. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  57. Miyazaki FS, Nevarez F. Saline amnioinfusion for relief of repetitive variable decelerations: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:301–6. [PubMed] 
  58. MacGregor SN, Banzhaf WC, Silver RK, Depp R. A prospective, randomized evaluation of intrapartum amnioinfusion. Fetal acid-base status and cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 1991;36:69–73. [PubMed] 
  59. Strong TH Jr, Hetzler G, Sarno AP, Paul RH. Prophylactic intrapartum amnioinfusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1370–4; discussion 1374-5. [PubMed] 
  60. Owen J, Henson BV, Hauth JC. A prospective randomized study of saline solution amnioinfusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1146–9. [PubMed] 
  61. Macri CJ, Schrimmer DB, Leung A, Greenspoon JS, Paul RH. Prophylactic amnioinfusion improves outcome of pregnancy complicated by thick meconium and oligohydramnios. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:117–21. [PubMed] 
  62. Higgins SD, Garite TJ. Late abruptio placenta in trauma patients: implications for monitoring. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:10S–2S.[PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  63. Ito M, Kawasaki N, Matsui K, Fujisaki S. Fetal heart monitoring and ultrasound in the management of placental abruption. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1986;24:269–73. [PubMed] 
  64. Pearlman MD, Klinich KD, Schneider LW, Rupp J, Moss S, Ashton-Miller J. A comprehensive program to improve safety for pregnant women and fetuses in motor vehicle crashes: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1554–64. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  65. Stewart RD, Bleich AT, Lo JY, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Defining uterine tachysystole: how much is too much? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:290.e1–290.e6. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  66. Cahill AG, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Macones GA. Association of atypical decelerations with acidemia. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1387–93. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  67. Neilson JP. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD000116. DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD000116.pub4. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  68. Bloom SL, Spong CY, Thom E, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Weininger S, et al. Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2195–202.[PubMed] [Full Text] 
  69. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001233. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2.[PubMed] [Full Text]
  70. Skupski DW, Rosenberg CR, Eglinton GS. Intrapartum fetal stimulation tests: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:129–34.[PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  71. Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Ting TY, Grether JK. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996;334:613–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  72. Fawole B, Hofmeyr GJ. Maternal oxygen administration for fetal distress. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD000136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000136.pub2. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  73. Simpson KR, James DC. Efficacy of intrauterine resuscitation techniques in improving fetal oxygen status during labor. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:1362–8. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  74. Kulier R, Hofmeyr GJ. Tocolytics for suspected intrapartum fetal distress. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000035. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000035. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  75. Garite TJ, Simpson KR. Intrauterine resuscitation during labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011;54:28–39. [PubMed] 
  76. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:164–7.[PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  77. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013;62(2):1–90. 
  78. Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Cheng YW, Lyell DJ, Washington AE. Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:700–5. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  79. Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ 2012;344:e2838. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  80. Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:502.e1–502.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  81. Osmundson SS, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:601–5. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  82. Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, Jacob L, Nicholson JM, Kaimal A, et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a6a4d0.[PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  83. Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:583–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  84. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:252–63. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  85. Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Heatley E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD004945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub3.[PubMed] [Full Text] 
  86. Bruckner TA, Cheng YW, Caughey AB. Increased neonatal mortality among normal-weight births beyond 41 weeks of gestation in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:421.e1–421.e7. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  87. Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:76–82. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  88. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD000941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  89. Delaney S, Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas J, Sparks TN, Paul K, et al. Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1239–45. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  90. Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Fogertey PJ, Roehl KA, Macones GA. Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:247–52. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  91. Harper LM, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Zhao Q, Cahill AG. Normal progress of induced labor. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:1113–8. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  92. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:671–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  93. Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:705–9. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  94. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:267–72. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  95. Lee HC, El-Sayed YY, Gould JB. Population trends in cesarean delivery for breech presentation in the United States, 1997-2003. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:59.e1–59.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  96. Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J, Chung JH. Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol 2009;29:96–100. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  97. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:235–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  98. Yoshida M, Matsuda H, Kawakami Y, Hasegawa Y, Yoshinaga Y, Hayata E, et al. Effectiveness of epidural anesthesia for external cephalic version (ECV). J Perinatol 2010;30:580–3. [PubMed] 
  99. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal macrosomia. ACOG Practice Bulletin 22. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000.
  100. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996;276:1480–6. [PubMed] 
  101. Little SE, Edlow AG, Thomas AM, Smith NA. Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:309.e1–309.e6. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  102. Stotland NE, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. Gestational weight gain, macrosomia, and risk of cesarean birth in nondiabetic nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:671–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  103. Durie DE, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Effect of second-trimester and third-trimester rate of gestational weight gain on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:569–75. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  104. Weight gain during pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 548. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:210–2. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  105. Lee HC, Gould JB, Boscardin WJ, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Trends in cesarean delivery for twin births in the United States: 1995-2008. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1095–101. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  106. Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, Willan AR, Allen AC, Armson BA, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1295–305. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  107. Sheffield JS, Hill JB, Hollier LM, Laibl VR, Roberts SW, Sanchez PJ, et al. Valacyclovir prophylaxis to prevent recurrent herpes at delivery: a randomized clinical trial [published erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:695]. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:141–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  108. Watts DH, Brown ZA, Money D, Selke S, Huang ML, Sacks SL, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acyclovir in late pregnancy for the reduction of herpes simplex virus shedding and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:836–43. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  109. Little SE, Caughey AB. Acyclovir prophylaxis for pregnant women with a known history of herpes simplex virus: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1274–9. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  110. Management of herpes in pregnancy. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 82. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:1489–98. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] 
  111. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD003766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
  112. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007;34:53–64.[PubMed] [Full Text] 
  113. Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA, Holl JL. Obstetricians’ rising liability insurance premiums and inductions at late preterm gestations. Med Care 2009;47:425–30. [PubMed] 
  114. Yang YT, Mello MM, Subramanian SV, Studdert DM. Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section. Med Care 2009;47:234–42. [PubMed] [Full Text] 
A commentary about the Wax et al meta-analysis (the newest controversial study published by the obstetrical profession), the Joint Commission on hospital accreditation’s new ‘perinatal core measures’, which are justifiable critical of our highly and unnecessarily medicalized system of obstetrically-based care for healthy women and the use of peer-reviewed studies by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists to derail public attention, manipulate the media, and unduly influence public opinion:

In my opinion, the media hype generated by ACOG over the Wax et el(1) place-of-birth analysis is a red-herring. This controversy is not about midwifery vs. obstetrics, or choice of hospital vs. out-of-hospital (OOH) birth setting. Instead, this badly flawed study is being used to distract the public and the press from the real story – the need to normalize childbirth practices and adopt cost-effective maternity care for healthy childbearing women.

On April 1, 2010, the Joint Commission on hospital accreditation issued a directive the obstetrical profession to lower its intervention rates, particularly targeting the run-away use of elective induction, early labor hospital admission and Cesarean in healthy first-time mothers who had a single baby in a vertex or head-down position.

It is helpful to remember that the basic purpose of maternity care is to preserve and protect the health of already healthy women. Mastery in normal childbirth services for healthy women with normal pregnancies means bringing about a good outcome without introducing any unnecessary harm or unproductive expense. The ideal maternity care system seeks out the point of balance where the skillful use of physiological management and adroit use of necessary medical interventions provides the best outcome with the fewest number of medical/surgical procedures and least expense to the health care system.

Unfortunately, our 20th century system of  ‘pre-emptive’ intervention has not been able to live up to this promise.

We currently have a hundred-year old system based on the routine medicalization of normal birth and many other obstetrical practices that don’t serve healthy mother and babies, but do introduce artificial and unnecessary risks for both. A historical decision made by the obstetrical profession in 1910 declared that obstetrics, as a surgical specialty, was to be the standard of care for everyone, including healthy women.

However, there was never any scientific basis for a maternity care model that identified surgeons as primary care providers for a healthy population or systematically used obstetrical interventions and invasive procedures on all laboring women. It is a fluke of history that a hundred years later we are still conducting normal birth as a surgical procedure.

Prior to the discovery of antibiotic in the 1930s, normal birth as a surgical procedure was part of a strategy to reduce fatal infections in maternity patients. This included dividing childbirth between two different professions and separating labor from birth. Nurses were to provide medical management for the first stage of labor, a process that included keeping women in bed and administering repeated injection of drugs for pain. The nurses were expected watch carefully and notify the patient’s doctor when the mother started pushing. Birth as a surgical procedure is called ‘the delivery’ and was to be perform by surgically-trained specialist. Typically the mother was put to sleep with general anesthesia and delivering the baby included episiotomy, forceps, manual removal of the placenta and putting in stitches afterwards.

The types of intervention and rationales for their use have changed several times since 1910. By 2010 forceps had long ago been replaced by Cesareans and  epidural had taken the place of general anesthesia. These newer forms of intervention are far safer, but the overall number of medical and surgical procedures has gone up with each and every decade. This is completely inexplicable, as childbearing women are many times healthier now that they were in 1910 and have far fewer pregnancies due to effective contraception. Modern medicine has access to antibiotics and many other wonderful new drugs, as well as ultrasound technology and other prenatal testing to discovery serious problems before labor even starts. Despite great advances in public health and medical ability, the operative rate has risen from 10% in 1910 to 70% in 2010.

The Listening To Mothers’ Survey‘ in 2002 and 2006 identified the medical intervention rate to be 99%, with an average of 7 medical interventions for every woman in labor. The aggregate rate for surgical procedures during childbirth was approximately 70% — episiotomy, forceps, vacuum extraction or Cesarean section and suturing the perineal or abdominal incision. These procedures not reallydifferent than the ones used in a century ago.

For the last 30 years, this newer version of 1910 preemptive intervention policies has come to been known as “active management”. Unfortunately, there is still no scientifically evidence that the new version is any safer or more cost-effective for healthy childbearing women than physiologically-based care. However, there considerable evidence that active management and other current policies routinely introduce unnecessary risk and are associated with iatrogenic complications. As an “expert” system, obstetrics has failed in the very area it was supposed to have the most mastery and expertise — preserving the health of already healthy mothers and babies.

Nonetheless, it seems that ACOG hopes to justify this highly medicalized status quo in the face of strongly-worded criticism of these very practices by the Joint Commission on hospital accreditation. To qualify for government reimbursement hospitals must be evaluated and approved by the Joint Commission [3], so the Commission’s opinions are really important to hospital administrators. You can’t appreciate the historical politics behind Dr. Wax’s hospital vs. OOH study without reading the new “core measures” for hospital-based birth care published by the Commission on April 1, 2010. These guidelines can be accessed on-line @:


Readers may be surprised to hear that the Joint Commission is critical of the excessively-medicalized, unproductively expensive, and unsafe childbirth practices for healthy women that have become the norm in the US. Whatever the original intentions of Dr. Wax and the other authors, ACOG is now using the study’s assertions to support its own preferences — the continuing medicalization of normal childbirth — despite a direct challenge to these policies by the Joint Commission.

Based on impeccable scientific evidence, the Commission’s directive includes instructions for reversing “the Cesarean epidemic” and the escalating rates of elective induction and hospital admissions early in labor. None of these common practices have improved outcomes for babies, but they do result in increased complications for mothers and are implicated in a rising maternal mortality rate.

The Joint Commission’s guidelines could not be clearer. They start out by saying:

“The removal of any pressure to not perform a cesarean birth has led to a skyrocketing of hospital, state and national cesarean section (CS) rates. Some hospitals now have CS rates over 50%. Hospitals with CS rates at 15-20% have infant outcomes that are just as good and better maternal outcomes. (Gould et al; 2004). There are no data that higher rates improve any outcomes, yet the CS rates continue to rise.” [emphasis added]

No wonder some women try to avoid an unnecessary C-section by planning an OOH birth under the care of a midwife or family-practice physician. The wisest strategy for ACOG would be take the Commission’s report to heart and come up with innovative plans to implement these recommendations. Such a strategy would incorporate the principles of physiological management of normal birth in a healthy population in place of the current policy of ‘active’ obstetrical management. It would also end it’s hundred year war against the midwifery profession.

But instead of 21st century progress, ACOG is sticking to its usual fear-based PR campaign that aggressively promotes the same old “more is better” notion, despite all evidence to the contrary. ACOG has chosen to use its considerable resources to re-direct the public’s attention to the self-generated controversy about OOH (less than 1% of all births), in an effort to distract us from the poor obstetrical practices being used in the other 99% of hospital births. [Listening to Mothers Survey, Childbirth Connections; 2002 + 2006]

Elective induction and early admissions in labor have become so routine they are almost the standard for obstetrical care, but the Joint Commission identifies both of these interventions with a significant increase in a hospital’s rate of operative delivery, prematurity and neonatal complications. Scientific evidence cited in Joint Commission’s core perinatal measures include instructions for dramatically reducing induction, early admission and elective Cesarean surgeries.

According to the Joint Commissions: “… almost 1/3 of all babies delivered in the United States are electively delivered, with 5% of all deliveries in the U.S. delivered in a manner violating ACOG/American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidelines. Most of these are for convenience, and result in significant short-term neonatal morbidity (neonatal intensive care unit admission rates of 13- 21%) [Clark et al; 2009].

“… compared to spontaneous labor, elective inductions result in more cesarean deliveries and longer maternal length of stay [Glantz, 2005]” … “[Dr] Main et al (2006) found that over 60% of the variation [in C-section rate] among hospitals can be attributed to first birth labor induction rates and first birth early labor admission rates. The results showed if labor was forced when the cervix was not ready the outcomes were poorer”

“The American Academy of Family Physicians (2000) also notes that elective induction doubles the cesarean delivery rate. Repeat elective cesarean sections before 39 weeks gestation also result in higher rates of adverse respiratory outcomes, mechanical ventilation, sepsis and hypoglycemia for the newborns [Tita et al., 2009].”

Another statement in the Commission’s new Core Measures acknowledges what many childbearing families, midwives and every L&D nurse in America has known for decades – that the use of obstetrical intervention is far more about the physician’s personal preference than scientific evidence. According to the Joint Commission:

“Many authors have shown that physician factors, rather than patient characteristics or obstetric diagnoses, are the major driver for the difference in rates within a hospital (Berkowitz, et al., 1989; Goyert et al., 1989; Luthy et al., 2003).”

While the Joint Commission never uses the word “physiological management” or directly recommends replacing this excessively-medicalized model of care with physiologically-based practices, that is the only available method to lower the rates of invasive procedures and reduce the harm (and cost) associated with run-away medicalization. A consensus of the scientific literature shows physiological management of normal childbirth by professional birth attendants to be the evidence-based care for healthy women with normal pregnancies. This cost-effective model is used worldwide by those countries that get far better outcomes for much less money.

By every measure of excellence for maternity care (except the unconfirmed issue of neonatal mortality), even the Wax analysis concluded that the non-medicalized approach results in dramatically improved outcomes. The “RESULTS” section of the study’s abstract states:

Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions including epidural analgesia, electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, episiotomy, and operative delivery.

These women were less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections.

Neonatal outcomes of planned home births revealed less frequent prematurity, low birth weight, and assisted newborn ventilation. … planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates …”

Nonetheless, ACOG’s strategic use of the Wax analysis of OOH birth was effective in derailing effective public discourse on the aforementioned obstetrical excesses. There has been absolutely NO coverage of the real media bombshell – the Joint Commission the April 1, 2010 publication of these new perinatal core measures designed to reduce elective and operative interventions. ABC’s Good Morning America Health did a segment on ‘at-home birth’, provocatively titled “Home Birth vs. Baby-At-Risk”. They did NOT cover or even mention the Joint Commission’s new core measures for excellence in perinatal care or discuss the ‘Cesarean epidemic’ as the public health and economic problem that it is.


Whether in hospital or out-of-hospital, normal care for normal birth, in combination with the appropriate use of medicalization as needed (or as requested by the mother), is the safest and most cost-effective model for a healthy population. Regardless of which system one is referring to, the crucial words are the same: ‘not disturbing the spontaneous biology of normal labor and birth unless necessarily’, ‘timely access’ to the fruits of modern medical science when indicated and ‘appropriate use’ of medical services as required.

I would never want to live in a place or an era without timely access to comprehensive medical and surgical services, which depend on hospital facilities and well-trained obstetricians, so I never see this as ‘us versus them’ issue. I want hospitals to work and work well. I want physicians of all kinds to be skilled and seamlessly available. I also expect them to be knowledgeable about physiologically-based practices and cooperative with mothers and midwives. We actually are all on the same team — the one that wants to use the best practices all the time for everyone.

Unfortunately, ACOG’s favorite assumption — that more aggressive medicalization automatically improves normal childbirth — is incorrect and out-dated. As long as this mistaken idea is enthusiastically embraced by leaders of the obstetrical profession, it will be impossible to get our hands around the very real social, medical and economic problems we face. As a country, we cannot hope to compete successfully in a global economy against other countries and parts of the world that depend on normal care for normal childbirth at a 1/10th of the cost of our bloated and dysfunctional system.

Instead of stepping stones to progress, ACOG’s 19th century notions have become stumbling blocks that keep keep physicians and midwives from cooperating with one another. They stymie efforts by ACOG fellows to participate in a system of seamless care to women cared for by midwives. What is really needed is a cooperative approach by all stakeholders – childbearing women, all categories of birth attendants and hospitals – that seeks out innovative solutions and finds ways to make “best practices” more widely available to more people.

According to a review of the scientific literature, the best and most cost-effective outcomes for healthy mothers and babies are consistently associated with three healthcare-related circumstances (2). In combination, these three basic elements are equally advantageous to industrialized countries as well as developing ones. In a perfect world, these safe motherhood measures and mother-baby-father and family-friendly practices would provide a foundation for a cooperative and complimentary relationship between all categories of birth attendants and be perfectly in alignment with the ‘Perinatal Core Measures’ of the Joint Commission:

(a) Antenatal care with risk-screening & referral for medical evaluation or treatment as indicated
(b) Experienced birth attendant(s) skilled in physiological management who are present or immediately available at the mother’s discretion through out active labor, birth and postpartum-neonatal period
(c) Access and appropriate use of hospital-based obstetrical services for complications or if medical care is requested by the mother

In a balanced and cooperative system healthy women would not have to choose between an obstetrician and a midwife or between hospital and home in order to receive physiological management for normal childbirth. No matter who provided maternity care, women would have access to the best obstetrical services if they desire or require them, while being confident of receiving appropriate, physiologically-based care for a normal labor and spontaneous birth.

Under those circumstance, place-of-birth would become what it was always suppose to be — the right choice for the particular situation for that specific mother & fetus — with hospital and OOH both seen as equally responsible choices in an integrated, cooperative and ‘minimalist’ model based on ‘best practices’.

Ultimately, all maternity care is judged by its results — the number of mothers and babies who graduate from its ministration as healthy, or healthier, than when they started.


1. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a meta-analysis; Joseph R. Wax, MD, F. Lee Lucas, PhD, Maryanne Lamont, MLS, Michael G. Pinette, MD, Angelina CartinJacquelyn Blackstone, DO; published online 02 July 2010.

Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Chicago, IL, Feb. 1-6, 2010.

2.  Identifying the Essential Qualities of Maternity Care — Evidence-based policies and a plan for action — an annotated essay by Faith Gibson

3. About The Joint Commission — An independent, not-for-profit organization, The Joint Commission accredits and certifies more than 18,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. Joint Commission accreditation and certification is recognized nationwide as a symbol of quality that reflects an organization’s commitment to meeting certain performance standards.

Our Mission: To continuously improve health care for the public, in collaboration with other stakeholders, by evaluating health care organizations and inspiring them to excel in providing safe and effective care of the highest quality and value. Read more.

Vision Statement:  All people always experience the safest, highest quality, best-value health care across all settings. Founded in 1951, The Joint Commission seeks to continuously improve health care for the public, in collaboration with other stakeholders, by evaluating health care organizations and inspiring them to excel in providing safe and effective care of the highest quality and value.

The Joint Commission evaluates and accredits more than 18,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. An independent, not-for-profit organization, The Joint Commission is the nation’s oldest and largest standards-setting and accrediting body in health care. To earn and maintain The Joint Commission’s Gold Seal of Approval™, an organization must undergo an on-site survey by a Joint Commission survey team at least every three years.

The Joint Commission is governed by a 29-member Board of Commissioners that includes physicians, administrators, nurses, employers, a labor representative, health plan leaders, quality experts, ethicists, a consumer advocate and educators. The Board of Commissioners brings to The Joint Commission diverse experience in health care, business and public policy. The Joint Commission’s corporate members are the American College of Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the American Dental Association, the American Hospital Association, and the American Medical Association.

The Joint Commission employs approximately 1,000 people in its surveyor force, at its central office in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, and at a satellite office in Washington, D.C. The Washington office is The Joint Commission’s primary interface with government agencies and with Congress, seeking and maintaining partnerships with the government that will improve the quality of health care for all Americans, and working with Congress on legislation involving the quality and safety of health care.

Right Use of Gravity, Maternal-Fetal Ejection Reflex, other labor tips

May 8, 2016

Maternal-Fetal Ejection Reflex ~ Designer Genes program a natural “labor saving devise”, the fruit of a physically and psychologically undisturbed spontaneous labor in a healthy mother There is a quantifiable biological difference associated with undisturbed spontaneous labor and birth. If one is fortunate enough to be present at a great many “undisturbed” labors, those “designer […]

Read the full article →