“WHO HAS NEW ZEALAND’S BABIES?”

Shannon News, 17 June 1924, Page 4

“WHO HAS NEW ZEALAND’S BABIES?”

MEDICO.MOTHER ASKS SOME AWKWARD QUESTIONS.

“BACK TO NATURE” CONDEMNED,

That theie aremore sideSthan ' one to the maternal mortility question 4S made clear by ithe subl joined striking letter to the “Times,” written by a well-known t lady ddCttir who has the double advantage orbfeihjg both a medico \ , and a mother.

Some tiucstlohs are asked tliat eannot pass unchttllengdd.aaid no doubt a full and frank discussion will fOllow so able an exposition of the womon’s viewpoint. /

(To the Editor “Manawatu Daily

Times.”)

Si r „Thpre are two sides to this •burning question of maternal mor--talily and the resulting campaign for the re-education of mothers that has sprung from' it.

I Before we talk of spending £400,000 on more maternity hospitals we want to know on what “methods” these hospitals will be l’un and wha “results" they are 5 likely to return us. : Moreover, at this juncture of affairs, ? it will be well for the public to know , that the Spartan methods* of childbirth as advocated at Palmerston by , the leaders of the present campaign, are Only the opinions of a small hand- ■ ; ful' of men. These opinions are not in • accord with scientific progress, and ( therefore are not the accepted beliei of the majority of the medical'prof es- '■{ -felon. Arid furthermore, we believe that could the women of New Zealand be 'prevailed upon to adopt these out-Of- ' date methods, it would make no im- ’ provoment whatever in our problem of Maternal Mortality,

We take it that this present campaign is the outcome of the Kelvin inquiry. But as that searching inquiry failed in‘any one of the fatal cases to rbdord evidence of “Interference with Nature,” ‘the present slogan of the health authorities ‘‘Back to Naturo and Nature’s Ways,”'seems somewhat inappropriate. Those Kelvin cases presumably 'were left to Nature and died of sepsis, nevertheless. At ■thislatage .‘we Should have more evidbnbe ‘ ‘about the Pros and cons of the '‘St; Helen’s system” which the leaders of the present campaign are urging all women to adopt. The St. Helen’s system is so named because it is the method adopted in our present Government hofspitals. Its main points are:— (.1) AH cases save the most complicated shall be conducted by; a/midwife only. (i2) No anaesthetics of any kind shall bo administered at any stage of labour unless a doctor is summoned for 1 a midwifery operation.

(3) Stitches, if required for lacerations, shall be inserted by the sifters without any anaesthetics, the patient being ‘held down” during the process. (4) If there is any remote prospect of the patient delivering herself she shall be left unaided in labour as long as three days. Only (to quote the Palmerston reports) when ‘‘God, Nature and the Midwife” fail, shall a doctor be summoned. Now, Sir, I submit that this St. Helen's system is both old fashioned and inhuman, ami does not give as gobd-results as the more humane methods.

Of the immediate results, 'chose of us who-have inside knowledge, know for certain that there have been as bad epidemics of Sepsis in these Government Hospitals as ever occurred at Kelvin.

Of the remote results we, see abundant fruit in the surgical wards of our public hospitals where extensive operations arc necessary in the endeavour ! to restore damage done in labour. It is noteworthy how seldom these extensive operations are necessary in the Class of women who secure skilled medical attention during their conflnerqents. 'Before spending any more money on their ‘‘Back to Nature educational campaign,” will the health department give us evidence of the benefits of the method they advocate? Is the department willing to publish:—

((]) All their records of Maternal Mortality occurring in or consequent upon confinement in their State aidftf! maternity hospitals during the last 10 years?

(2) All their records of Maternal Morbidity occurring in these hospitals for the same period ? (3) Their records of infant mortality,''still born or else dying in the first four weeks of life, during cho last 1 ! 0 years? We have* heard very adverse reports about 'private hospital statistics, but there has been an uncanny silence about these Government lictepital figures, and wo doubt very much if they can show any improvement on similar figures drawn from private hospitals.

Now, it is obvious to every intelll-* gene person, that unless definite proof is forthcoming, nothirifc is going to be gained , by all this propaganda and projected expenditure. Better let our women bo confined as at present where and how they will, if, by so doing they can have more relief with just as much safety. I have 'stated that this St. Helen’s system, leaving all but the very worst cases to a midwife, is inhuman. I now state that; given skilled rrt'edical attention and close personal supervision by'the doctor, labour pains can be reduced to a minimum with perfect safety to mother and child. The problem of Maternal Mor-. tality does not rest with ahy one method, manner or place. If our percentage is above that of other countries it ia largely due to the method

by which we collect our statistics. If our health department sincerely wants to strike at the root of 50 per cent of the “preventable cases” of Maternal Mortality, let them have the courage to make Venereal Disease a notifiable disease with a strict supervision of cases. 1 Seeing - pain can be relieved without risk to mother or child, would it not be an act of mercy for the Government to institute these up-to-date methods in' its State hospitals and make easier to women their contribution to the nation’s wealth? Our Government rightly prides itself in never stinting in matters of national health, can it not at onc e set aside one up-to-date maternity hospital to be run along che latest scientific and humane methods and let the comparative figures speak for themselves? v Soon after the discovery of chloroform Queen Victoria announced She was going to have chloroform at her approaching confinement. Immediately a deputation of the Bishops of London waited on her pointing out the error of her plan. They told her “pain in labour was biblical, was women’s prerogative, and she would be setting a very bad national example if she sought relief from 3 * Nature’s ordeal.” The Queen’s reply was mftch to the point—“ Gentlemen, I am having this baby, not you.” As a medical practitioner who knows how safely pain can be relieved and as a mother who has had more experience of labour than Sir ’Maul Pomare or Dr, Truby ping can ever aspir e to have, on behalf of many mothers in New Zealand, I reply to these would-be educationalists’ statement. —“Gentlemen we are having New Zealand’s babies, not you.” And I assure these gentlemen that unless they edn hold out to us 1 something better than "labour unrelieved on one hand and the risk of mortality on the other hand” the result of their campaign will be a drop, not of New Zealand's ‘.Maternal Mortality, but of the whole New Zealand birth rate.—l am, etc, — A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER WHO IS ALSO A MOTHER.-